Escape from Elba

National => Immigration => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:00:38 PM



Title: Immigration
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:00:38 PM
Share your thoughts on America's immigration stance.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 22, 2007, 06:34:52 PM
Open the borders for the free movement of capital, goods, and PEOPLE from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 22, 2007, 06:56:55 PM
Agreed, Cap,

In the Monroe Doctrine we told the war that the Americas were a distinct part of the world and that we would protect our own. Too often, in the past century, we have done nothing more allow one after another dictator, which we supported, to take over. The rich got richer, and the poor were so much poorer, and knocking at our doors. If we had done a better job of encouraging democratic governments, there would not be so much of a run on our borders now.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 09:43:53 AM
OK, start over.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 09:46:46 AM
Opening up would make it easier for those working away from home to return, helping the economies of both nations.

Nah, too easy.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 12:08:11 PM
There is some influx either from Mexico or Puerto Rico in rural Virginia. I notice it most by the fact that the spanish foods in the grocery store are now there year round. I rarely see them in town except during the usual planting and harvest seasons. Their names are not showing up in the local newspaper as perpetrators of crimes. I do not know if they are legals or illegals. I just know we are getting new neighbors.  They are far less disruptive to the usual way of life here than the Jamestown settlers were to the Native Americans!




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 01:08:21 PM
There is some influx either from Mexico or Puerto Rico in rural Virginia. I notice it most by the fact that the spanish foods in the grocery store are now there year round. I rarely see them in town except during the usual planting and harvest seasons. Their names are not showing up in the local newspaper as perpetrators of crimes. I do not know if they are legals or illegals. I just know we are getting new neighbors.  They are far less disruptive to the usual way of life here than the Jamestown settlers were to the Native Americans!




On NPR they were saying this morning that farmers are in dire need of workers to harvest their crops and are asking for guest workers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 02:23:09 PM
If the people want to work, and we have jobs waiting for them, it just makes good sense to bring them in and let them work the jobs that are not attractive to American workers. Yes, they will send some part of their wages home to their families in Mexico, where the money will undoubtedly go further than at the local malls. This is a good.

I have been told by some local farmer wives who also teach, that the Mexicans are better workers than other Hispanics. If Mexicans have a strong work ethic, why not include them in our nation?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 03:02:32 PM
As usual, Cap, you support an action that sounds "good" in theory but in practice would result in the US being swamped by impoverished Third Worlders. Our population is already too high in many areas, especially in the larger cities, and allowed virtually unlimited immigration would be a disaster for our environment, wildlife, and our society. 


Open the borders for the free movement of capital, goods, and PEOPLE from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 03:03:16 PM
Employers break silence to fight hiring sanctions

Companies banding together to support a guest-worker plan

The Arizona Republic - Mar. 7, 2007

Arizona businesses struggling to fill jobs are watching the immigration debate, but you won't find them talking openly about it.

Bill Konopnicki, a Republican state legislator who runs several McDonald's restaurants in Safford, argues that the legislation introduced doesn't tackle the true problem.

"Well-intended Republicans are saying it's business' fault" by making work available, he said. "The flip side of that is if there was a labor pool and unduplicatable documents, then business wouldn't be hiring them. Most businesses try to run by the rules because, in the long run, they would have more problems."

Maxine Jones, who runs a Phoenix machine shop that supplies aerospace companies, said she struggles filling jobs, too. And she occasionally is approached by undocumented immigrants.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0307biz-sanctions0307.html



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 03:05:55 PM
As usual, Cap, you support an action that sounds "good" in theory but in practice would result in the US being swamped by impoverished Third Worlders. Our population is already too high in many areas, especially in the larger cities, and allowed virtually unlimited immigration would be a disaster for our environment, wildlife, and our society. 

As usual chak, you miss the whole idea.

Our population would not be affected much if workers could go home.

Duh.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 03:09:00 PM
If they are working the fields, they are probably from Mexico or possibly Guatemala or another country in that vicinity, in which case they are probably illegal. Can't be certain of that without checking IDs of course, but logically, if they are keeping such a low profile, it seems likely that they are here illegally.  


There is some influx either from Mexico or Puerto Rico in rural Virginia. I notice it most by the fact that the spanish foods in the grocery store are now there year round. I rarely see them in town except during the usual planting and harvest seasons. Their names are not showing up in the local newspaper as perpetrators of crimes. I do not know if they are legals or illegals. I just know we are getting new neighbors.  They are far less disruptive to the usual way of life here than the Jamestown settlers were to the Native Americans!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 03:14:28 PM
Our population would be affected by the fact that allowing virtually unlimited immigration, such as that proposed by Cap, would result in huge numbers of Third Worlders coming here. They might come alone at first, and travel back and forth, but at some point they would want to bring their families here, which would add even more people to our population.   



As usual chak, you miss the whole idea.

Our population would not be affected much if workers could go home.

Duh.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 03:27:49 PM
It isn't necessarily the jobs that are not attractive to American workers; it is the pay and lack of benefits. Illegal aliens will take jobs for far less than an American can accept, and without benefits. If illegals were not available as a cheap labor pool, employers would have to either offer better wages and maybe some benefits to get Americans to take the jobs, or go out of business.

There are already millions of Mexicans "included" in our nation, many of them here illegally. Some have a strong work ethic and some do not. Like other people on this planet, we can't make blanket judgments about them based on their point of origin.

The question is not whether Mexicans, or anyone else, are willing to work, but rather, what effect having such huge numbers of people from another culture and language dumped across our borders will have on our population growth, culture, environment, society and economy. The level of immigration is simply too high and too fast; we need to lower the levels of immigration to more manageable numbers.

Keep in mind that if most of the employers who are pushing for "guest" workers were still paying wages that an American can live on, they wouldn't need "guest" workers; they would still have American employees.



If the people want to work, and we have jobs waiting for them, it just makes good sense to bring them in and let them work the jobs that are not attractive to American workers. Yes, they will send some part of their wages home to their families in Mexico, where the money will undoubtedly go further than at the local malls. This is a good.

I have been told by some local farmer wives who also teach, that the Mexicans are better workers than other Hispanics. If Mexicans have a strong work ethic, why not include them in our nation?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 03:39:39 PM
chak, go back and read what I linked.

"He told members of the Arizona House Government Committee last month that he pays $20 an hour for steel fitters, which is 30 percent more today than he paid six months ago. To fill orders, he regularly has to pay overtime."

"My company is doing everything possible from recruitment and incentives to training and automation, but it is not enough," he told the committee. "No matter what we do, there are not enough workers. I've even looked at Mexican maquiladoras."


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 23, 2007, 04:26:54 PM
chak,

As usual, Cap, you support an action that sounds "good" in theory but in practice would result in the US being swamped by impoverished Third Worlders.

As usual, you make grand statements without a scintilla of proof to support your POV.

How many potential Einsteins, Irving Berlins, or John Philip Sousas will you exclude.  Remember that all of them were immigrants who could barely speak the English language.

The fact is simply that, compared to other eras in the USA, the foreign-born population is lower.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 05:35:38 PM
This page from the US Census Bureau's website points out that 10% of our population in 2000 was foreign-born. The highest level was 15%, but that was when the US population was far smaller. At something over 300 million, 10% is more people than 15% of perhaps 100M people.

Of the foreign-born, 39% have come here just since 1990, and another 28% just since 1980-1990. What this means is that immigrants are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population, are coming in greater numbers, and that's just the ones that participated in the census. The numbers have grown even larger since 2000.

I really can't see most of the people who come here to pick oranges or bus tables as being in the Einstein, Berlin, or Sousa category. Most illegals, AFAIK, have little education. Certainly Einstein was well-educated, and I have never heard of Berlin or Sousa being uneducated. If we could bring in educated people who can contribute to our country, such as nurses, doctors, physicists, etc., it might be beneficial to us. The uneducated have little to contribute other than physical labor and their being here is primarily of benefit to themselves...and the employers who don't want to pay a living wage.

www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/2000/chap17.pdf




chak,

How many potential Einsteins, Irving Berlins, or John Philip Sousas will you exclude.  Remember that all of them were immigrants who could barely speak the English language.

The fact is simply that, compared to other eras in the USA, the foreign-born population is lower.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 05:49:27 PM
There have been times when immigration was high - at the time of the potato famine in Ireland for example.

At first, the Irish were jobless and undesirable. Many Americans, themselves descended from immigrants, wanted them anywhere but where they were. They resented the jobs they "took" from Americans and at lower wages. But, it turns out that the Irish were not the scourge they were once thought to be. They worked their way up the ladder, became educated more and more by each generation, and are now accepted as full Americans. Give the Mexican's a chance! Everyone starts at the bottom even those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 23, 2007, 05:54:22 PM
I'm not certain just how "skilled" a trade steel-fitting is, but if it is a highly skilled trade, then $20 an hour doesn't seem like such big bucks. OTOH, if the area where he lives has few people trained in this trade, they may simply have no resident population to draw from. He might consider offering apprenticeship programs to train less-skilled workers to do the job. If there really are not enough skilled workers among Americans, he probably won't find them among the uneducated illegals either.

Some version of "guest" worker program might be doable after the borders are secured, but first the employers would have to be able to prove that they had tried to find Americans to do the work and that their wages were at a level that Americans could live on. 

chak, go back and read what I linked.

"He told members of the Arizona House Government Committee last month that he pays $20 an hour for steel fitters, which is 30 percent more today than he paid six months ago. To fill orders, he regularly has to pay overtime."

"My company is doing everything possible from recruitment and incentives to training and automation, but it is not enough," he told the committee. "No matter what we do, there are not enough workers. I've even looked at Mexican maquiladoras."



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 06:20:25 PM
There have been times when immigration was high - at the time of the potato famine in Ireland for example.

At first, the Irish were jobless and undesirable. Many Americans, themselves descended from immigrants, wanted them anywhere but where they were. They resented the jobs they "took" from Americans and at lower wages. But, it turns out that the Irish were not the scourge they were once thought to be. They worked their way up the ladder, became educated more and more by each generation, and are now accepted as full Americans. Give the Mexican's a chance! Everyone starts at the bottom even those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



I'm not sure about that.  George Bush never saw the bottom.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 08:28:57 PM
His mother (or his nanny) saw his "bottom", and it stunk!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 23, 2007, 09:27:51 PM
chak,
I really can't see most of the people who come here to pick oranges or bus tables as being in the Einstein, Berlin, or Sousa category.
We will never know until they arrive.  Maybe you are willing to take the chance that the excludeds will never produce another of these; I am not.
 Most illegals, AFAIK, have little education. Certainly Einstein was well-educated, and I have never heard of Berlin or Sousa being uneducated.
We will never know.  Sousa and Berlin spoke no English until they arrived.  Both spoke it poorly until the day they died.  I have heard recordings of both.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 24, 2007, 09:36:33 AM
I'm not certain just how "skilled" a trade steel-fitting is, but if it is a highly skilled trade, then $20 an hour doesn't seem like such big bucks. OTOH, if the area where he lives has few people trained in this trade, they may simply have no resident population to draw from. He might consider offering apprenticeship programs to train less-skilled workers to do the job. If there really are not enough skilled workers among Americans, he probably won't find them among the uneducated illegals either.

Some version of "guest" worker program might be doable after the borders are secured, but first the employers would have to be able to prove that they had tried to find Americans to do the work and that their wages were at a level that Americans could live on. 

Gosh you are sheltered. The employer is in a metro area of 2+ million in the Phx area, and that is but one of many cities in the country.

The steel trade is no different than the construction trades where thousands of immigrants are already employed. Even residential and commercial builders have trouble finding enough help.

Where've you been man?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 10:06:47 AM
I don't know about Einsteins, Berlins, or Sousas but I do know from personal experience that immigrants tend to be harder working and more productive than American born and bred.  Especially when you compare them to the new crop from Generation Y -- who from my experience are among the laziest, self-serving employees yet.

If you believe in capitalism and a free market, I think it is harmful to American business to force them to hire anything but the best, most productive workers - even if those workers happen to be immigrants


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 10:28:42 AM
Well, he's seen it now...the bottom of the opinion polls, at least!


There have been times when immigration was high - at the time of the potato famine in Ireland for example.

 Everyone starts at the bottom even those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



I'm not sure about that.  George Bush never saw the bottom.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 10:52:51 AM
Well, he's seen it now...the bottom of the opinion polls, at least!


There have been times when immigration was high - at the time of the potato famine in Ireland for example.

 Everyone starts at the bottom even those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



And I suppose he saw the bottom of an empty coke straw and a liquor bottle.


I'm not sure about that.  George Bush never saw the bottom.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 10:54:28 AM
There are several important differences between the situation with the Irish and the current situation with Mexico and other Latin countries:
1. The Irish had to travel across an ocean to get here, which probably kept a significant percentage from making the trip due to lack of money for the passage. Mexicans have only to step across our border and dodge the Border Patrol.
2. The numbers involved aren't even close: there are far more Mexicans here than there ever were Irish immigrants. Because of our ridiculously porous border, the numbers increase every day.
3. At least the Irish spoke English (even with a brogue) and weren't trying to make this country "bilingual" in Gaelic! They didn't demand that their kids be taught in Gaelic or that ballots be printed in Gaelic because they couldn't be bothered to learn English.
4. Just because the Irish, and other groups, have assimilated in the past doesn't mean that Mexicans and other Latins will do so. They are constantly pressuring schools for bilingual education and special treatment for themselves as "minorities". There is a lot of resistance to learning English.

I recommend that anyone who doubts the resistance to English read a new book, "The Power of Business En Espanol" by Jose Cancela, 2007. In it he proudly comments that 50% of Hispanics speak Spanish primarily; 25% are bilingual; 25% are primarily English-speakers. He goes on to state that one big reason for the continuing increase in Spanish speakers is the continuing arrival of new Spanish-speaking immigrants. Another is the Latino "tradition" of speaking Spanish. The growing Spanish media is also an influence. The very existence of Spanish media requires a continuing flow of Spanish speakers, so they emphasize it all they can. As Cancela puts it: "We hear English, but we feel Spanish."

IMO, there is little relevant comparison to be made between the Irish and other previous immigrant groups and the current inundation of Latino immigrants, both legal and illegal.      

There have been times when immigration was high - at the time of the potato famine in Ireland for example.

At first, the Irish were jobless and undesirable. Many Americans, themselves descended from immigrants, wanted them anywhere but where they were. They resented the jobs they "took" from Americans and at lower wages. But, it turns out that the Irish were not the scourge they were once thought to be. They worked their way up the ladder, became educated more and more by each generation, and are now accepted as full Americans. Give the Mexican's a chance! Everyone starts at the bottom even those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 11:06:10 AM
I am not willing to take the chance that allowing open borders (i.e., unlimited immigration) would result in our population growing at such a pace that our society will disintegrate into a Balkanized setting of enclaves and blocs based on race, ethnicity and language. And then there is the effect such overpopulation will have on the environment, wildlife, open spaces, water supplies, pollution, etc. I am more concerned about that possibility than that we might possibly miss another song writer. Einstein had actually done his most productive work before he came to America. Your example would have us admit millions, even tens of millions, in the hope that one out of that horde might actually do something worthwhile.

BTW, I have also heard interviews with Berlin, and although he spoke with an accent (big surprise) he was understandable. Can't say about Sousa. 



chak,
I really can't see most of the people who come here to pick oranges or bus tables as being in the Einstein, Berlin, or Sousa category.
We will never know until they arrive.  Maybe you are willing to take the chance that the excludeds will never produce another of these; I am not.
 Most illegals, AFAIK, have little education. Certainly Einstein was well-educated, and I have never heard of Berlin or Sousa being uneducated.
We will never know.  Sousa and Berlin spoke no English until they arrived.  Both spoke it poorly until the day they died.  I have heard recordings of both.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 11:16:24 AM
Immigrants, especially the illegal ones, have little choice but to be hard-working. Many, even those who are well-educated, such as doctors and pharmacists, are unable to get jobs in their professions without a period of intensive training in American procedures, etc. Or they have language problems. At any rate, they must often take whatever job they can get, which is often low-paying, and they may have to work two jobs or more to feed their families.

Frankly, I have noticed that legal immigrants rather quickly adapt to American "standards" once they have secured a job at a level that permits them to do so. This proves only that immigrants are pretty much like everyone else: when possible, some will slough off and others will buzz around like worker bees no matter what else happens.

The Gen Y workers have been coddled and pampered by their parents. Eventually they (most of them anyway) will learn that the "real world" isn't really concerned about their "self esteem" and isn't inclined to redesign itself for their benefit. For many, it will be a bumpy ride. 

I am not that enthusiastic about "free markets". I would protect American workers rather than import cheap labor to displace them.

I don't know about Einsteins, Berlins, or Sousas but I do know from personal experience that immigrants tend to be harder working and more productive than American born and bred.  Especially when you compare them to the new crop from Generation Y -- who from my experience are among the laziest, self-serving employees yet.

If you believe in capitalism and a free market, I think it is harmful to American business to force them to hire anything but the best, most productive workers - even if those workers happen to be immigrants


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 24, 2007, 11:36:02 AM
chak,
There are several important differences between the situation with the Irish and the current situation with Mexico and other Latin countries:
1. The Irish had to travel across an ocean to get here, which probably kept a significant percentage from making the trip due to lack of money for the passage. Mexicans have only to step across our border and dodge the Border Patrol.
2. The numbers involved aren't even close: there are far more Mexicans here than there ever were Irish immigrants. Because of our ridiculously porous border, the numbers increase every day.
3. At least the Irish spoke English (even with a brogue) and weren't trying to make this country "bilingual" in Gaelic! They didn't demand that their kids be taught in Gaelic or that ballots be printed in Gaelic because they couldn't be bothered to learn English.
4. Just because the Irish, and other groups, have assimilated in the past doesn't mean that Mexicans and other Latins will do so. They are constantly pressuring schools for bilingual education and special treatment for themselves as "minorities". There is a lot of resistance to learning English.I

Gee, I get a very different picture from reading the book you suggest.  My reading is that Spanish-speaking folks are here; they contribute to the economy in various significant ways, and that American business had better learn to market to the demographic or get left behind.

As to the above, it's a distinction without a diffference.  The Irish were hated for thier Irishness; just look at the Thomas Nast cartoons for proof, their Catholicism (parochial schools sponsored by the church were torched - read about Mariah Monk et. al.), and their numbers.

Nothing new here. It is a constant in American history that the second-to-last immigrant group hates the most recent arrivals with a passion that surpasses reaason.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 01:11:42 PM
I realize that each new immigrant group encounters resentment from earlier groups and native-born Americans, but there is a significant difference between immigrants, such as the Irish, who spoke English and eventually assimilated into the American culture, and the Latinos, who are devoted to their "mother tongue" and "old country"...even if it was 3 generations ago! It doesn't do much good to deny the fact that this inundation of millions of people per year, every year, is different from earlier immigration groups, especially in resisting "assimilation" into the American culture and language. Especially because of the enormous potential numbers, and also the divisive nature of their unwillingness to "assimilate" and learn English, we should restrict immigration from these countries to a smaller number. A country such as the US, which is "settled", simply does  not need such high levels of immigration unless our objective is for the US to become a third world country.

chak,

Gee, I get a very different picture from reading the book you suggest.  My reading is that Spanish-speaking folks are here; they contribute to the economy in various significant ways, and that American business had better learn to market to the demographic or get left behind.

As to the above, it's a distinction without a diffference.  The Irish were hated for thier Irishness; just look at the Thomas Nast cartoons for proof, their Catholicism (parochial schools sponsored by the church were torched - read about Mariah Monk et. al.), and their numbers.

Nothing new here. It is a constant in American history that the second-to-last immigrant group hates the most recent arrivals with a passion that surpasses reaason.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 01:35:39 PM
What I find confusing, is that almost every national phone you call (like banks, or credit card companies, etc), give their instructions in both English and Spanish.  If English is the offical language, why is that?  How does that help the immigrant learn English?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 02:20:10 PM
It doesn't help the immigrant learn English; it keeps the immigrant isolated in his/her particular enclave with others who speak the same language. It also doesn't help that the TV networks broadcast their shows in Spanish on a "simulcast" basis. What incentive is there for immigrants to learn English when they are being coddled like this? None.

I think it was Lenin who famously claimed that when they (the communists) came to hang the last capitalist, he'd sell them a rope! Unfortunately, he was probably correct. Big business has no soul, so it has no problem with selling out the society that allowed it to grow.

What I find confusing, is that almost every national phone you call (like banks, or credit card companies, etc), give their instructions in both English and Spanish.  If English is the offical language, why is that?  How does that help the immigrant learn English?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 04:01:07 PM
Even stores now have their signage in English and in Spanish.  I don't believe that was done when the Germans came, or when the Italians came, or when the  French Canadians arrived, except perhaps in their churches.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 24, 2007, 04:14:43 PM
Actually, there were so many Germans here at the time of the Revolution that it was debated for a while whether the language of the country should be English or German. English won. However, since then the use of foreign languages was pretty much limited to the various ethnic/linguistic enclaves where immigrants lived. Only Spanish-speakers seem to think that we should bend over backwards to make it possible for them to avoid having to learn English.

Even stores now have their signage in English and in Spanish.  I don't believe that was done when the Germans came, or when the Italians came, or when the  French Canadians arrived, except perhaps in their churches.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 04:32:56 PM
Is it their demand, or is it capitalism's desire to make it easier for them?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 07:28:09 PM
No matter who the immigrants are, they want to keep their own language and want their children educated in that language. It is a matter of ethnic pride.

Yes, it is disconcerting to those who speak only English to be faced with signs in Spanish in stores and government offices. But, it is a matter of communication. The stores want to make the sales, they have to do it in the language of their customers. If you go into an ethnic grocery store, you will find the products still labeled in the language of the ethnicity. If you go into an ethnic restaurant, you may find the menu in a foreign language. At one time, it was all the rage for someone to know French or Italian, so they could order from the menu without asking for a translation from the stoic waiter.

With all waves of immigration, the American language has diverged from the British version of the English. We have incorporated words from the many ethnicities. With a large waive of Spanish-speakers, we will incorporate more Spanish into our language, and at the same time, the Spanish speakers will incorporate more English into theirs.

Let's welcome our new neighbors in the American tradition of accepting all comers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 07:39:15 PM
No matter who the immigrants are, they want to keep their own language and want their children educated in that language. It is a matter of ethnic pride.

Yes, it is disconcerting to those who speak only English to be faced with signs in Spanish in stores and government offices. But, it is a matter of communication. The stores want to make the sales, they have to do it in the language of their customers. If you go into an ethnic grocery store, you will find the products still labeled in the language of the ethnicity. If you go into an ethnic restaurant, you may find the menu in a foreign language. At one time, it was all the rage for someone to know French or Italian, so they could order from the menu without asking for a translation from the stoic waiter.

With all waves of immigration, the American language has diverged from the British version of the English. We have incorporated words from the many ethnicities. With a large waive of Spanish-speakers, we will incorporate more Spanish into our language, and at the same time, the Spanish speakers will incorporate more English into theirs.

Let's welcome our new neighbors in the American tradition of accepting all comers.

In America today, it is all about the money, isn't it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 10:37:47 PM
Sami,

The more I learn about history, the more I realize that "money" has been the goad to the American Way of Life since the beginning. Look into some sources of 17th century history, and you will realize that we didn't really go to war against Britain just over unfair taxes, but because The Crown forbid the colonists to encrouch on the Indian lands, setting the limit at the Allegheny Mountains. The early Americans, no matter which colony you look at, were land greedy. Europe had run out of land. America had lots of "new" land, and all they had to do to get it was to slaughter the Natives. So they did. They slaughtered. And they slaughtered. The Natives fought back, so they slaughtered some more. And they made treaties for peace, and broke every one with another slaughter. They made heroes out of those who slaughtered the Natives. And slaughtered some more.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:21:22 AM
Sami,

The more I learn about history, the more I realize that "money" has been the goad to the American Way of Life since the beginning. Look into some sources of 17th century history, and you will realize that we didn't really go to war against Britain just over unfair taxes, but because The Crown forbid the colonists to encrouch on the Indian lands, setting the limit at the Allegheny Mountains. The early Americans, no matter which colony you look at, were land greedy. Europe had run out of land. America had lots of "new" land, and all they had to do to get it was to slaughter the Natives. So they did. They slaughtered. And they slaughtered. The Natives fought back, so they slaughtered some more. And they made treaties for peace, and broke every one with another slaughter. They made heroes out of those who slaughtered the Natives. And slaughtered some more.

It was definitely a genecide and not one to be proud of.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:58:16 AM
Many of the Mexicans are of Indian descent, and once again, we are showing our opposition to those who once possessed the greatness we call America. We need to provide for an orderly influx of those Mexicans who desire a better way of life, not meet them at the border with rifles. If we lift the limits on Mexican immigration to that which reflects the desires of our potential citizens, we can eliminate the "crime" of illegal entry.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 10:53:28 AM
Many of the Mexicans are of Indian descent, and once again, we are showing our opposition to those who once possessed the greatness we call America. We need to provide for an orderly influx of those Mexicans who desire a better way of life, not meet them at the border with rifles. If we lift the limits on Mexican immigration to that which reflects the desires of our potential citizens, we can eliminate the "crime" of illegal entry.

Maybe we should just make Mexico the 51st state.  That would solve the problem.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 11:23:18 AM
Yep! That would solve the problem. We would have to break it down into individual states, as it already is, or we'd end up with another humongous state that literally controls national elections.

It would be interesting to include in the American gene pools, the descendents of the Mayas who were clever enough to invent the Zero. There's got to be some value in that gene pool that would respond to good educational opportunities.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:26:27 AM
Yep! That would solve the problem. We would have to break it down into individual states, as it already is, or we'd end up with another humongous state that literally controls national elections.

It would be interesting to include in the American gene pools, the descendents of the Mayas who were clever enough to invent the Zero. There's got to be some value in that gene pool that would respond to good educational opportunities.

LOL.  OTOH, we could give Texas back to Mexico, and hope Bush's retirement in Mexico is a happy one.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 02:34:40 PM
Sami, you are a scream! That brightened by afternoon for sure!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 03:47:58 PM
Sami, you are a scream! That brightened by afternoon for sure!


Actually, I've read that the Bushes have purchased a ranch in Paraquay and that they will most likely retire there.  Paraquay does not have extration agreements with the US, so he'll be safe from prosecution for the war crimes he's perpetrated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 25, 2007, 04:27:04 PM
hahahahhahah

haaaaaahhhhaaaaaaahhahahahahahahahahhaahahahah



TFF


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 25, 2007, 04:36:28 PM
Sami, you are a scream! That brightened by afternoon for sure!


Actually, I've read that the Bushes have purchased a ranch in Paraquay and that they will most likely retire there.  Paraquay does not have extration agreements with the US, so he'll be safe from prosecution for the war crimes he's perpetrated.
Except that war criminals are hostis humani generis and can be tried without any necessary jurisdictional requirements.  Which is why most war crime trials are in, for example, The Hague.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 05:11:58 PM
Sami, you are a scream! That brightened by afternoon for sure!


Actually, I've read that the Bushes have purchased a ranch in Paraquay and that they will most likely retire there.  Paraquay does not have extration agreements with the US, so he'll be safe from prosecution for the war crimes he's perpetrated.
Except that war criminals are hostis humani generis and can be tried without any necessary jurisdictional requirements.  Which is why most war crime trials are in, for example, The Hague.

I'd help buy his to the Hague.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 25, 2007, 05:18:54 PM
Every country should have a common language that all of its citizens are expected to know; in America, that should be English. If a shopkeeper wants my dollars, he/she can darn well put up his/her signs in English! Mind you, I'm not opposed to people knowing more than one language: I've studied German and Spanish myself, although I would never claim to be fluent in either. What I do object to is when they don't bother to learn English! I can't think of any reason that I would want to live in any other country, but if I did and the language of that country weren't English, I'd do my best to learn their language. I'd never speak it like a native, but I'd learn to communicate at least at a basic level.

The American tradition also includes obeying the law, so that rules out illegal aliens from being "welcomed". It also includes immigrants learning English and adapting to our culture, not setting up a foreign country within the US. As long as immigrants are here legally, obey the laws, learn English and adapt to American ways, I am willing to welcome them. Otherwise, they should stay home.


No matter who the immigrants are, they want to keep their own language and want their children educated in that language. It is a matter of ethnic pride.


Let's welcome our new neighbors in the American tradition of accepting all comers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 25, 2007, 05:35:04 PM
Ummmm.....the Indians of Mexico had little to do with the US. They did not originally possess the area now known as the US. Some tribes, like the Apache and the Kickapoo, traveled back and forth across the border (which didn't exist then, of course) but AFAIK, the Maya, the Aztecs, etc., never had any historical presence in the US.

The way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is not just to legalize the illegals! You might as well advocate solving the crime of bank robbery by making bank robbery legal. We simply can't afford to absorb all of the surplus population of Mexico and other Central and South American countries. Not unless we want to turn the US into a third world country, with a relative few rich and elite at the top and everyone else scrabbling for existence at the bottom.

IMO, the most effective way to stop illegal aliens is: 1. seal the borders as tightly as humanly possible. Bring our troops home from Iraq and let them help the Border Patrol. And 2. Strictly enforce our laws against hiring illegal aliens. This would require a form of ID that would be hard to tamper with, such as a biometric ID card. Employers who hired illegals should be hit with heavy fines and, for repeat offenders, some jail time. In short, make it very difficult to get a job if one is here illegally. Without jobs, there wouldn't be much reason for illegal aliens to come here or to stay here.
   

Many of the Mexicans are of Indian descent, and once again, we are showing our opposition to those who once possessed the greatness we call America. We need to provide for an orderly influx of those Mexicans who desire a better way of life, not meet them at the border with rifles. If we lift the limits on Mexican immigration to that which reflects the desires of our potential citizens, we can eliminate the "crime" of illegal entry.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 06:17:13 PM
Ummmm.....the Indians of Mexico had little to do with the US. They did not originally possess the area now known as the US. Some tribes, like the Apache and the Kickapoo, traveled back and forth across the border (which didn't exist then, of course) but AFAIK, the Maya, the Aztecs, etc., never had any historical presence in the US.

The way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is not just to legalize the illegals! You might as well advocate solving the crime of bank robbery by making bank robbery legal. We simply can't afford to absorb all of the surplus population of Mexico and other Central and South American countries. Not unless we want to turn the US into a third world country, with a relative few rich and elite at the top and everyone else scrabbling for existence at the bottom.

IMO, the most effective way to stop illegal aliens is: 1. seal the borders as tightly as humanly possible. Bring our troops home from Iraq and let them help the Border Patrol. And 2. Strictly enforce our laws against hiring illegal aliens. This would require a form of ID that would be hard to tamper with, such as a biometric ID card. Employers who hired illegals should be hit with heavy fines and, for repeat offenders, some jail time. In short, make it very difficult to get a job if one is here illegally. Without jobs, there wouldn't be much reason for illegal aliens to come here or to stay here.
   

Many of the Mexicans are of Indian descent, and once again, we are showing our opposition to those who once possessed the greatness we call America. We need to provide for an orderly influx of those Mexicans who desire a better way of life, not meet them at the border with rifles. If we lift the limits on Mexican immigration to that which reflects the desires of our potential citizens, we can eliminate the "crime" of illegal entry.


But what about the 10 to 20 million who are already here?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:27:22 PM
Sami,

The solution to the problem of those who are here already, is to issue green cards to those who have jobs, and send the rest back.

NYTemps,

As you pointed out, back when the Indians owned the country, there were no borders between the US and Mexico, and it was up to the Indians to decide where they would live, usually with the blessings of the tribes they joined.

I know a number of Americans who routinely travel to foreign countries without knowing any language other than English. They typically insist that the host country make provisions for their lack of language skills.

Many, if not most mainland Europeans speak more than one language, because they often do not have to venture far from home to encounter another language. Canada has two languages, so America is not the only country to have some parts of the nation that prefer another language. Not everyone is facile at learning languages, and I suspect that you and I are similar in that regard. I learn natural languages (other than latin) poorly, but have learned computer languages rather easily. When I was growing up, there were a lot of immigrants in my home city. The old folks spoke little or no English, but their children spoke both the language at home and English quite well.

As I've said before, we need to stop making it illegal to enter this country from Mexico. Let anyone who wants to try their hand at living and prospering here, come and do so. This will enable those who want to come here, to do so through the gate instead of over the fence. It would end the "illegal immigrant" problem on the Mexican border.

A question. For those of you who want the border "less porous", how many of you have a fence around your property? How many have a gate on the fence that you regularly lock? How many of you discourage a neighbor from walking across your property? If not, why do you want to fence in the country? How is it different?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 25, 2007, 10:01:35 PM
chak,
The American tradition also includes obeying the law, so that rules out illegal aliens from being "welcomed".

There is another American tradition which says that Americans have the duty to disobey unjust laws.

1. Would you have been a Tory in 1778?
2. Would you have turned the suspected runaway slave in to the authorities?
3. Would you have meekly trudged to the back of the bus?
4. Would you not have tried to vote because you were too poor to pay the poll tax?

Current immigration law is unjust, and there is a duty to oppose it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:47:46 AM
chak,
The American tradition also includes obeying the law, so that rules out illegal aliens from being "welcomed".

There is another American tradition which says that Americans have the duty to disobey unjust laws.

1. Would you have been a Tory in 1778?
2. Would you have turned the suspected runaway slave in to the authorities?
3. Would you have meekly trudged to the back of the bus?
4. Would you not have tried to vote because you were too poor to pay the poll tax?

Current immigration law is unjust, and there is a duty to oppose it.

Closet mentality.  What would the government do without the taxes collected from all these illegal immigrants who, because of their status, neither claim their refunds etc.  I understand the slush fund is in the billions.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 12:28:51 PM
When a country produces far more people than its economy can provide for, I'd say that there is definitely a "surplus". Overpopulation isn't talked about as it should be, but it is a serious and growing problem. Surely you don't think that people are desperate enough to travel through deserts or over the ocean to get here because conditions are so good at home?

I understand why poor people want to try to have a better life, but our first responsibility is to our own people, i.e., other Americans, not to the people of Mexico, or other countries. The excessive levels of immigration going on now (about 2 million legal immigrants per year and maybe a million more illegally) are making our population grow far too quickly, with disastrous effects on our environment, open spaces, pollution, water supply, and our society, which is being split into ethnic/linguistic factions. Immigration to some degree is OK, but this is closer to inundation.   

Hmmm, what kind of standard is used to judge just who is covered by the term "surplus population," I wonder.  I've got to give those who make it here a certain amount of credit for gumption, initiative, perseverance, endurance, etc. One of the best movies I ever saw that relates to this is El Norte; I recommend it most highly. 


From another point of view, why should it be that wealthy "foreigners" can enter legally, buy property or businesses and send the proceeds of same out of the country with nary a squawk of complaint? 





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 12:32:19 PM
Cracking down on employers would make it far more difficult for illegals to get work, which is supposedly why they come here. If they can't get work, it seems unlikely that they would stay. At the very least, it would discourage any more from coming.



IMO, the most effective way to stop illegal aliens is: 1. seal the borders as tightly as humanly possible. Bring our troops home from Iraq and let them help the Border Patrol. And 2. Strictly enforce our laws against hiring illegal aliens. This would require a form of ID that would be hard to tamper with, such as a biometric ID card. Employers who hired illegals should be hit with heavy fines and, for repeat offenders, some jail time. In short, make it very difficult to get a job if one is here illegally. Without jobs, there wouldn't be much reason for illegal aliens to come here or to stay here.


But what about the 10 to 20 million who are already here?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 12:49:00 PM
My solution for the illegals already here would be to jump on their employers. If they can't get jobs, why stay? At least at home they probably have family and friends.

As for Americans and languages, although I wouldn't go to live in a country without trying to learn the language, merely traveling as a "tourist" wouldn't be quite the same. If I didn't intend to stay, I'd probably be satisfied with a "phrase book" approach.

Your approach to solving the illegal immigration problem would inundate this country with immigrants. We simply can't afford to absorb the excess population of Mexico and other Latin countries. We owe it to our own people, and our descendants, not to leave them an overpopulated, polluted nation that has been split into ethnic/linguistic factions, with the middle class erased and everyone except for the wealthy elite scrabbling for existence at the bottom of the pile. This is what overpopulation means. This is why people want to leave the overpopulated countries, like Mexico, and come here.

You can well believe that I have a fence around my yard, at least the back yard, with a locked gate. What is mine is mine, and what is someone else's is not mine. I expect the same courtesy from others. I respect my neighbors' property rights and expect mine to be respected too. And where our country is concerned, I expect would-be immigrants to ask permission and wait their turn, not to sneak across our border like thieves in the night.



Sami,

The solution to the problem of those who are here already, is to issue green cards to those who have jobs, and send the rest back.

NYTemps,

As I've said before, we need to stop making it illegal to enter this country from Mexico. Let anyone who wants to try their hand at living and prospering here, come and do so. This will enable those who want to come here, to do so through the gate instead of over the fence. It would end the "illegal immigrant" problem on the Mexican border.

A question. For those of you who want the border "less porous", how many of you have a fence around your property? How many have a gate on the fence that you regularly lock? How many of you discourage a neighbor from walking across your property? If not, why do you want to fence in the country? How is it different?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 12:56:30 PM
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine; opposing the law by breaking it is not. Especially in the case of illegal aliens, the examples you use are not relevant. People of foreign countries do not have any "right" to cross our border without our consent. The examples you used were of American citizens being denied their rights as citizens. There is nothing unjust about determining whether a would-be immigrant is accepted or not, or restricting the number of immigrants to keep our country from becoming overpopulated. The welfare of Americans should be paramount in our own country, not that of foreigners.


chak,
The American tradition also includes obeying the law, so that rules out illegal aliens from being "welcomed".

There is another American tradition which says that Americans have the duty to disobey unjust laws.

1. Would you have been a Tory in 1778?
2. Would you have turned the suspected runaway slave in to the authorities?
3. Would you have meekly trudged to the back of the bus?
4. Would you not have tried to vote because you were too poor to pay the poll tax?

Current immigration law is unjust, and there is a duty to oppose it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 26, 2007, 01:01:34 PM
Quote
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine; opposing the law by breaking it is not.
So... Rosa Parks, criminal, then?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 02:09:48 PM
Quote
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine; opposing the law by breaking it is not.
So... Rosa Parks, criminal, then?

Yes, she should have been arrested and sent to jail.  She broke the law.  She should have written to her congressmen.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 26, 2007, 02:25:03 PM
There is not an "illegal immigration" problem  ---- there is an illegal employment practices problem.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 26, 2007, 02:28:06 PM
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine;

Got be the silliest comment of the day!

The Founding Fathers would be proud.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:48:14 PM
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine;

Got be the silliest comment of the day!

The Founding Fathers would be proud.


LMAO. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 06:50:44 PM
Let's not forget that Mrs. Parks was arrested back in the day; but that is not the same situation that occurs when illegal aliens are involved. Rosa Parks was an American citizen who was being deprived of her Constitutional rights as a citizen. Illegal aliens are not American citizens and thus have no right to come here without permission. Let's not conflate the two situations, because they are quite different.

Quote
Opposing the law by writing letters to one's congresspersons is fine; opposing the law by breaking it is not.
So... Rosa Parks, criminal, then?

Yes, she should have been arrested and sent to jail.  She broke the law.  She should have written to her congressmen.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:58:01 PM


Yes, she should have been arrested and sent to jail.  She broke the law.  She should have written to her congressmen.
[/quote]

It was a feeble attempt at humor.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 07:07:03 PM
When Irene Morgan and Rosa Parks were each arrested in different decade for "breaking" the immoral Black Crow laws, those who defended those laws said they were criminals. The same people, it seems, are now the ones saying that illegal immigrants are "criminals". The truth is that neither the brave civil rights advocates nor the brave Mexicans are criminals. The law was wrong - the law is wrong. We now see that the Jim Crow laws were wrong. When will we see that immigration laws are wrong?

It really should not matter what country someone wants to live in. They should be able to move freely from country to country, and find what suits them best.

And, yes, I agree that those who employ "illegal" immigrants are the main cause for them being here. But I see no reason to label someone a "criminal" because they are seeking a job with an employer who wants to employ them. I do see a problem with the employer not paying a decent wage so that their jobs are only attractive to those who must leave their homes in another country to get them.

Perhaps the way to solve the "immigration problem" is to up the minimum wage and enforce it in ALL industries, even those who have begged their way out in the past. That should induce more Americans to seek those jobs, and close out those who do not speak the language.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:17:30 PM
When Irene Morgan and Rosa Parks were each arrested in different decade for "breaking" the immoral Black Crow laws, those who defended those laws said they were criminals. The same people, it seems, are now the ones saying that illegal immigrants are "criminals". The truth is that neither the brave civil rights advocates nor the brave Mexicans are criminals. The law was wrong - the law is wrong. We now see that the Jim Crow laws were wrong. When will we see that immigration laws are wrong?

It really should not matter what country someone wants to live in. They should be able to move freely from country to country, and find what suits them best.

And, yes, I agree that those who employ "illegal" immigrants are the main cause for them being here. But I see no reason to label someone a "criminal" because they are seeking a job with an employer who wants to employ them. I do see a problem with the employer not paying a decent wage so that their jobs are only attractive to those who must leave their homes in another country to get them.

Perhaps the way to solve the "immigration problem" is to up the minimum wage and enforce it in ALL industries, even those who have begged their way out in the past. That should induce more Americans to seek those jobs, and close out those who do not speak the language.


The congress has yet to pass the minimum wage law.  It hasn't been increased in 10 years, but they've increased their salaries every year.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 26, 2007, 08:00:24 PM
I'm not ready to adopt the "one world government" philosophy. For me, our national sovereignty still has meaning, and I totally reject the idea that someone from a foreign country can just wake up one morning and decide that he/she will go live in the US. They no more have the right to cross our borders at will than I (or anyone else) would have the right to invade my neighbor's home. IMO, illegal aliens are indeed criminals, and most especially the ones who use stolen American identities in order to get jobs. Identity thieves should be jailed, as should deported illegal aliens who return illegally.

The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is their lack of enforcement. We should crack down on employers of illegals, which would cut down severely on the availability of jobs for them. No jobs=not much point to coming here.   
 

When Irene Morgan and Rosa Parks were each arrested in different decade for "breaking" the immoral Black Crow laws, those who defended those laws said they were criminals. The same people, it seems, are now the ones saying that illegal immigrants are "criminals". The truth is that neither the brave civil rights advocates nor the brave Mexicans are criminals. The law was wrong - the law is wrong. We now see that the Jim Crow laws were wrong. When will we see that immigration laws are wrong?

It really should not matter what country someone wants to live in. They should be able to move freely from country to country, and find what suits them best.

And, yes, I agree that those who employ "illegal" immigrants are the main cause for them being here. But I see no reason to label someone a "criminal" because they are seeking a job with an employer who wants to employ them. I do see a problem with the employer not paying a decent wage so that their jobs are only attractive to those who must leave their homes in another country to get them.

Perhaps the way to solve the "immigration problem" is to up the minimum wage and enforce it in ALL industries, even those who have begged their way out in the past. That should induce more Americans to seek those jobs, and close out those who do not speak the language.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 08:02:19 PM
Utah County GOP delegate links illegal immigration to Satan

By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News

The devil is sticking his pitchfork into the nation's immigration politics.

At least that's what one of Utah County's Republican delegates thinks.

Don Larsen, a district chairman, has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to "Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion" for debate at Saturday's Utah County Republican Party Convention.

Referring to a plan by the devil for a "New World Order ... as predicted in the Scriptures," the resolution calls for the Utah County Republican Party to support "closing the national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion."

In part, the resolution states, "There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness."


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 26, 2007, 09:53:32 PM
chak,
I'm not ready to adopt the "one world government" philosophy. For me, our national sovereignty still has meaning,

It's coming whether chakotay likes it or not.  In an era when satellites circle the Earth in 84 minutes, we had better realize that we are all part of one world.

BTW, just WHAT meaning does "National sovereignty" have for you.  For me, it has about as much meaning as the Cardiff Giant (Look it up; he's in Cooperstown, NY.).


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 10:59:48 PM
Chakotay,

In today's world, nationalism has as much meaning as statism had in the civil war. If you are a student of history, you may know that Robert E. Lee had taken an oath as a member of the US military at West Point. But, when he had to choose between fulfilling that oath and defending his "state" of Virginia, he went along with the fools who tried to secede. You seem to be in the same quandry now that Lee was in way back then. Our nation is but one among many who all need to get along on this planet.

As I've said on this thread more than once, when you talk about "illegal immigrants" are you talking about the ones in 1607 or the ones of recent origin? Why do you distinguish between them? Why is one set of "illegals" considered heroes and commemorated this year including a visit from the Queen of England next month to the site, but the "illegals", who are coming now, are "criminals". The intent of the first "illegals" was far more insidious than that of the recent "illegals". The Jamestown Gang came to steal land, and steal gold and any other "riches" from the unfortunate people who were here. They did NOT come to SHARE. At least these people are coming to work!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:07:36 AM
Chakotay,

In today's world, nationalism has as much meaning as statism had in the civil war. If you are a student of history, you may know that Robert E. Lee had taken an oath as a member of the US military at West Point. But, when he had to choose between fulfilling that oath and defending his "state" of Virginia, he went along with the fools who tried to secede. You seem to be in the same quandry now that Lee was in way back then. Our nation is but one among many who all need to get along on this planet.

As I've said on this thread more than once, when you talk about "illegal immigrants" are you talking about the ones in 1607 or the ones of recent origin? Why do you distinguish between them? Why is one set of "illegals" considered heroes and commemorated this year including a visit from the Queen of England next month to the site, but the "illegals", who are coming now, are "criminals". The intent of the first "illegals" was far more insidious than that of the recent "illegals". The Jamestown Gang came to steal land, and steal gold and any other "riches" from the unfortunate people who were here. They did NOT come to SHARE. At least these people are coming to work!


Our European ancestors were certainly imperialists in their desire for expansion and wealthy.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:16:01 AM
Quote
Don Larsen, a district chairman, has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to "Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion" for debate at Saturday's Utah County Republican Party Convention.
Wait - Don Larsoen is colonel sanders?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:26:38 AM
About as nutty.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 27, 2007, 11:51:11 AM
The day may come when all the countries of the world will be under one government, or perhaps a loose sort of confederation, but that day is not today. Until that happens, national sovereignty is a matter of importance.

IMO, national sovereignty means that each nation has the right to secure its own borders, make its own rules, allow or not allow immigration, and take other actions that are designed primarily for the benefit of its own people. Yes, we all live on the same planet, but we are not "one world" as yet. 

chak,
I'm not ready to adopt the "one world government" philosophy. For me, our national sovereignty still has meaning,

It's coming whether chakotay likes it or not.  In an era when satellites circle the Earth in 84 minutes, we had better realize that we are all part of one world.

BTW, just WHAT meaning does "National sovereignty" have for you.  For me, it has about as much meaning as the Cardiff Giant (Look it up; he's in Cooperstown, NY.).


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 27, 2007, 12:14:24 PM
Well, needless to say, I disagree. Our nation may be "one among many", but it is the one that I care most about. I have no ill will toward other nations, but I don't identify with them as I do with this nation. Robert E. Lee (who, BTW, is a distant relative of mine) faced a difficult situation, but his choice, whether right or wrong, was made from a 19th century viewpoint. Many people of that day thought of themselves first as residents of a state and after that as residents of the US. The Civil War and its aftermath strengthened the national government and its role in everyday life.

As for "illegal immigrants", I refer specifically to the people who are invading our country today. The settlers, from 1492 through the colonial period, whether Spanish, English, French, Dutch, or whatever, would be considered illegal today, but that's something like 20-20 hindsight. Before the conquistadores, the French, the English, and other European settlers, there was really nothing that one could call a country in the Americas. There were individual tribal areas, some larger and some smaller, but nothing resembling our nation now. By the laws and customs of their day, their actions were legal and customary. There really is no resemblance between the original colonists and today's situation, where the lands have been settled and individual nations have been established. And every nation has the right to determine its own immigration laws. Mexico, incidentally, is far less welcoming to immigrants than we are. By Mexican law, illegal aliens can be sent to prison just for being there illegally.

Of course, by today's standards, none of the European countries had the "right" to move into the "new world" without permission from the original inhabitants, but that is attempting to justify illegal immigration now by claiming that the European settlers did it too...300 or more years ago! The situation now is different, and the past can't be conflated to justify the present illegalities. We have every right to allow or not allow immigration, based on the laws and rules of today, not 1492 or 1607. That is a part of national sovereignty.
 

Chakotay,

In today's world, nationalism has as much meaning as statism had in the civil war. If you are a student of history, you may know that Robert E. Lee had taken an oath as a member of the US military at West Point. But, when he had to choose between fulfilling that oath and defending his "state" of Virginia, he went along with the fools who tried to secede. You seem to be in the same quandry now that Lee was in way back then. Our nation is but one among many who all need to get along on this planet.

As I've said on this thread more than once, when you talk about "illegal immigrants" are you talking about the ones in 1607 or the ones of recent origin? Why do you distinguish between them? Why is one set of "illegals" considered heroes and commemorated this year including a visit from the Queen of England next month to the site, but the "illegals", who are coming now, are "criminals". The intent of the first "illegals" was far more insidious than that of the recent "illegals". The Jamestown Gang came to steal land, and steal gold and any other "riches" from the unfortunate people who were here. They did NOT come to SHARE. At least these people are coming to work!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:53:40 PM
We agree that what is done is done.  We cannot change back the clock.  Our European ancestors had run of of resources and were forced in some ways to look beyond their borders for things like fuel to preserve their civilization.  It is a mad world.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 03:40:18 PM
Chakotay,

I suggest you do some reading on the Natives who were here long before Columbus. True, they did not have immigration laws - but permission from the existing tribe in an area was customary before moving there. Powhatan presumed that John Smith had permission from the tribe that owned the Jamestown island. He didn't. He squatted. The terror was that the Jamestown colonist not only ignored the laws and customs of the Natives, but they set up their own laws, imported with them, and FORCED them on the Natives. The Natives were able to get along without a "nation". That does NOT mean they were eligible to be overrun. Some Native civilizations had very specific, codified laws, especially those in central and south America. Their laws are what made them so vulnerable to be overrun by the Spanish. The Natives of North America were less "national", which required the colonist to deal with each tribe individually. The used that to set one at war against the other and conquered them as a result. Their methods were brutal, to say the least!




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:39:57 PM
Chakotay,

I suggest you do some reading on the Natives who were here long before Columbus. True, they did not have immigration laws - but permission from the existing tribe in an area was customary before moving there. Powhatan presumed that John Smith had permission from the tribe that owned the Jamestown island. He didn't. He squatted. The terror was that the Jamestown colonist not only ignored the laws and customs of the Natives, but they set up their own laws, imported with them, and FORCED them on the Natives. The Natives were able to get along without a "nation". That does NOT mean they were eligible to be overrun. Some Native civilizations had very specific, codified laws, especially those in central and south America. Their laws are what made them so vulnerable to be overrun by the Spanish. The Natives of North America were less "national", which required the colonist to deal with each tribe individually. The used that to set one at war against the other and conquered them as a result. Their methods were brutal, to say the least!




I've ordered that book you suggested on American history.  I'm looking forward to reading it.  Right now I"m reading a book about New England and witchcraft.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 07:41:03 PM
Sam,

I am glad you are getting the book. I look forward to discussing it with you after you get into it a bit.

Chakotay,

For you, I recommend your choice of books: The one that discusses the culture of the natives back to their arrival on the American continents is "The Invasion of America" by Francis Jennings. The book has some age on it, so should be pretty cheap used on Amazon. Jennings is a journalist, but his work is largely based on anthropology. It is a good introduction to ethnohistory. A very new ethnohistory book is by Helen Rountree in 2006 entitled: Pocahontas - Powhatan - Opinchacanough - Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown. It is a favorite read here in Virginia in celebrating the 400th anniversary of the landing at Jamestown. We are discussing the Pocahontas book by Roundtree on the Books forum: American History, so if you choose to read it, you can join the discussion there. Helen Roundtree is herself an anthropologist, so you are getting the word directly from the horse's mouth.

After you read up on it, you can form your own opinion. But, an opinion is always stronger for having seen the issue from more than one POV.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 27, 2007, 09:53:20 PM
chak,
Robert E. Lee (who, BTW, is a distant relative of mine) faced a difficult situation, but his choice, whether right or wrong, was made from a 19th century viewpoint.

For which Lincoln should have had him arrested and jailed before he ever left the White House after resigning his commission, or tried and shot as an Article 3 traitor after he surrendered his traitorous brigands.

However, just as Lee put his Virginia citizenship before his national one, today more and more thinking people are putting their world citizenship before their national one.

As you are so fond of saying, the situations are not analagous.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 28, 2007, 05:32:12 AM
I do understand what you're saying; I'm just pointing out that by the laws of the European countries at the time, the settlers were "legal" by right of conquest. We don't recognize that law now, but that was 300-500 or more years ago. And the Indians themselves were known to use the same methods to move into each other's territories.

Obviously, the Indians moved into an empty continent 30,000 or so years ago, but if there had been people here, I doubt that their ancestors would have turned around and gone back to Asia. Conflict and aggression have been with us since prehistoric days, and most settled areas have been settled and re-settled by different groups at different times.

I have an e-mail friend in Russia, who was mentioning that some areas in Russia along the Russian-Chinese border were very sparsely populated. I suggested that they might want to keep a watchful eye on their neighbor, since China is growing ever more-overpopulated and always looking for room to expand (think Tibet!).

At any rate, the US is now a settled country, with a distinctive population and code of law, so the fact that the original settlement might have been considered illegal nowadays doesn't excuse illegal aliens who want to settle here without permission. It just isn't the same situation. 


Chakotay,

I suggest you do some reading on the Natives who were here long before Columbus. True, they did not have immigration laws - but permission from the existing tribe in an area was customary before moving there. Powhatan presumed that John Smith had permission from the tribe that owned the Jamestown island. He didn't. He squatted. The terror was that the Jamestown colonist not only ignored the laws and customs of the Natives, but they set up their own laws, imported with them, and FORCED them on the Natives. The Natives were able to get along without a "nation". That does NOT mean they were eligible to be overrun. Some Native civilizations had very specific, codified laws, especially those in central and south America. Their laws are what made them so vulnerable to be overrun by the Spanish. The Natives of North America were less "national", which required the colonist to deal with each tribe individually. The used that to set one at war against the other and conquered them as a result. Their methods were brutal, to say the least!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 06:10:39 AM
The situation is different, you're right.  I still believe the problem comes from two sources.   the first is the poverty and lack of opportunity in pllaces like Mexico, and secondly, the fact that the can gets jobs here from unscurplous employers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 28, 2007, 06:55:47 AM
Absolutely. In Mexico, as in most "Third World" countries, there is a wealthy elite that absorbs the lion's share of the country's wealth, and most of the rest of the population are either barely getting by, very poor, or extremely poor. (Hmmm...come to think of it, this sounds sort of like the Bush administration in the US!) The pressure put on the small farmers by NAFTA has driven thousands off their land (and, often, onto ours.) Add to that the fact that greedy business owners here are willing to hire illegals at slave wages in order to fatten their own bottom line, and voila! instant immigration inundation.

I understand why the illegals are wanting to come here, but they would be more effective if they stayed home and worked to install a more responsive government that isn't in league with the wealthy elite. It won't improve matters in Mexico for us to allow our own country to be overrun by desperate, uneducated, low-skilled people. Maybe a quasi-Marshall plan to help the farmers who were put out of business by NAFTA? There has to be a better solution than just allowing hordes of poor people to pour across our border.


The situation is different, you're right.  I still believe the problem comes from two sources.   the first is the poverty and lack of opportunity in pllaces like Mexico, and secondly, the fact that the can gets jobs here from unscurplous employers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 28, 2007, 07:01:37 AM
Chakotay,

I sometime wonder why you took this name. If it is from the tv show, your arguments on here suggest a very different mindset from your namesake.

While the early settlers took their OK from the cant of conquest popular in Europe at the time, that cant was in no way justified in the New World any more than it was justified on the Asian or African continents.

You err in lumping together all the Natives that were found on the continent. When the Spanish invaded South America, they found a high level of civilization in the Inca's which included the concept of conquest. The Aztecs and the Mayans were also highly civilized with an advanced form of math, written language and a strong centralized government. By contrast, the Natives of North America were relatively free of government, existed on custom and gave minimal power to their leaders. There were intertribal "wars", but their level of waging war was, in general, far less destructive than the level of war used by the "civilized" invaders. The Natives in both Virginia and Massachusetts were aghast at the settlers use of genocide and wars that including the killing of women and children. It was not the Native way to attack the women and children, who were generally taken as hostages and absorbed into the culture of the conquering tribe as full equals to the rest of the population.

It is interesting that before the Spanish invasion, Indians were not tenders of domesticated animals. They allowed animals to run wild, and killed them as they needed the meat. This allowed the Natives to remain free of diseases born by animals that decimated the European populations at various times. It has been suggested that, rather than the European persons, some of the disease devastation came from the pigs imported by the Spanish to feed their armies and allowed to escape into the wild, were the primary disease carriers to the Natives. Swine were known, even in biblical times, to be carriers of disease, which explains the Jewish strictures against the eating of their meat.

The story of Powhatan's crown makes interesting reading. You can find it in several of Helen Roundtree's books. It was made of copper rather than gold, and encrusted with fake gems. King James I sent it to subjugate Powhatan, rather than to honor him. When Christopher Newport "crowned" Powhatan it was as evidence that Powhatan was now a subject of their king. Powhatan suspected the crowning was not up to snuff, and refused to kneel to accept the crown, choosing instead to hunch his shoulders and incline his head just a bit. He refused to lower his head as was the European custom for crowning kings. Powhatan just didn't buy into the subjugation.

There is plenty of underpopulated land in the US, if the new immigrants would do as other groups of immigrants have done, and spread out from the receiving cities. We are getting some migration here in Virginia. At first the Mexicans were coming in work gangs to plant and harvest. But some are beginning to set down roots here and finding more permanant jobs. When they are well dispursed into the English-speaking communities, they, like other immigrants before them, learn the language, especially the children. I've seen Mexican children arrive in schools with one or no Spanish-speakers on staff, and within a few months, they are functional in English.

So, my suggestions for immigration is to do as we have done with other immigration groups and dispurse them around the country where they can be readily absorbed into the American culture.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:25:06 PM
I understand why the illegals are wanting to come here, but they would be more effective if they stayed home and worked to install a more responsive government that isn't in league with the wealthy elite. It won't improve matters in Mexico for us to allow our own country to be overrun by desperate, uneducated, low-skilled people. Maybe a quasi-Marshall plan to help the farmers who were put out of business by NAFTA? There has to be a better solution than just allowing hordes of poor people to pour across our border.

I have not yet heard any US politican come up with a plan to help these poor, and as you say, uneducated people in their struggle for survival against the elite, wealth class and those who run their governments.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 29, 2007, 03:59:18 AM
I ended up with Chakotay on the NY Times forums because when I registered (years ago) Tuvok was already taken. And I also liked the character.

Justified or not, the concept of right of conquest was a part of international agreement in the 1500s-1900s. It hasn't exactly disappeared entirely even today.

I don't lump all Indians together. The Mayas, Aztecs and Incas had high levels of social organization and civilization (although the humans sacrificed by the Aztecs might have argued the idea of civilization.) Even among North American tribes there were differences in organization and complexity of their societies.

When we refer to land as "underpopulated" it seems that some believe that open spaces are a mistake of some sort. Even if open spaces exist in places, that doesn't mean that we should feel obligated to cover them over with humans. Wildlife has to have living room too. And most towns that have lost population have lost it for a reason: lack of job opportunities. So I doubt that immigrants, legal or illegal, would want to settle where jobs are few. I don't know of any way to "disperse" them unless they are willing to go. Also, when people in small towns suddenly find numbers of immigrants descending upon them, it often creates animosity from the inhabitants...especially if they believe that the immigrants are illegal. Having a number of children suddenly appear in school who aren't able to speak English places a burden on the local schools.

Many small towns barely have enough resources for their own residents; adding groups of people from other countries, who don't speak English, and who may be illegal can cause considerable strife and resentment. 

Chakotay,

I sometime wonder why you took this name. If it is from the tv show, your arguments on here suggest a very different mindset from your namesake.

While the early settlers took their OK from the cant of conquest popular in Europe at the time, that cant was in no way justified in the New World any more than it was justified on the Asian or African continents.

You err in lumping together all the Natives that were found on the continent. When the Spanish invaded South America, they found a high level of civilization in the Inca's which included the concept of conquest. The Aztecs and the Mayans were also highly civilized with an advanced form of math, written language and a strong centralized government. By contrast, the Natives of North America were relatively free of government, existed on custom and gave minimal power to their leaders.

There is plenty of underpopulated land in the US, if the new immigrants would do as other groups of immigrants have done, and spread out from the receiving cities. We are getting some migration here in Virginia. At first the Mexicans were coming in work gangs to plant and harvest. But some are beginning to set down roots here and finding more permanant jobs. When they are well dispursed into the English-speaking communities, they, like other immigrants before them, learn the language, especially the children. I've seen Mexican children arrive in schools with one or no Spanish-speakers on staff, and within a few months, they are functional in English.

So, my suggestions for immigration is to do as we have done with other immigration groups and dispurse them around the country where they can be readily absorbed into the American culture.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 29, 2007, 04:09:04 AM
Maybe it's because that is what we are getting, for the most part. Most of the illegal aliens fall into the poor and uneducated classification. They don't have to gain much influence in order to pose a threat to our country's stability. They create problems just by coming here, overloading our schools with kids who can't communicate in English, overloading our welfare and health care rolls, etc., and often paying no taxes.

The problem with the renters and absentee landlords is hardly a new one. That is something that would need to be addressed by the city or state. 

I still wonder why so much of the focus is on immigrants at the lower end of the economic scale, the ones least likely to gain a large enough measure of political or economic influence here to pose a threat.  No one responded to my question a few days ago about why there is no complaint about wealthy immigrants who come, buy property and resources and send the proceeds elsewhere.  I was formerly an advocate for renters and as such I conducted renter's rights meetings in several buildings owned by such--the buildings were little more than tenements, in violation of basic bldg. or safety codes, lacking in basic services, run by on-site "managers" who collected the rent and sent it to owners who were unknown to their tenants.  Sometimes the mostly immigrant renters who often spoke little English were terrified of asking for anything due them for fear they'd lose their shelter.   



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 06:37:27 AM
While the debate about immigration rages on, illegal immigrants are doing something that ties them to almost every American: filing tax returns. Although not every illegal immigrant pays taxes, more and more are making use of an Individual Tax Identification Number provided by the IRS to file on April 17th.

The Individual Tax Identification Number was created by the IRS as a way of getting money from foreigner investors generating income in the United States. Although there are many foreign investors that regularly use this number to report income, sources say illegal immigrants are the largest group using this number.

Filing a tax return and having an Individual Tax Identification Number is a way of creating a financial history that allows for loans to purchase a house or even a car, allowing for a better quality of life. And by filing tax returns, illegals are able to create one more item that might help their application for citizenship.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 12:05:49 PM
Whiskey,

I suspect there is merit in what you are saying. May I suggest it is a new idea to some who seem to assume that all immigrants are illiterate and poor?

What area of the country is this happening in?




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 29, 2007, 05:25:55 PM
If the government really wanted to find the illegal aliens and deport them, they could use these ITINs as a starting point. It wouldn't be that difficult to winnow out the legitimate foreign investors from the illegals, and the ITINs could give ICE agents the addresses and employers of the illegals. 

While the debate about immigration rages on, illegal immigrants are doing something that ties them to almost every American: filing tax returns. Although not every illegal immigrant pays taxes, more and more are making use of an Individual Tax Identification Number provided by the IRS to file on April 17th.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 06:46:16 PM
NY Temps,

If the Mexicans are paid in accordance with law, they would be paying federal, state, and local income tax, where each applies, and they would be paying into social security. Of course, if they were legally hired, the employer would have to also pay into social security for them, an added cost to employers and a good reason for employers to choose to pay such workers in under-the-table cash instead of putting them on the payroll.

It is less that the Mexicans are breaking the law, than that employers in the US ignore the law. They can know if someone is illegal by asking to see their social security card. If the person does not have one, or it bounced when run through the system, they can be turned down for a job. But, the employers, who will try to save a buck any way they can, can avoid paying taxes on the people they pay under the table.

Again, I say. If they are working, even consistently at day labor, let them stay. If they are unemployed or unemployable, give them a bus ticket back home.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 08:19:21 PM
NY Temps,

If the Mexicans are paid in accordance with law, they would be paying federal, state, and local income tax, where each applies, and they would be paying into social security. Of course, if they were legally hired, the employer would have to also pay into social security for them, an added cost to employers and a good reason for employers to choose to pay such workers in under-the-table cash instead of putting them on the payroll.

It is less that the Mexicans are breaking the law, than that employers in the US ignore the law. They can know if someone is illegal by asking to see their social security card. If the person does not have one, or it bounced when run through the system, they can be turned down for a job. But, the employers, who will try to save a buck any way they can, can avoid paying taxes on the people they pay under the table.

Again, I say. If they are working, even consistently at day labor, let them stay. If they are unemployed or unemployable, give them a bus ticket back home.



The problem is the numbers.  There are too many of them, and they live in the shadows.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on April 30, 2007, 02:45:23 AM
I've been discovering some migration related blogs, which may be interesting to more open-minded persons here studying issues.  Here's one that carries the recent internet-leaked video of a border patrol person killing a migrant about to throw a rock.

http://xicanopwr.com/2007/04/the-border-war-cometh/

Chakotay,

You are like a broken record on this forum and, for all your English, still can't recognize what is not Robert Burns.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 05:39:32 AM
Thanks for the link.  The video is appalling.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 09:50:24 AM
Good to 'see' you incadove.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on April 30, 2007, 11:20:26 AM
I'd say that it is both: illegals are breaking our law by coming here illegally and employers are breaking the law by hiring them. We need to cut off the flow across our borders and also to target employers, both big and small, who hire illegals. A (relatively) tamper-proof ID card (realizing that nothing is totally secure) should be established and a system for checking the immigration status of employees set up. Then any employer who hires an illegal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

NY Temps,

It is less that the Mexicans are breaking the law, than that employers in the US ignore the law. They can know if someone is illegal by asking to see their social security card. If the person does not have one, or it bounced when run through the system, they can be turned down for a job. But, the employers, who will try to save a buck any way they can, can avoid paying taxes on the people they pay under the table.

Again, I say. If they are working, even consistently at day labor, let them stay. If they are unemployed or unemployable, give them a bus ticket back home.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 11:45:54 AM
http://forums.escapefromelba.com//index.php?action=profile;u=114

WELCOME!!

You present your usual breath of fresh air.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:44:07 PM
I'd say that it is both: illegals are breaking our law by coming here illegally and employers are breaking the law by hiring them. We need to cut off the flow across our borders and also to target employers, both big and small, who hire illegals. A (relatively) tamper-proof ID card (realizing that nothing is totally secure) should be established and a system for checking the immigration status of employees set up. Then any employer who hires an illegal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

NY Temps,

It is less that the Mexicans are breaking the law, than that employers in the US ignore the law. They can know if someone is illegal by asking to see their social security card. If the person does not have one, or it bounced when run through the system, they can be turned down for a job. But, the employers, who will try to save a buck any way they can, can avoid paying taxes on the people they pay under the table.

Again, I say. If they are working, even consistently at day labor, let them stay. If they are unemployed or unemployable, give them a bus ticket back home.



Maybe an under the sink microchip, like they put in animals would work.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on April 30, 2007, 10:39:11 PM
Hi SR, Hi Cap. :-)  Good to *see* you both too.

Sam, yes, I found that video horrific.  Here is an excerpt from a recent truthout article on "Migrants Used to Justify a Homeland Security Police State."  http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042407C.shtml

Threats of terrorism and twelve million "illegal" immigrants are being used to justify new police-state measures in the United States. Coordinated mass arrests, big brother spy blimps, expanded detention centers, repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, and suspension of habeas corpus have all been recently implemented and are ready to use against anyone in the US.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with cheap, subsidized US agricultural products that displaced millions of Mexican farmers. Between 2000 and 2005, Mexico lost 900,000 rural jobs and 700,000 industrial jobs, resulting in deep unemployment thro'ghout the country. Desperate poverty has forced millions of Mexican workers north in order to feed their families.

[...]

Threats of terrorism and illegal immigrants are being used to justify the implementation of police-state programs. But once started, enforcement can be rapidly deployed to any group of people in the US, and we all become endangered. Mass arrests, big brother in the sky and the loss of civil rights for everyone does not bode well for those who believe in democracy, free speech and the right to critically challenge our government without fear of reprisals.


We are presenting spending hundreds of millions on prisons that incarcerate immigrants for profit, and sometimes for years, simply for trying to make a living in the United States.  These persons include families, even children and infants.  When we are not incarcerating the entire family, we are splitting people up and making it extremely difficult for them to survive.  One mother in the Seattle area with two very young children reported that her husband was approached while standing on line at the airport, attempting to fly domestically to Ohio (to seek employment), asked to show his passport, taken away for questioning for when he couldn't produce one, and then deported, when it was discovered he was not here legally.  http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=childrally12m&date=20070412&query=seattle+immigration+children  Now the wage earner is in Mexico, and she is unable to find work that pays enough to cover the childcare expenses of an infant and toddler.  I guess she is here legally and I don't recall if the children are American citizens, but it would not be unusual if they were.  We have a broken system that is injust, abuses human rights, and hurts all Americans.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 12:53:17 AM
Well said, Incadove.

My heart goes out to that woman in Seattle, and the many more like her. Making criminals out of those willing to work hard to support their families is a crime in and of itself.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 06:23:32 AM
Well said, Incadove.

My heart goes out to that woman in Seattle, and the many more like her. Making criminals out of those willing to work hard to support their families is a crime in and of itself.

I agree that the system is broken and building fences isn't the answer.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 01, 2007, 07:40:05 AM
Weezo,

Thank you.  I've read many stories now like that.  The human cost to this broken system is very great.  There was one from the New York Fingerlakes region where the father had worked as a grape vine pruner at the same place for 10 years when he was arrested in these ICE raids;  he and his wife (also here illegally) have 3 American children and the mother was hiding under the bed with the two year old.  In this one http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=2d08b89f8d9448961b645becd8e9a669, another 3 children traveled thousands of miles alone through treacherous territory to find a little girl's mother who came here from Honduras under a Clinton era protective law that does not provide for her children to join her.

Sam,

It seems to me that if we are going to have borderless trade agreements for companies, displaced labor should be allowed to travel and work freely too.  Some push the guest worker programs, but Southern Poverty Law Center has this new report out on how rife with abuse they are.  http://www.splcenter.org/legal/guestreport/index.jsp 



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:05:31 AM




Sam,

It seems to me that if we are going to have borderless trade agreements for companies, displaced labor should be allowed to travel and work freely too.  Some push the guest worker programs, but Southern Poverty Law Center has this new report out on how rife with abuse they are.  http://www.splcenter.org/legal/guestreport/index.jsp 



That would make too much sense, don't you think?  The repukes and conservatives wouldn't accept that.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 01, 2007, 11:38:14 AM
An article in our local paper yesterday claimed that because of the rapidly growing market for ethanol, Mexican corn crops were now worth about double what they had been. The Mexican farmers quoted were very happy with the prices. Although I don't much like the idea of using food to produce ethanol, it appears that this market will improve profitability for those Mexican farmers who grow corn. Maybe some of those farmers who fled "north" should consider going back to farming.




[
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with cheap, subsidized US agricultural products that displaced millions of Mexican farmers. Between 2000 and 2005, Mexico lost 900,000 rural jobs and 700,000 industrial jobs, resulting in deep unemployment thro'ghout the country. Desperate poverty has forced millions of Mexican workers north in order to feed their families.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 01, 2007, 11:55:34 AM
Those who are pro-illegal immigrants conveniently ignore the fact that if we allowed "free movement" from one nation to another, the US could face a population growth of from 100-120 million people in fewer than 40 years. It could go even higher if higher levels of immigration were included. Under some scenarios, we could even hit half a billion within 50 years.

Think about the fact that many parts of the country are already stretched thin on water supplies, health care resources, educational resources, affordable housing, traffic, pollution, and so much more. Just how would you pro-immigration (both legal and illegal) folks suggest that we deal with the problems that these surges in population would entail?

What sort of controls would you suggest to "vet" the would-be immigrants, to keep out the criminal, the diseased and the insane? How would you divide up water resources in agricultural areas to keep growing our food, but still have enough for urban areas? How would you educate overwhelming numbers of non-English speaking children? How would you keep buildings from paving over our open spaces and decimating wildlife and their habitat?

In short, it is easy to say "Let 'em come", but who is going to do the hard mental work of finding ways to cope with such a disastrous level of population explosion?  Any thoughts?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:31:34 PM
An article in our local paper yesterday claimed that because of the rapidly growing market for ethanol, Mexican corn crops were now worth about double what they had been. The Mexican farmers quoted were very happy with the prices. Although I don't much like the idea of using food to produce ethanol, it appears that this market will improve profitability for those Mexican farmers who grow corn. Maybe some of those farmers who fled "north" should consider going back to farming.




[
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with cheap, subsidized US agricultural products that displaced millions of Mexican farmers. Between 2000 and 2005, Mexico lost 900,000 rural jobs and 700,000 industrial jobs, resulting in deep unemployment thro'ghout the country. Desperate poverty has forced millions of Mexican workers north in order to feed their families.




I've read that it take 1.29 gallons of petroleum to make 1 gallon of ethanol.  That doesn't make much sense to me.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 02:45:35 PM
Money makes the world go round.  Even liberals like money.  Greedy conservative neocons live for it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 03:00:58 PM
The Arizona Republic
May. 1, 2007 07:12 AM

11:31 a.m. - Tens of thousands of marchers began arriving at Wesley Bolin Plaza at the Capitol around 11:15 a.m. and filled the area. And others still are coming.

As they entered the plaza, the marchers were chanting, “Si, se puede,” or “Yes, it can be done.” A man named Richard (he declined to give his last name) stood at the entrance with a megaphone, saying, “Illegals, you're needed home in Mexico.” His amplified chants were drowned out by the crowd. Marchers carried signs that said, “Danger: Educated Latinos,” and “No human being is illegal.”


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 03:02:29 PM
11:42 a.m. - As marchers entered Wesley Bolin Plaza, they were greeted by Liga Mattics, 28, of Avondale, who was there to protest illegal immigration. Mattics, who works in real estate, immigrated from Latvia. She came to the country legally.

“Everyone is welcome in this country, but the ones that broke the law, they need to go back and do it legally,” she said.

Marchers filled the streets from sidewalk to sidewalk. Many were singing the Star Spangled Banner as they arrived.

March organizers said before the rally that they were expecting 5,000 to 10,000. They said today that the crowd exceeded their expectations and may rival last year's attendance of 100,000.

Organizers said the number of marchers illustrates the level of desperation and people's need to be heard.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 03:04:19 PM
Police say the event has been peaceful.

Julit Molina, 27, of Phoenix, is among the thousands of marchers. She took the day off from her job at a dry cleaner to participate.

Molina is an undocumented immigrant from Michoacan, Mexico, who also attends Rio Salado College. She said she wanted to participate to help press for comprehensive immigration reform. That push began in earnest last year, when more than 100,000 marched in Phoenix. It was part of a day of demonstrations nationwide.

“We need an identity,” said Molina, who waved a big American flag as she marched. “They have to recognize our contributions to the economy and the culture. Immigrants made this nation since the beginning, and we are contributing to the economy of this country.”


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 03:09:25 PM
Most of those gathered are wearing white T-shirts in a show of unity. Many are unfurling American flags to wave during the procession. Others are toting umbrellas to protect themselves from the expected 93-degree temperatures.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0501marchmain.html

I haven't seen any Mexican flags.

The marchers are peaceful. They want realistic immigration reform.

Minutemen and their supporters have been loud and often profane.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 03:17:25 PM
Minutemen are rightwing neocon chickenhawk fascists. ;D


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 01, 2007, 05:38:00 PM
I suppose that it depends on which march they are showing. The one I saw when I went home at lunch had a number of Mexican flags flying. The marchers, if illegals, have no standing to demand anything. "Realistic" immigration reform would be, IMO, for us to enforce our laws.


I haven't seen any Mexican flags.

The marchers are peaceful. They want realistic immigration reform.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 06:01:32 PM
I suppose that it depends on which march they are showing. The one I saw when I went home at lunch had a number of Mexican flags flying. The marchers, if illegals, have no standing to demand anything. "Realistic" immigration reform would be, IMO, for us to enforce our laws.


I haven't seen any Mexican flags.

The marchers are peaceful. They want realistic immigration reform.






Ok.  Who's going to do the enforcing and how are they going to do it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 07:52:32 PM
Cahkotay,

I don't see a peaceful march as indicative of "demands". They are requests, suggestions, hopes, wishes, dreams. They are realistic in recognizing that many illegals are already here and have established lives here, that would be disrupted by being sent back to Mexico with its high unemployment. It's like turning a hungry person away from a table full of food!

Today there was a birthday celebration on Richmond for the 100th birthday of Oliver Hill a very successful fighter for civil rights. You assertion that the law be enforced tends to remind me of the early responses of those opposed to civil rights and integration. Enforce the laws! We are a nation of laws! The Negro must not be allowed to participate fully in OUR communities! Enforce the laws. On Hill's 100th birthday, both blacks and white spoke appreciatively of the progress that his ideals made possible. The laws were found to be unjust. They were overturned. And, we have to thank those who marched peacefully for the opportunity to do so without bloodshed.

Learn from history!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 02:23:28 AM
Chakotay

However you dress it up, your population nightmare argument is nothing new:

Scrooge has only disgust for the poor, thinking many would be better off dead, "decreasing the surplus population", and praise for the Victorian era workhouses. He has a particular distaste for the merriment of Christmas, his single act of kindness being that he gives his clerk, Bob Cratchit, the day off, more as a result of social mores than any true kindness on his part. He sees the practice as akin to having his pocket picked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Scrooge


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 06:35:13 AM
Chakotay

However you dress it up, your population nightmare argument is nothing new:

Scrooge has only disgust for the poor, thinking many would be better off dead, "decreasing the surplus population", and praise for the Victorian era workhouses. He has a particular distaste for the merriment of Christmas, his single act of kindness being that he gives his clerk, Bob Cratchit, the day off, more as a result of social mores than any true kindness on his part. He sees the practice as akin to having his pocket picked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Scrooge


Those who oppose immigration also feel their pockets are being picked by this immigration.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 07:25:53 AM
Where will the Queen be staying when she arrives tomorrow?  Williamsburg?  I am a copy of a deposition of one of my great grandfathers who lived in VA and applied for a Rev War Pension in 1834 describing his service during the war.  He was from Augusta Co., (I think near Stanton), and was mustered twice at Rock Fish Gap, then marching to Charlottesville, and then to Williamsburg.  He was there when Cornwallis surrendered. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 09:50:17 AM
Yes, later on I did see Mexican flags. I saw a Korean flag, a German flag and a Canadian flag too.

Most of the folks marching took time off work. Not all were "undocumented" -- not all were Mexican. Nearly all of them pay taxes that benefit other Americans.

They are human beings that only wish America would live up to the IDEALS it projects around the world. If our nation is great, why wouldn't hard working people want to come here?

"Documented" or not, all human beings deserve to be treated with respect, ESPECIALLY in America.

That's what the march was about.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 09:53:22 AM
Sam,

That is interesting about your great-grandfather. Other than the disposition for his pension, did he leave anything else to tell about his involvement in the war? Diaries? Letters? If so, and you would like to share them, perhaps I could make his story into one of my personalized History books.

As to the Queen, as far as I know, she will be staying in Richmond. Her arrival has given the state workers a holiday tomorrow, probably to ease security problems with her arrival. I don't think Williamsburg has any hotels that could accommodate a royal entourage.

Hubby heard last night that there will be a webcast of the Queen's visit to the Virginia legislatures. Not sure if there will be one of her visit to Jamestown on Thursday. Will post here any details I learn.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 03:15:43 PM
One suggestion that I have seen is to double the Border Patrol from the current 12K or so to about 24 or 25K. My suggestion would be to bring home our troops from Iraq and let them assist in patrolling the border. I'm sure they'd be happy to get the **** out of Iraq! And there would be enough of them to see that most of the border had either Border Patrol or Army patrolling.

I would also increase the number of ICE agents who are auditing the employment records at various companies that are known to hire illegals. And if they have a group of illegals, assess heavy fines for each one. If they continue to hire illegals, give those responsible some jail time. We'd also need to establish a reasonably tamper-resistant ID card that employers could check for immigration status, and a super computer system to make it possible for ICE to do its job of checking IDs. It all goes together.


Ok.  Who's going to do the enforcing and how are they going to do it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 03:26:55 PM
What I saw on TV looked more like demands than requests! People don't usually stand and scream and wave their fists when requesting something!

The difference between people like Hill and King and the illegal aliens demanding that we give them a free pass is that Hill and King were American citizens who were being denied their rights under the Constitution. They weren't illegal aliens who had sneaked across our border, had used fake ID or even stolen some American's ID to get a job. IMO, there is no real comparison. Our immigration laws are not "unjust" unless you are one of those who favor throwing our borders open and letting the hordes thunder across.

Cahkotay,

I don't see a peaceful march as indicative of "demands". They are requests, suggestions, hopes, wishes, dreams. They are realistic in recognizing that many illegals are already here and have established lives here, that would be disrupted by being sent back to Mexico with its high unemployment. It's like turning a hungry person away from a table full of food!

Today there was a birthday celebration on Richmond for the 100th birthday of Oliver Hill a very successful fighter for civil rights. You assertion that the law be enforced tends to remind me of the early responses of those opposed to civil rights and integration. Enforce the laws! We are a nation of laws! The Negro must not be allowed to participate fully in OUR communities! Enforce the laws. On Hill's 100th birthday, both blacks and white spoke appreciatively of the progress that his ideals made possible. The laws were found to be unjust. They were overturned. And, we have to thank those who marched peacefully for the opportunity to do so without bloodshed.

Learn from history!




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 03:33:16 PM


Those who oppose immigration also feel their pockets are being picked by this immigration.
[/quote]

Like Scrooge, they do not appreciate the Bob Cratcits of the world that filled them in the first place.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 03:37:22 PM
Well, as the Bible proclaims, "there is nothing new under the sun." It's not as if I haven't seen your pro-illegal alien posts before. However, the argument involving Scrooge (a fictional character) isn't really pertinent. Scrooge just thought that there were too many poor people in general; he didn't have to be concerned about millions of illegal aliens pouring across the English Channel! The situations are completely different.

Chakotay

However you dress it up, your population nightmare argument is nothing new:

Scrooge has only disgust for the poor, thinking many would be better off dead, "decreasing the surplus population", and praise for the Victorian era workhouses. He has a particular distaste for the merriment of Christmas, his single act of kindness being that he gives his clerk, Bob Cratchit, the day off, more as a result of social mores than any true kindness on his part. He sees the practice as akin to having his pocket picked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Scrooge



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 03:41:12 PM
Yes, later on I did see Mexican flags. I saw a Korean flag, a German flag and a Canadian flag too.

Most of the folks marching took time off work. Not all were "undocumented" -- not all were Mexican. Nearly all of them pay taxes that benefit other Americans.

They are human beings that only wish America would live up to the IDEALS it projects around the world. If our nation is great, why wouldn't hard working people want to come here?

"Documented" or not, all human beings deserve to be treated with respect, ESPECIALLY in America.

That's what the march was about.


Well said, SR.

The flags represent and inform the public on the diversity of nations people have immigrated from.  How telling that anti-immigrant groups who try to make those flags into something they’re not, have little or nothing to say about the Nazi and Confederate ones flying at their hate marches.

The immigration laws are injust and hurt people, and they need to be greatly reformed.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 03:45:00 PM
One of the American Ideals is to live under the rule of law. Illegal aliens by their very presence denigrate this ideal. Wanting to come here and applying legally and waiting one's turn is one thing; sneaking across the border and using stolen identities is quite another. It's hard to respect those who sneak in and skulk about in the shadows. Also, people who break the law can be treated with "respect", even while they are being penalized for breaking the law. Punishing lawbreakers is not an act of disrespect.

Yes, later on I did see Mexican flags. I saw a Korean flag, a German flag and a Canadian flag too.

They are human beings that only wish America would live up to the IDEALS it projects around the world. If our nation is great, why wouldn't hard working people want to come here?

"Documented" or not, all human beings deserve to be treated with respect, ESPECIALLY in America.

That's what the march was about.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 03:48:09 PM
chak seems to think asking to be treated with respect as a human being is asking for a "free pass".

Again, he misses the point.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 03:54:36 PM
I agree with those feel their pockets being picked. Bob Cratchit was not an illegal, and his role in filling Scrooge's pockets was relatively small: Scrooge's ruthlessness was probably the major factor. However, these weren't real people, except as archetypes.

The simple fact is that the lower-skilled, lower-paid illegals, even those who pay some taxes, do not pay enough in taxes to outweigh what they cost us, IMO. Especially if they have families here, we get to cover the cost of educating their many children (and, of course, not in English--they usually have to have  expensive "bilingual" or ESL classes), providing health care, and doling out governmental benefits like WIC, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.

Illegals may work for less and provide us with cheaper things, but what they cost us, IMO, outweighs any possible savings.



Those who oppose immigration also feel their pockets are being picked by this immigration.

Like Scrooge, they do not appreciate the Bob Cratcits of the world that filled them in the first place.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 03:58:15 PM
chack, how do you get away with making such sweeping assumptions?! When do you ever back up any of it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 03:59:25 PM
Well, as the Bible proclaims, "there is nothing new under the sun." It's not as if I haven't seen your pro-illegal alien posts before. However, the argument involving Scrooge (a fictional character) isn't really pertinent. Scrooge just thought that there were too many poor people in general; he didn't have to be concerned about millions of illegal aliens pouring across the English Channel! The situations are completely different.


Let's remember that these pious mouthings come from a man who hates the sound of Church bells on a Sunday morning and is an agnostic.  (Nothing wrong with that, just your hypocrisy.)

As a so-called English teacher, if you really held that job or deserved it (and you don't), you'd well know that advocating the reform of laws is not supporting “illegal immigration.”  But when one doesn't have an argument, or reasoned argument fails them, the lowly of the earth do their darndest to misconstrue the positions of others.

Nor did Dickens did not portray Scrooge as *just* thinking there were too many poor people in general -- he is an archtype for the same kind of perspective embodied in yourself.  As we know from the Times that you have long lamented your hallucination of the lumpen hoardes pouring across America's borders.  Just as you now advocate throwing them all in prison, and shipping them back to any third world nightmares, along with "some contraceptives."

But then again, you didn't recognize Robert Burns either.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 04:02:00 PM
How is it disrespectful to require people to live by the law of the land? If any disrespect is being shown, it is by the illegals who flagrantly break our laws and then start demanding amnesty (whatever euphemism they may use.) A human being is responsible for his/her own mistakes, and may have to pay the consequences for willful errors. That is not showing disrespect; it is merely an illustration of the facts that actions have consequences. 

chak seems to think asking to be treated with respect as a human being is asking for a "free pass".

Again, he misses the point.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 04:15:08 PM
Chakotay,

Let's get one thing clear.

Your ancestor, that individual with no respect for our nation's borders, the one you earlier defended, Robert E. Lee, should have been executed for treason.

As for mine, along with membership in the First Nation, they were pilgrims, patriots during the Revolution, abolitionists who fought in the Union army, Quakers who maintained stops on the underground railroad, outlaws who immigrated through Ellis Island, and heros who fought their way up Omaha beach.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 04:26:58 PM
Chakotay

For one who professes being against the likes of Uncle Halliburton, you sure support him with your enforcement proposals.  In just one place:

The agreement between ICE, CCA, and Williamson Co. is as follows: ICE pays CCA $2.8 million per month for up to 512 prisoners (plus $19.23 per hour for off-site guard services, $125,000 per month for medical care, and contraceptives, immunizations, and off-site medical care billed at additional cost). On top of that, ICE pays $79 per day extra per head plus $8 for medical care. Meanwhile, as part of its Intergovernmental Service Agreement with CCA, the county collects $1 per prisoner (child or adult) on a monthly basis – a total of up to $500 a month, in theory. A growing grassroots movement has been staging vigils and protests to try to shut down what it calls the Hutto prison camp; they were focused on this month because the county's contract with CCA was set to expire Jan. 31 (though in April 2006, Williamson Co. commissioners approved the prison contract with ICE "indefinitely unless terminated in writing" with 120 days notice).

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=441523

And here are some Americans, among your fellow state residents, that I'm proud to call countrymen:

Children should not be in prisons.  Hear Texans For Families speak out. See "Vigil at Hutto," Part 1 and 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Ex3XSbOCM


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 04:30:59 PM
chack, how do you get away with making such sweeping assumptions?! When do you ever back up any of it?

Chak is forever glued to his Lou Dobbs tube. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 04:55:01 PM
OK--here are a few:

http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/25/Opinion/Taking.More.Than.Jobs-2879763.shtml

http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_5735078

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55135

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070405-123141-6880r.htm

chack, how do you get away with making such sweeping assumptions?! When do you ever back up any of it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 05:45:03 PM
Chakotay,

If you were supporting your position for an academic paper, your evidence would be found lacking. The first three of your sources are one-sided opinions that do not even recognize that there is any other side the the argument. The author of the third link mistakenly referred to a HS exit certificate as a "degree" instead of a "diploma". I have to really wonder about his grasp of the situation.

The fourth source was creditable, and, although it mainly talked about the "research" of a conservative "think tanks", did include two paragraphs minimally stating the other side of the argument.

The conservative opinions are interesting. When conservatives speak on education topics, they tend to assert that the HS drop out rate is attrocious and educators are turning out many Americans who will never be able to hold a job. When they complain about immigration, suddenly the number of Americans with a HS diploma goes up, to contrast it with the more limited education of the immigrants. Interesting to see the conservatives at "thought"......



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 02, 2007, 05:57:35 PM
What church bells? After working all night, I sleep most of Sunday. We could have the oft-promised Second Coming, and I'd probably sleep through it. Many people use biblical quotes because they are well-known and immediately understood by most Americans. It doesn't necessarily indicate belief.

The pouring of "lumpen hordes" across our borders is no hallucination, alas. The Border Patrol intercepts about 1 million per year, and they estimate that for each one they catch, 2 or 3 may get through. I hope it isn't that high, but it could be.

I'm not sure what having been an English teacher has to do with my political viewpoints, but speaking of misconstruing others' viewpoints, you can do a pretty good job of that yourself at times. Still, I have no interest in getting into petty name-calling or personal attacks. Suffice it to say that we aren't likely to agree on very much where illegal immigration is concerned.

I favor deportation of illegal aliens as necessary, but if we truly enforced our laws against hiring illegals, I don't believe it would be necessary very often.
 


Let's remember that these pious mouthings come from a man who hates the sound of Church bells on a Sunday morning and is an agnostic.  (Nothing wrong with that, just your hypocrisy.)

As a so-called English teacher, if you really held that job or deserved it (and you don't), you'd well know that advocating the reform of laws is not supporting “illegal immigration.”  But when one doesn't have an argument, or reasoned argument fails them, the lowly of the earth do their darndest to misconstrue the positions of others.

Nor did Dickens did not portray Scrooge as *just* thinking there were too many poor people in general -- he is an archtype for the same kind of perspective embodied in yourself.  As we know from the Times that you have long lamented your hallucination of the lumpen hoardes pouring across America's borders.  Just as you now advocate throwing them all in prison, and shipping them back to any third world nightmares, along with "some contraceptives."



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 07:05:14 PM
Chakotay

You:  What church bells?

Spare me.  You stated on the New York Times forum, in the context of a discussion on the Muslim call to prayer, that you disliked hearing church bells on Sunday mornings. 

You:  Many people use biblical quotes because they are well-known and immediately understood by most Americans. It doesn't necessarily indicate belief.

Please, spare me again, Old Man, the implication is clear after reading and posting with you for over a year. You used a biblical quote to appeal to an audience you don't even respect.  Just like the Bushies who laugh at the fundamentalists behind closed doors, but will say anything to get their votes and their money.

You:  The pouring of "lumpen hordes" across our borders is no hallucination, alas. The Border Patrol intercepts about 1 million per year, and they estimate that for each one they catch, 2 or 3 may get through. I hope it isn't that high, but it could be.

Your understanding of these numbers and these human beings is a hallucination.  You share Scrooge's contempt for, and fear of, the poor.

You:  I'm not sure what having been an English teacher has to do with my political viewpoints,

You are the one who made your position as an English teacher an issue on this forum;  not to mention that you based part of your argument on a reference to Dickens that is a misconstruction of his views.

You:  but speaking of misconstruing others' viewpoints, you can do a pretty good job of that yourself at times.

Assertions are not evidence.  English teachers should know, that or be booted. 

Care to quote some more Robert Burns?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 07:11:26 PM
Chakotay

You:  Still, I have no interest in getting into petty name-calling or personal attacks.

LOL.  Which is why you referenced me on this forum as “weird” and *supporting* “illegal immigration.”  And never had a word to say about the disgusting, obscene comments made on the Times forum by bigots;  just kindness and excuses for your true friends.

A Minutemen history by an award winning journalist, David Neiwert.  How the Rosemary's Baby of the Neo Nazi network, was spawned, nurtured, and spray painted.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/01/march-of-minutemen.html

The Puppeteer - the organized anti-immigration 'movement,' increasingly in bed with racist hate groups, is dominated by one man, John Tanton. Read more at link, including information about Tanton's network of organizations.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=180



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 07:18:53 PM
Chakotay,

If you were supporting your position for an academic paper, your evidence would be found lacking.


You will not hear Chakotay state a specific argument, then back it up with a specific quote from an academic paper.

He hopes that providing a link without any excerpt will be seen as backing up a statement.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 02, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
And a statement that he hasn't even made.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 08:30:40 PM
Police promised to review the use of force after officers fired rubber bullets and used batons against demonstrators during an immigration rally.

Several people, including about a dozen officers, were hurt during skirmishes at MacArthur Park near downtown late Tuesday. About 10 people were taken to hospitals for treatment of injuries including cuts, authorities said. None of the injuries was believed to be serious.

Is this what Bush was talking about as an "acceptable level of violence?"


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 02, 2007, 09:13:32 PM
chak,
How is it disrespectful to require people to live by the law of the land?

Right.

Turn in that black man you "think" might be a runaway save.  Shove Rosa Parks to the gack of the bus.  Thell the Little Rock Nine that they must attend Dunbar High until they graduate.

BTW, Mr. "English teacher": Do you have any idea who Dunbar High was named after, or will you continue to "wear the mask that grins and lies"?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 10:22:26 PM
Chakotay,

I am curious. Why did you choose the name of a Native American of the future if you don't like or respect Native Americans? It seems a bit incongruous to me. Explain, if you will.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 03:52:06 AM
Police promised to review the use of force after officers fired rubber bullets and used batons against demonstrators during an immigration rally.

Several people, including about a dozen officers, were hurt during skirmishes at MacArthur Park near downtown late Tuesday. About 10 people were taken to hospitals for treatment of injuries including cuts, authorities said. None of the injuries was believed to be serious.

Is this what Bush was talking about as an "acceptable level of violence?"

I read that FOX carried footage of a television newswoman being clubbed.  Para Justicia y Libertad, http://xicanopwr.com/, has the story, including the alleged FOX footage (PJYL) of police brutality (though I cannot seem to access the visual/audio for some reason).

Migra Matters, another blog I've been discovering, has a photograph of the stomach of one young man hit by a rubber bullet.  Also, a piece how Lou Dobbs misrepresented the position of the immigrant rights marchers.  That included their stance on the guest worker programs, which marchers opposed.  Dobbs stated the opposite:

http://migramatters.blogspot.com/2007/05/dobbs-misrepresents-immigrant-protest.html

As the blog indicates, the marchers' positions were stated in flyers, handed out and also posted at the mayday2007.org website:

National Immigrant Solidarity Network

Our ten points of unity (based on our Jan 29, 2007 open letter to the Congress):

1) No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.

2) No to militarization of the border.

3) No to the immigrant detention and deportation.

4) No to the guest worker program.

5) No to employer sanction and "no match" letters.

6) Yes to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

7) Yes to speedy family reunification.

8) Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.

9) Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.

10) Yes to the education and LGBT immigrant legislation.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 08:21:36 AM
Listening to NPR this morning about the 400th Anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement, I heard them say that 3 out of 4 died in the first year, but the settlement survived and by 1619 had set up a government of burgesses.  It was also in that year that the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown.  It was a Dutch slaver that traded the captured Africans for provisions. 

The Jamestown immigrants were searching for gold and a short cut to China, neither of which they found.  However, within a short time they did discover tobacco and became the early planters and distributors of this product to the world.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 10:28:57 AM
Considering how many European Americans and others have died because of their use of tobacco, you might consider the Indians' passing on the use of this noxious weed to the "white" man as their revenge.

Listening to NPR this morning about the 400th Anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement, I heard them say that 3 out of 4 died in the first year, but the settlement survived and by 1619 had set up a government of burgesses.  It was also in that year that the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown.  It was a Dutch slaver that traded the captured Africans for provisions. 

The Jamestown immigrants were searching for gold and a short cut to China, neither of which they found.  However, within a short time they did discover tobacco and became the early planters and distributors of this product to the world.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 10:34:54 AM
I answered this a couple of screens ago. I ended up with Chakotay as a user name on the old NY Times forum pages (several years ago) because at the time, Tuvok was taken. And I liked the character, although I liked Tuvok better. When I re-registered for later NY Times forums, Chakotay became my screen name automatically.


I have no problem with Native Americans. One of my great-grandmothers was an Indian (don't know what tribe, but her name was ...America.) Honestly...it really was.

Chakotay,

I am curious. Why did you choose the name of a Native American of the future if you don't like or respect Native Americans? It seems a bit incongruous to me. Explain, if you will.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 10:40:49 AM
Interesting opinion piece in today's Newsweek on immigration. I don't agree with his conclusions about "amnesty", but it does offer some interesting perspective:

Seeking Sense on Immigration
America cannot constructively absorb limitless numbers of poor, unskilled newcomers. Some ideas on how to break the stalemate.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18437134/site/newsweek/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 10:45:53 AM
Whether you like Lou Dobbs or not, he is one of the very few people who is speaking up for the American worker and the American middle class. You should actually listen to him sometime: he has indicated more than once that he doesn't think deporting "12 million" (more or less) illegal aliens is realistic. He does, however, want to secure our borders so that no more illegals join the ones already here. So he is, in part at least, agreeing with you.


Chak is forever glued to his Lou Dobbs tube. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 10:48:30 AM
I only threw in a few of the hundreds of thousands available through Google. If I were writing an "academic" paper, I wouldn't use Google as a primary source; I'd use traditional and online "serious" indexes to acquire articles. 

Chakotay,

If you were supporting your position for an academic paper, your evidence would be found lacking. The first three of your sources are one-sided opinions that do not even recognize that there is any other side the the argument. The author of the third link mistakenly referred to a HS exit certificate as a "degree" instead of a "diploma". I have to really wonder about his grasp of the situation.

The fourth source was creditable, and, although it mainly talked about the "research" of a conservative "think tanks", did include two paragraphs minimally stating the other side of the argument.

The conservative opinions are interesting. When conservatives speak on education topics, they tend to assert that the HS drop out rate is attrocious and educators are turning out many Americans who will never be able to hold a job. When they complain about immigration, suddenly the number of Americans with a HS diploma goes up, to contrast it with the more limited education of the immigrants. Interesting to see the conservatives at "thought"......




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 11:00:37 AM
I don't necessarily relish them close enough to be ringing near my house, but there aren't any near enough to be a problem, so I sleep quite well.

Oh please! I used a biblical quote as an illustration, nothing more. I also quote Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and occasionally, from Star Trek. They are for illustration purposes. Nothing more diabolical than that.

I notice that you have no rebuttal for the numbers given by the Border Patrol. Only a personal attack. Sad. Anyone who thinks that this country can go on indefinitely taking in 2 million legal immigrants every year, and possibly another 1-3 million illegally, is the one hallucinating. This country, like every other nation on earth, has its limits, and they are being stretched very thin in many areas. Sooner or later, we will pay the price for our failure to control our borders.

 

Chakotay

You:  What church bells?

Spare me.  You stated on the New York Times forum, in the context of a discussion on the Muslim call to prayer, that you disliked hearing church bells on Sunday mornings. 

You:  Many people use biblical quotes because they are well-known and immediately understood by most Americans. It doesn't necessarily indicate belief.

Please, spare me again, Old Man, the implication is clear after reading and posting with you for over a year. You used a biblical quote to appeal to an audience you don't even respect.  Just like the Bushies who laugh at the fundamentalists behind closed doors, but will say anything to get their votes and their money.

You:  The pouring of "lumpen hordes" across our borders is no hallucination, alas. The Border Patrol intercepts about 1 million per year, and they estimate that for each one they catch, 2 or 3 may get through. I hope it isn't that high, but it could be.

Your understanding of these numbers and these human beings is a hallucination.  You share Scrooge's contempt for, and fear of, the poor.

quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 11:06:19 AM
You didn't show up on this forum until a few days ago; how could I have referenced you as anything? If you don't "support" illegal immigration, you certainly support the illegal immigrants. To me, it's the same thing.

As for the Times posters that you have decided are "bigots", I don't always agree with your assessments, and basically, I saw no reason to get involved. The fact that someone is opposed to illegal immigration and wants to remove lawbreakers back to their own countries is not de facto proof of "bigotry",IMO.

Chakotay

You:  Still, I have no interest in getting into petty name-calling or personal attacks.

LOL.  Which is why you referenced me on this forum as “weird” and *supporting* “illegal immigration.”  And never had a word to say about the disgusting, obscene comments made on the Times forum by bigots;  just kindness and excuses for your true friends.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 11:09:10 AM
I'm not from Arkansas, so I have no idea whom Dunbar High was named after. I'm sure you will enlighten me. :-)


chak,
How is it disrespectful to require people to live by the law of the land?

Right.

Turn in that black man you "think" might be a runaway save.  Shove Rosa Parks to the gack of the bus.  Thell the Little Rock Nine that they must attend Dunbar High until they graduate.

BTW, Mr. "English teacher": Do you have any idea who Dunbar High was named after, or will you continue to "wear the mask that grins and lies"?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 02:35:05 PM
OK--here are a few:

http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/25/Opinion/Taking.More.Than.Jobs-2879763.shtml

http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_5735078

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55135

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070405-123141-6880r.htm


chak, that is not what I meant. Please once in a while provide some sort of source that allows us to see how you form opinions like:

“even those who pay some taxes, do not pay enough in taxes to outweigh what they cost us,”

Here, I‘ll show you how, using a mainstream source:

The controversy over immigrants and taxes generally centers on illegal immigrants. Reliable numbers are hard to find, but researchers generally agree that 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide work for employers who withhold income taxes and Social Security and Medicare payments from their paychecks. The authors of the Urban Institute study assumed 55 percent do. To get jobs, many of those immigrants use false Social Security numbers. That means they pay into the Social Security system for benefits they will never receive and pay income taxes without ever filing a return to determine whether they have overpaid.

The other 40 to 50 percent of illegal immigrants are paid under the table, researchers say.

But that does not mean that all illegal immigrants -- even those with fake documents -- avoid taxation. Together with immigrants who hold temporary protected status, illegal immigrants in the region paid about $1 billion in taxes in 1999, the study found. That is because there are other taxes unrelated to income: All buyers pay sales tax on new television sets, and tenants generally pay property tax in their rent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965_pf.html



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 02:48:19 PM
... A human being is responsible for his/her own mistakes, and may have to pay the consequences for willful errors. That is not showing disrespect; it is merely an illustration of the facts that actions have consequences. 


So how do you treat people that have made the “mistake” of coming here “illegally”?

Shall we shoot them in the desert? Deny food, water, and aid for the injured?

Humiliate them by rounding them up and tying them like animals?

Just what to you is acceptable treatment for folks that did no more than cross the border seeking a better life?

I am so tired of simpleminded people that have so little grasp of the issue that the only solution they can think of is to lash out at the poorest and the most helpless. They give lip service to punishing employers that hire illegals, yet the brunt of their anger falls on those that at best are guilty of a misdemeanor in most states.

I wonder if Americans would be willing to be treated the same way for speeding, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, prostitution, petty theft, etc…?

In this nation of immigrants we should already know that the immigrants are not the problem!




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 02:49:29 PM
Chakotay

You: I notice that you have no rebuttal for the numbers given by the Border Patrol.

Wrong.  As I already indicated, I have a different understanding of the numbers given by the border patrol.  And a different view of how things should be dealt with.

Try, for a change, arguing with what a person’s position actually is, not what you wish it were.

You: You didn't show up on this forum until a few days ago; how could I have referenced you as anything?

Still wearing the mask that grins and lies?  Have you no shame even in front of witnesses?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:50:07 PM
If Americans ever succeeded in getting rid of illegal immigrants – deporting those who are already here and preventing the entry of others – there would be an outcry from Latino activists, civil libertarians and the business community.

But that's nothing. Do you know who might really be furious? The Social Security Administration. If not for the billions in payroll taxes that illegal immigrants are paying into the system, the funding crisis facing Social Security would be much more serious and much more imminent. It is all thanks to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which made it a crime for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

True, the law is a joke that is rarely enforced, and that should bother the law-and-order crowd more than it does. But by forcing employers to require Social Security cards – even bogus ones – IRCA did manage to rope illegal immigrants into the system. Last year, contributions by illegal immigrants made up about 10 percent of the Social Security surplus – the difference between what the system takes in and what it doles out.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 03:00:16 PM
Whether you like Lou Dobbs or not, he is one of the very few people who is speaking up for the American worker and the American middle class. You should actually listen to him sometime: he has indicated more than once that he doesn't think deporting "12 million" (more or less) illegal aliens is realistic. He does, however, want to secure our borders so that no more illegals join the ones already here. So he is, in part at least, agreeing with you.


Chak is forever glued to his Lou Dobbs tube. 

I'd like to know how a CNN person heavily involved for years in the immigration issue could mistakenly inform viewerss, over and over, that the marchers WANT a guest worker program, when the marchers' platform explicitly opposes the guest worker program.

I consider that complete incompetance or deliberate deception, given the newscaster's background in the issues.  Either way, CNN should boot him.

As for his concern for the American worker, if he were so concerned, he'd be very interested in what the marchers had to say about the guest worker programs as they presently exist, including the recent report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:07:53 PM
I must further define my yes vote to a "guest worker" program.

I, as the marchers, am also worried that such a program would create a slave labor pool within the US as it did during the last century with the "brazeros," or temporary workers.

There would have to be strictly enforced wage regulations... and even then I would be distrustful.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:09:43 PM

I'd like to know how a CNN person heavily involved for years in the immigration issue could mistakenly inform viewerss, over and over, that the marchers WANT a guest worker program, when the marchers' platform explicitly opposes the guest worker program.

I consider that complete incompetance or deliberate deception, given the newscaster's background in the issues.  Either way, CNN should boot him.

As for his concern for the American worker, if he were so concerned, he'd be very interested in what the marchers had to say about the guest worker programs as they presently exist, including the recent report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.



Good post.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 04:08:47 PM
I doubt that any real immigration reform will come down the pike until after the election next year.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 04:48:21 PM
Chakotay,

I am curious. Why did you choose the name of a Native American of the future if you don't like or respect Native Americans? It seems a bit incongruous to me. Explain, if you will.

The even bigger irony of "Chakotay," or poetic justice - if you will - as we discovered through another Times poster, is that the actor who played his character is a Latino rights activist.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 06:40:24 PM
I wouldn't favor shooting at anyone who wasn't shooting at me! Nor would I deny anyone who needed it food, water, or emergency medical care.

If illegals are caught, I have no problem with deporting them. Everyone "wants a better life" (that's why I play the Texas lottery even though I know the odds), but the Texas lottery is perfectly legal. Crossing our borders without permission is not.

I can assure you that my desire to target employers is far from being "lip service". If they weren't hiring illegals, there would be little point to their (the illegals') coming here. I would start by securing the borders, whatever it takes. That way, we would basically have only those illegals who are here now to deal with. At the same time, I would establish a system that would allow employers to be certain that the people they hired were citizens or legal immigrants.

I would also require that the IRS and the SSA coordinate information. Did you realize that right now, even if the IRS discovers the same SSN being used by different people in different locations for vastly different types of employment, they are not under any obligation to notify the original holder of that SSN? This allows sometimes several illegals to use one stolen SSN.

Those employers who made no effort to verify SSNs and got caught with illegal employees would get a stiff fine for each illegal on the job. If they were caught doing it again, they'd get bigger fines and maybe some jail time. So yes, I am in favor of punishing employers. The illegals would simply be fingerprinted and photographed and sent home to wherever. Only those who had stolen American IDs would actually be punished, but IMO, every ID thief should get jail time, regardless of his/her point of origin.

BTW, I'm still waiting for those of you on the "pro" side to explain just how you would ameliorate the damages and stresses in our society if our population soars to 400-420 million or more as a result of immigration. Our growth rate would be far lower without so much immigration, according to the Census Bureau. If we do nothing about illegal immigration, the numbers could explode. What would you do to keep our society from coming apart at the seams?



... A human being is responsible for his/her own mistakes, and may have to pay the consequences for willful errors. That is not showing disrespect; it is merely an illustration of the facts that actions have consequences. 


So how do you treat people that have made the “mistake” of coming here “illegally”?

Shall we shoot them in the desert? Deny food, water, and aid for the injured?

Humiliate them by rounding them up and tying them like animals?

Just what to you is acceptable treatment for folks that did no more than cross the border seeking a better life?

I am so tired of simpleminded people that have so little grasp of the issue that the only solution they can think of is to lash out at the poorest and the most helpless. They give lip service to punishing employers that hire illegals, yet the brunt of their anger falls on those that at best are guilty of a misdemeanor in most states.

I wonder if Americans would be willing to be treated the same way for speeding, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, prostitution, petty theft, etc…?

In this nation of immigrants we should already know that the immigrants are not the problem!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 06:47:54 PM
Are you assuming that all of the marchers think exactly alike? There may be some who would be willing to at least try a "guest worker" program, rather than being deported. At any rate, I haven't heard Dobbs say that the marchers want a "guest" program, but I don't get to watch him every night.

I haven't heard Dobbs push for a "guest worker" program or any other specific remedy. He usually tries to get his guest speakers to express what they want to see happen, but seldom actually expresses a preference of his own.   

Whether you like Lou Dobbs or not, he is one of the very few people who is speaking up for the American worker and the American middle class. You should actually listen to him sometime: he has indicated more than once that he doesn't think deporting "12 million" (more or less) illegal aliens is realistic. He does, however, want to secure our borders so that no more illegals join the ones already here. So he is, in part at least, agreeing with you.


Chak is forever glued to his Lou Dobbs tube. 

I'd like to know how a CNN person heavily involved for years in the immigration issue could mistakenly inform viewerss, over and over, that the marchers WANT a guest worker program, when the marchers' platform explicitly opposes the guest worker program.

I consider that complete incompetance or deliberate deception, given the newscaster's background in the issues.  Either way, CNN should boot him.

As for his concern for the American worker, if he were so concerned, he'd be very interested in what the marchers had to say about the guest worker programs as they presently exist, including the recent report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 06:55:55 PM
IMO, if such a program were to go into effect, it should require that employers pay no less than minimum wage, and offer some health insurance. IOW, they should not be able to dip into the cheap labor pool to avoid paying a living wage...not that minimum wage is a living wage, but it's better that what some employers pay. And if the workers had health insurance, our hospital ERs wouldn't keep hemorrhaging money through unpaid bills. 

I must further define my yes vote to a "guest worker" program.

I, as the marchers, am also worried that such a program would create a slave labor pool within the US as it did during the last century with the "brazeros," or temporary workers.

There would have to be strictly enforced wage regulations... and even then I would be distrustful.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 07:00:56 PM
I think you're probably right on this...and it may not happen even then. It will depend primarily on the people who make it into the White House and Congress. Y'know, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we *suddenly* captured or killed Bin Laden a week or two before the election, but I'm getting a bit cynical in my old age.

I doubt that any real immigration reform will come down the pike until after the election next year.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 03, 2007, 08:27:54 PM
chak,
BTW, I'm still waiting for those of you on the "pro" side to explain just how you would ameliorate the damages and stresses in our society if our population soars to 400-420 million or more as a result of immigration.

There is no need to respond to your doomsday scenario.
As has been the case in the past, we will adapt.  Since it hasn't happened yet, I will not engage in silly speculation.
Of course, if there were no borders from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, the movement would not necessarily all be to what we today call the USA.
Broaden your horizons, man; there's not a single thing going on today that hasn't happened in the past.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 03, 2007, 09:49:57 PM
Two things are different: the source of our immigration is next door, not across the ocean, and the numbers are far higher than ever before because of that proximity.  We may adapt, as you so cheerfully assure us, or we may sink beneath the weight of such excessive immigration. Being a pessimist, I'd guess the latter.


chak,
BTW, I'm still waiting for those of you on the "pro" side to explain just how you would ameliorate the damages and stresses in our society if our population soars to 400-420 million or more as a result of immigration.

There is no need to respond to your doomsday scenario.
As has been the case in the past, we will adapt.  Since it hasn't happened yet, I will not engage in silly speculation.
Of course, if there were no borders from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, the movement would not necessarily all be to what we today call the USA.
Broaden your horizons, man; there's not a single thing going on today that hasn't happened in the past.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 10:09:34 PM
Two things are different: the source of our immigration is next door, not across the ocean, and the numbers are far higher than ever before because of that proximity.  We may adapt, as you so cheerfully assure us, or we may sink beneath the weight of such excessive immigration. Being a pessimist, I'd guess the latter.


chak,
BTW, I'm still waiting for those of you on the "pro" side to explain just how you would ameliorate the damages and stresses in our society if our population soars to 400-420 million or more as a result of immigration.

There is no need to respond to your doomsday scenario.
As has been the case in the past, we will adapt.  Since it hasn't happened yet, I will not engage in silly speculation.
Of course, if there were no borders from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, the movement would not necessarily all be to what we today call the USA.
Broaden your horizons, man; there's not a single thing going on today that hasn't happened in the past.

Throwing millions of people out of a country does not stop or slow global population growth.  Nor does it redress issues around war, poverty, and bigotry – the three evils Dr. King spoke of as challenging us as nations – and that which leads to large numbers of people migrating in the first place.

Also, a recent Times article reported that, if it were not for immigration, our present population growth would not be enough.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 10:10:37 PM
Chakotay,

Your pessimism is the cause of your problem with immigration. I don't know what the population of Mexico is, but I suspect that would be the ultimate limit to the immigration. Then, Mexico could be annexed, and we'd have a few new states to roam around in. Under the Aztecs and Mayans, Mexico was a successful civilization. It could be again. Think positive, Chakotay! Your namesake would!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 03, 2007, 10:12:19 PM
Are you assuming that all of the marchers think exactly alike? There may be some who would be willing to at least try a "guest worker" program, rather than being deported. At any rate, I haven't heard Dobbs say that the marchers want a "guest" program, but I don't get to watch him every night.

I haven't heard Dobbs push for a "guest worker" program or any other specific remedy. He usually tries to get his guest speakers to express what they want to see happen, but seldom actually expresses a preference of his own.   

Whether you like Lou Dobbs or not, he is one of the very few people who is speaking up for the American worker and the American middle class. You should actually listen to him sometime: he has indicated more than once that he doesn't think deporting "12 million" (more or less) illegal aliens is realistic. He does, however, want to secure our borders so that no more illegals join the ones already here. So he is, in part at least, agreeing with you.


Chak is forever glued to his Lou Dobbs tube. 

I'd like to know how a CNN person heavily involved for years in the immigration issue could mistakenly inform viewerss, over and over, that the marchers WANT a guest worker program, when the marchers' platform explicitly opposes the guest worker program.

I consider that complete incompetance or deliberate deception, given the newscaster's background in the issues.  Either way, CNN should boot him.

As for his concern for the American worker, if he were so concerned, he'd be very interested in what the marchers had to say about the guest worker programs as they presently exist, including the recent report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.



As posted about earlier, the marchers consisted of a number of organizations represented under one recognized umbrella group organizing through one main website.  The blog I also linked earlier excerpts quotes by Dobbs directly from the CNN transcript at their website.

So what they assert is substantiated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 04, 2007, 12:42:46 PM
By "Times" I assume you mean the NY Times, which is ultra-liberal on immigration (and a lot of other topics). I suppose it depends upon what they think we need so many people for. I see nothing wrong with a relatively stable population, or a small rate of growth. They are just echoing the big business viewpoint that nothing matters except the bottom line. More growth, more money, even if the nation sinks into chaos. Even without immigration, our population would grow, but at a much slower rate. I see nothing wrong with that.   


also, a recent Times article reported that, if it were not for immigration, our present population growth would not be enough.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 04, 2007, 12:54:51 PM
The population of Mexico is around 108 million, according to the CIA's estimate for July of 2007. But don't forget that although the majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from Mexico, there are also many coming from Central and South America, the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. Do you suppose that we can "annex" the whole world?

You don't have to go back to the Aztecs and Mayas: Mexico is not a poor country, although a lot of its people live in grinding poverty. The problem is that the wealthy elite take most of the country's wealth for itself. Their poorer brothers and sisters get pushed north. What is needed is for Mexico's people to stay home and construct a decent society there. They should form a political party for the people and construct a truly democratic government, that would not allow the wealthiest Mexicans to take all the country's wealth. Of course, it's so much simpler to just say, "Go north, young man/woman...and send back money."

 

Chakotay,

Your pessimism is the cause of your problem with immigration. I don't know what the population of Mexico is, but I suspect that would be the ultimate limit to the immigration. Then, Mexico could be annexed, and we'd have a few new states to roam around in. Under the Aztecs and Mayans, Mexico was a successful civilization. It could be again. Think positive, Chakotay! Your namesake would!






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:21:25 PM
Does the RCC have anything to do with keeping these people living in poverty?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 04, 2007, 01:26:30 PM
Here is a link to an interesting exchange in the Wall Street Journal of June 26, 2006. They cover the various costs and benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115100948305787940-tA5PP0Ya_9U0AlXBQQhnaDyMIYc_20060725.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 02:05:37 PM
Here is a link to an interesting exchange in the Wall Street Journal of June 26, 2006. They cover the various costs and benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115100948305787940-tA5PP0Ya_9U0AlXBQQhnaDyMIYc_20060725.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Good article.  Thanks for the link.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 04, 2007, 02:47:55 PM
Senator Tancredo isn't really against illegal immigration.

I know that sounds wack. But. You're only for or against something in reality if you also endorse the measures it would take to make your position happen. So if I say I'm against murder but oppose making murder a crime, I'm not really against murder. If I support making murder a crime but oppose spending anything on finding, prosecuting and jailing murderers, I'm not really against murder.

Tancredo says he's against illegal immigration but he opposes a biometric national ID. I don't see how we can make any sort of dent on finding who's here illegally unless we have a way of tracking everyone who's here, who's employed by which employers, who's putting kids in school, who's getting taxpayer-provided medical care.

I found this out from watching the first Republican presidential candidate wannabe debate last night.

We could rid America of most of its international trespassers if we could make it impossible for them to get work or taxpayer-supported social services.

None of this should be construed as meaning I oppose immigration--only that I support living under rule of law and that I oppose lawbreaking. If we need lots and lots of immigrants, then we can reform our immigration laws and regulation infrastructure and admit lots of them. If we as a country decide we want to bring in people on humanitarian grounds we can expel the Mexicans/Guatemalans who came here because their own governments suck, and instead bring in the 3 million Iraq war refugees who we should admit because it's our direct fault that they're refugees. Or if you only want to consider suffering without regard to our culpability, we should kick out the Mexicans and bring in the starving millions of black Darfurians. They're vastly worse off than the Mexicans coming here.

Which means that whether you support massive immigration on humanitarian or "national guilt" grounds you should support expelling Mexicans and replacing them with either Iraqis or Darfurians (starving Bangladeshi would also do, along with victims of Zimbabwe's black dictator etc.).

As for Tancredo...I just wish he had the courage of his very articulate convictions.

But then very few people actually support their own ideas. Mostly they like to posture in front of a mirror. And that's true for both sides of this debate.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 03:33:12 PM
But then very few people actually support their own ideas. Mostly they like to posture in front of a mirror. And that's true for both sides of this debate.

I would agree with that statement.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 03:59:54 PM
How is your blog going, Ehkzu?

Do the people you address on other forums respond to you, or is it a bit like standing in front of a mirror?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 12:41:36 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy added a modest 88,000 jobs in April, the slimmest gain in more than two years, and the unemployment rate edged up, the government said on Friday in a report that showed weaker economic growth taking a toll on the job market.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Labor Department said the jobless rate ticked up to 4.5 percent from 4.4 percent in March, suggesting the labor market has finally begun to weaken following tepid economic growth in the first three months of 2007.

Maybe this will keep some of those illegal immigrants home.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 06, 2007, 12:42:24 PM
Concerning the guest worker programs the marchers oppose, also the subject of the Southern Poverty Law Center report linked here earlier.  An AFL CIO affiliated Mexican union organizer working on reforming one aspect of the program (agricultural) has been murdered in Mexico.

The report, http://www.splcenter.org/legal/guestreport/index.jsp, if you haven't read it already, is very informative, and compares the guest worker programs to a form of modern day slavery.  Reading about the visa programs and the "recruiters" who profit from them reminded me of things I've read about the sharecropping system down south after slavery "ended," but essentially did not. 

Published on Friday, May 4, 2007 by McClatchy Newspapers

Murder of Mexican Union Organizer Alarms Workers, Activists
by David Ovalle

MONTERREY, Mexico - Santiago Cruz moved to this northern Mexico city to help organize Mexican farmworkers bound for the United States under a legal guest-worker program. His killers spared him no agony.
They bound his hands and feet with strips of T-shirt, strangled him using a beach towel adorned with a cartoon U.S. dollar bill and smashed his head through a wooden banister.

The slaying last month remains unsolved, alarming human rights activists on both sides of the border. Police won’t talk about their investigation, but Cruz’s friends say they’re certain he was killed because of his efforts to stop corruption in a little-known program that provides seasonal workers legally to U.S. farms.

Cruz worked for the Ohio-based Farm Labor Organizing Committee, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. The committee represents thousands of Mexicans who travel to the United States each year with H2A visas, which the United States grants to workers recruited abroad.

Two weeks before his death, Cruz had begun an education campaign in nearby villages aimed at stopping rogue recruiters from extorting illegal fees from farmworkers headed north.

“We were shaking up big forces,” said Castulo Benavides, the union’s Monterrey director.

Cruz was found murdered April 9 in his office. His possessions were undisturbed and now are packed into a lime-green suitcase with no immediate destination.

The scene was gruesome. Globs of crimson blood still dot the walls and floors.

Union supporters have blasted authorities in the state of Nuevo Leon for not solving the crime yet. The Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has urged the state government to find the killers and protect union members.

The union has renamed its office - in a nondescript strip mall near the U.S. consulate - the Santiago Rafael Cruz Justice Center and has started a fund for his family.

The AFL-CIO has condemned the murder, as has the city council in Toledo, Ohio, where the farm labor committee is headquartered.

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, is trying to organize a congressional delegation to visit Monterrey and investigate Cruz’s death and alleged corruption among recruiters of temporary agricultural workers.

 [article in full at link]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/05/957/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 10:26:39 PM
Ehkzu,

You have a strange way of determining what people mean when they say something. If they don't support your solution, then they don't mean what they say? Hogwash.

Consider: If the cost of keeping down illegal immigration is to go to a national ID system, then the cost is too high!

Consider: I do not want to have a biometric national ID.

Have you any idea how much ID'ing and tracking all Americans would cost? Far more than extending schooling and medical care to people who should be made legal, so they can pay taxes and receive medical insurance from the git-go. Just hand out green cards at the border and stop the slipping through the fence. End of problem. No more "illegals".

 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 05:53:51 AM
I believe that the immigration law allows only something like 67,000 people to enter the US for work a year.  Hardly realistic, IMHO.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 07, 2007, 12:27:41 PM
It wouldn't be necessary to ID and track all Americans, if the objective is to be able to verify the status of immigrant workers. The "green card" could be made biometric and easy to verify if ICE would establish a modern computer system. People who are "legal" would have the biometric ID and should go through the verification process as easily as making a credit card purchase; illegals wouldn't have the ID and could be de facto assumed to be here illegally.

I fear that you greatly underestimate the  costs of extending schooling and medical care to all the illegals. We don't even know for certain how many there are. One thing we should never do, IMO, is to "hand out green cards" at the border. We would find ourselves swamped by the onrush of millions of poor people from the Third World. I doubt that instituting a biometric ID would be any more expensive than trying to take on the job of caring for all the world's poor. This is not a job for one country to take on, especially one with a crushing national debt (thanks to Bush & Co.).

Ehkzu,

Have you any idea how much ID'ing and tracking all Americans would cost? Far more than extending schooling and medical care to people who should be made legal, so they can pay taxes and receive medical insurance from the git-go. Just hand out green cards at the border and stop the slipping through the fence. End of problem. No more "illegals".

 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 07, 2007, 12:34:14 PM
There are different quotas for different types of work visas. I believe that the agriculture quota is about what you quoted. I see no problem with setting up a temporary work visa that would allow the holder to come and go. It should be limited to the worker; they shouldn't be able to bring their families along. However, it shouldn't be tied to a particular job or employer. People could register for agricultural labor, or various other types of labor, and "job centers" could be set up to match employers with available labor. When the worker had completed his/her contract, he/she could go home, seek other employment, etc.   

I believe that the immigration law allows only something like 67,000 people to enter the US for work a year.  Hardly realistic, IMHO.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:53:42 PM
There are different quotas for different types of work visas. I believe that the agriculture quota is about what you quoted. I see no problem with setting up a temporary work visa that would allow the holder to come and go. It should be limited to the worker; they shouldn't be able to bring their families along. However, it shouldn't be tied to a particular job or employer. People could register for agricultural labor, or various other types of labor, and "job centers" could be set up to match employers with available labor. When the worker had completed his/her contract, he/she could go home, seek other employment, etc.   


I believe that is how it works now.  My partner runs the program for the State of NH.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 07, 2007, 02:51:29 PM
I don't know exactly how it works, but from what I have read, at this time the immigrant's visa is tied to a particular employer, and if he/she quits or loses that job, the visa is invalidated. If that is the case, it should be changed so that the "guest" or temporary worker is free to change employers. This would keep the "guests" from becoming "slaves", as they could change employers without losing their visas.

 
There are different quotas for different types of work visas. I believe that the agriculture quota is about what you quoted. I see no problem with setting up a temporary work visa that would allow the holder to come and go. It should be limited to the worker; they shouldn't be able to bring their families along. However, it shouldn't be tied to a particular job or employer. People could register for agricultural labor, or various other types of labor, and "job centers" could be set up to match employers with available labor. When the worker had completed his/her contract, he/she could go home, seek other employment, etc.   


I believe that is how it works now.  My partner runs the program for the State of NH.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 07, 2007, 05:06:45 PM
BTW, did anyone see Lou Dobbs' segment on "60 Minutes" last night? It was quite interesting. I was surprised to learn that he was born in Texas and grew up on a farm. He still runs a small farm about a 3-hour round trip commute from his office in New York. He says that he is in favor of immigration, but is disgusted with the federal government for failing to enforce our laws. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 08:02:19 PM
What, exactly, is a biometric ID system?

I am imagining that it is invasive, inserted in the person, and needs to be medically or surgically implanted and removed.

What can you accomplish with marking the immigrants but not the citizenry. There is already a problem with people who look like they could be immigrants being expected to prove they aren't. That is unconsciousable and unamerican. It is what was projected as happening under a socialist regime in 1984. Now, you want to bring it about as a conservative response to immigration. I'm aghast!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 08, 2007, 11:00:52 AM
A "biometric" system could incorporate the person's fingerprints, retina scan, even a coded voice print. In short, it incorporates some aspect of the individual's identity that can't belong to anyone else. It could go further and add, for example, a microchip under the person's skin (as is done with pets), but I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest that. It's not going to turn anyone into one of the Borg; it just assures that the person can be identified with some assurance of validity.

Regardless of appearance, an American citizen or a legal immigrant should be able to show ID that would prove his/her identity. The biometric ID (green card) with, for example, a fingerprint, would prove that the immigrant was legal and that he/she was the same person. The illegal alien wouldn't have this form of ID, and couldn't produce it when requested. It shouldn't be necessary to make everyone carry an ID, since the only ones in question are the immigrants, and those who are legal need only to whip out their biometric ID cards. Shouldn't be a huge problem for anyone except illegals!     

What, exactly, is a biometric ID system?

I am imagining that it is invasive, inserted in the person, and needs to be medically or surgically implanted and removed.

What can you accomplish with marking the immigrants but not the citizenry. There is already a problem with people who look like they could be immigrants being expected to prove they aren't. That is unconsciousable and unamerican. It is what was projected as happening under a socialist regime in 1984. Now, you want to bring it about as a conservative response to immigration. I'm aghast!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 08, 2007, 11:01:52 AM
FYI: good article in today's Truthout about the need for universal, single-payer health insurance:

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050707HA.shtml


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 06:28:26 PM
Chakotay,

That was a good article. I am in the process of moving from employer insurance to medicare with a supplement. The deductibles under medicare are a problem, as they all fall in January, which is not exactly the best month for me to have incresed costs coming just after the holidays. But, what seems incongruous to me is that medicare, which will provide the bulk of my insurance, cost $70 a month, and the supplement will cost $250. Of course, the supplement includes drug coverage, but in looking at the literature, one of my regular meds will not be paid for at all. I will have to ask the doctor for something different. And, it has been working for me for about a year.

The past year, hubby and I have had a lot of medical procedures done - surgery and surgically-performed tests. It is interesting to see how much of a discount the insurance companies wangle from the docs and hospitals, so they pay out less than half the actual "charge". I'm not sure if Medicare also does this, but it would seem that a very good way to lower health care costs to the uninsured would be to allow them those "discounts" as well.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 09, 2007, 12:06:56 PM
There was a letter in yesterday's NY Times from a family doctor who complained that insurance companies were forcing doctors to do more and more for the same pay or even less. I work part-time in a hospital on the weekends, and I have seen this sort of thing when our department's services are deeply discounted by the insurers. The hospitals are forced to agree to this, but then try to make up at least some of the difference from "private pay" patients and the uninsured. This is one really screwed-up system.

I favor a universal system, similar to those in other industrialized nations. Yes, it would raise taxes, but if it were modeled on Medicare, including a decent drug coverage plan, most people would benefit in the long run. At least, there would be no need for people to put off health care because they can't afford it, and since everyone would be covered, everyone, even (gasp!) the wealthy, would be required to contribute. 

Chakotay,

That was a good article. I am in the process of moving from employer insurance to medicare with a supplement. The deductibles under medicare are a problem, as they all fall in January, which is not exactly the best month for me to have incresed costs coming just after the holidays. But, what seems incongruous to me is that medicare, which will provide the bulk of my insurance, cost $70 a month, and the supplement will cost $250. Of course, the supplement includes drug coverage, but in looking at the literature, one of my regular meds will not be paid for at all. I will have to ask the doctor for something different. And, it has been working for me for about a year.

The past year, hubby and I have had a lot of medical procedures done - surgery and surgically-performed tests. It is interesting to see how much of a discount the insurance companies wangle from the docs and hospitals, so they pay out less than half the actual "charge". I'm not sure if Medicare also does this, but it would seem that a very good way to lower health care costs to the uninsured would be to allow them those "discounts" as well.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 09, 2007, 03:53:01 PM
The Senate is allegedly near a compromise on immigration:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/immigration.debate/index.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 10, 2007, 02:54:02 PM
Very interesting, little known details:
Mexico banned foreign investment in its energy industry back in 1938. Since that time, Mexican oil production has been controlled by the ineffective, polluting and corrupt state monopoly, Pemex. If Mexico opened itself to the exploration and development of its oil resources by American entrepreneurs and technology, Mexican oil might someday displace Arab oil from the U.S. market altogether. Of course, before Mexico agrees to anything like this, the United States might need to make some immigration reforms. And this could explain why Bush has betrayed some of his conservative supporters, proposing a new guest worker program favoring Mexican laborers.

A guest worker program will have to provide the same protections that everyone has working in the US.

But like I've said before, the long term solution will be for Mexico to create an economy that Mexicans can survive working in. Once that happens, watch the border crossings decline dramatically.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 05:47:18 AM
Very interesting, little known details:
Mexico banned foreign investment in its energy industry back in 1938. Since that time, Mexican oil production has been controlled by the ineffective, polluting and corrupt state monopoly, Pemex. If Mexico opened itself to the exploration and development of its oil resources by American entrepreneurs and technology, Mexican oil might someday displace Arab oil from the U.S. market altogether. Of course, before Mexico agrees to anything like this, the United States might need to make some immigration reforms. And this could explain why Bush has betrayed some of his conservative supporters, proposing a new guest worker program favoring Mexican laborers.

A guest worker program will have to provide the same protections that everyone has working in the US.

But like I've said before, the long term solution will be for Mexico to create an economy that Mexicans can survive working in. Once that happens, watch the border crossings decline dramatically.



A customer of mine had an old floor removed that contained asbestos.  The crew that did the work was from the Dominican Republic.  They were not wearing protective gear or masks.  Had them been American, this would not have happened.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 07:05:41 AM
Sam, you should have called OSHA. Of course, I don't know how responsive OSHA is these days, but back when the asbestos was removed from the school buildings, they were right on it, requiring that NO ONE be allowed in the buildings until they were finished, and they wore special clothing and looked almost like astronauts.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 09:38:51 AM
That's why a guest worker program would have to provide the same protections we ALL have in the workplace. Anyone that works here, is subject to the same conditions, responsibilities and protections.

This setting of standards in turn can at the same time benefit American workers as well.

I'm a firm believer in a rising tide that lifts ALL boats.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 11, 2007, 12:06:21 PM
Also, if "guest workers" had the same protections and had to be paid at least minimum wage, it might make the employers less anxious to dive into the "cheap labor" pool. If there were less financial incentive to hire low-skilled immigrants, it might help to dry up the "jobs magnet" that draws them here in the first place.

BTW, MSNBC today says that the compromise on immigration "reform" (a.k.a. amnesty) appears to be unraveling:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18609038/

That's why a guest worker program would have to provide the same protections we ALL have in the workplace. Anyone that works here, is subject to the same conditions, responsibilities and protections.

This setting of standards in turn can at the same time benefit American workers as well.

I'm a firm believer in a rising tide that lifts ALL boats.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 03:24:57 PM
A 13 year wait won't cut it.

It will just drive workers underground once more...



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 03:58:38 PM
13 years before they can bring the wife and kiddies with them? Will we have nationalized ho-houses to service their needs?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 09:48:15 PM
I will ask Leroy when I can.

It is stories like this that will wrench our hearts if we enact a legislation that tears apart families like you describe. I will always believe that Americans are basically a good-hearted people. If foolish leaders lead them to enact foolish laws, they will, in time, see the errors of their ways, and change. It took almost a hundred years to allow our black citizens to enjoy full rights in all corners of our country, but when we got intent on doing it, we actually did it very quickly. I'm sure, that from the perspective of a poor southern black man, it was not quickly, but considering the centuries of slavery and oppression that preceded our awakening, it was something like a generation in which we did a massive overhaul of our way of thinking.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 10:12:04 PM
I think some lawmakers fail to realize that it is in all our interests to have Americans or future Americans growing up with their parents, and, with families intact.  We get healthier people with healthier support systems that otherwise, as the piper comes knocking on the door for payment, will fall down on someone else somewhere else.  We will have a healthier, happier nation, in the long run, this way.  And scores of costly difficulties going the other route.

The primary argument for me, personally, is ethical/moral/humanitarian.

But I think it is inseparable from a realistic and highly self-serving one (i.e. our national interest).

Ironically, the representative in Congress who cry “family values” the loudest seem to be the ones who care the littlest as to these values, or to even understand why such matters are that important.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 10:15:43 PM
It is in our national interest for American children to be growing up with their parents having legitimate status, out in the light of day, along with equal rights.

America IS its people.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 10:17:00 PM
And to give them less WILL hurt the rights of other Americans.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 10:24:50 PM
We talk about businesses having money bringing people in.  Well, now businesses have money in sending people out (and to hell with the cost to the nation), along with building that ugly Berlin thing.

And some of our representatives (like the start of this entire thing, Sessy himself) have money invested in both.

There should be an investigation.

Meanwhile, Americans need universal health care and we need to get the heck out of Iraq.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 12, 2007, 05:02:29 AM
Yet again those favoring amnesty violate their own principles. If we're supposed to give succor to illegal aliens because they're needy, then by that measure we should either reduce all Americans to the living standards of Afghan goatherds and distribute all our wealth to the world's poor--or we should kick out the relatively affluent Mexicans and replace them with the starving homeless refugees of the Darfur and equally destitute souls from Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh, India etc., all of whom would think they'd died and gone to heaven if they could enjoy the living standards of the average Mexican peasant living in Mexico.

But the amnestyites absolutely never say any of this. Somehow in their minds the only people who deserve help are those who speak Spanish and come from Latin America. Whence such selective sympathy? Why are only Latinos deserving?

That's either parochial--or racist (racism being the favoring of one race above all others).





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 05:57:06 AM
We've already been told that being Mexican is not a race.

I would agree that our concerns tend to forget much of the world's poor or refugee population. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 12, 2007, 06:29:46 AM
Ekhzu

We have 12-20 million people here – multiply and imagine how many have children or other family members here legally, or already American citiznes.  Coworkers, teachers, classmates, relatives, neighbors, acquaintances.  We are speaking about an enormous number of human beings and lives being deeply affected by decisions before Congress.  They are already "assimilated" into American life and our economy.  Don’t you think paths to citizenship serve not only their interests, but our own?

Or do you think having ICE hunt them head by head for profit, raiding communities and workplaces, terrorizing mass numbers of people, including American coworkers, jailing them, their children and infants, processing them through our court system, with many people staying in those prison for years, sending people back and bus or plane at a cost of at least billions -- would be beneficial?  And then the Berlin wall for billions more, and taking how long to complete, not to mention the lawsuits sure to ensue from property owners, environmental issues, raised stakes for people attempting to circumvent barriers even risker crossings, etc .....  And then the consideration that human migration patterns are notorious for changing in a relatively short period of time -- likely, before the ugly Communist thing gets put up.

The private for profit prison system is a racket.  We are better off with these peaceable people back at work, going to school and quietly living their lives.  And providing for our nation's people by mapping out reasonable paths to citizenship and protecting all worker's rights by legitimizing all workers' status, opening their ability to seek other employment, and getting rid of these disreputable recruiters who keep visiting workers in a state of peonage. 

I thought the points on the marcher's platform were very reasonable.  Are you familiar with those specific points?

Not to mention that, if we got out of Iraq, IMO, we could focus with much benefit on our relationship with Mexico, who is right next door.  Now all the way over in the Middle East.  Mexico could prove to be a highly strategic and important ally in some of the issues we are present face (for example, Iraq/Iran alliance) and because of King George's blunders.

So I am seeing a lot of misunderstanding on your part as to where persons supporting amnesty are coming from.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 12, 2007, 06:38:02 AM
Legalizing and providing reasonable paths to citizenship could be a very big boost to the economy.

And a boost it certainly could use.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 12, 2007, 07:51:13 AM
incadove,
It is in our national interest for American children to be growing up with their parents having legitimate status, out in the light of day, along with equal rights.

As usual, you shine the disinfecting light of sunshine on the pollution of the nativists.

Why is it that the same folks who are always screaming about "family values" are willing to break up families of immigrants by sending them "back where they belong" while leaving their American citizen children to fend for themselves.

Oh well, no one ever accused Boobus Rightwingus Americanus of consistency.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 11:11:14 AM
Boobus Rightwingus Americanus

That I like.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 12, 2007, 10:47:07 PM
Thank you, Cap.  I always like seeing your posts. ;-)

IMO, we also have a national interest in having American children grow up in the United States, going through our public school system.

And the more their parents are enabled to better take care of them here, the better the future for all of us, too.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 13, 2007, 03:27:26 AM
I hear much hand-wringing in this forum about the plight of those swept up in ICE raids. I'll tackle this sort of political argument here.

Both left wingers and right wingers trade in powerful emotional appeals, mostly focusing on the suffering or the depredation of individuals. The right wing used the rapist Willie Horton to defeat Dukakis. Here in California the left used a "Hate Ahnold" campaign to defeat a nonpartisan redistricting initiative. Goes on all the time.

With immigration, the left uses Maria Sanchez (to pick a name out of a hat), hardworking, honest mother of three citizen children. The lefties ask how can we be so heartless as to deny her the good life we ourselves enjoy?

Then the right uses Guillermo Horton, evil rapist/murderer (to pick another name out of a hat), currently doing life and then some in a federal pen. So the right asks how can we be so misguided as to let this monster into our country to prey on our wives and daughters?

The right also brings up Yung Jo (yet another hat name), who has gone the legal route and been on an immigration waiting list for 10 years. and who is a professional engineer whose wife is an accountant. Here the right asks how can we let Maria Sanchez, regardless of her virtues, jump the queue ahead of Yung Jo, who played by our rules?

All these stereotypes have a kernel of truth.

But using them to make decisions means renouncing what makes us different from a dog. Dogs have great capacity for empathy. If someone they care about is hurting they'll do everything they can to allay their pain.

But they can't count.

We can. So we can weigh one hurt against another, and act based on the greater good--not just individual situations. To do any less is to renounce our humanity.

ICE raids scare people. Maria Sanchez looks up at the brutal cop, eyes welling with tears, clutching her terrified children around her. Whose heart wouldn't melt? Well, remember Guillermo Horton. And Yung Jo. If we let Maria in illegally, we let Guillermo in too. And we keep Yung out. You have to advocate all three situations writ large, or, like me, advocate rule of law--which has served this country pretty well, and which I'd be darned reluctant to give up. Especially after having experienced what relatively lawless societies are like.

Arresting drug dealers--excuse me, "undocumented pharmacists"--scares them too. And it really scares their children. But we can't go around not arresting lawbreakers because it scares them. And we can't let children provide lawbreakers with a free pass. You can see where that would lead.

Of course those who advocate amnesty for illegal aliens don't consider them lawbreakers. But that's not up to you, or to me. I'm not a country--just a citizen of one. I don't approve of all our laws, and I despise some of them. And I do what I can to change laws I don't like. But I don't set myself above our legal system just because it isn't perfect. No sane person wants to live without laws, and making each individual an autonomous arbiter of our legal system produces just such a result.

Historically, America has benefitted greatly from immigration. One reason is our skill, both personally and institutionally, in assimilating foreigners. However, it's always a problem when you get an influx of foreigners from one culture--enough to form huge ghettos where they can preserve their original language and culture and not assimilate. That's the problem Europe is facing today. And it's the problem we're facing in the Southwest here. I'm fine with letting thousands of Maria Sanchezes into our country legally, if that's what our country needs. But I'm not in favor of letting millions in illegally.

And as with the last two times in the last 40 years that we granted amnesty to everyone who'd managed to get here, I see the long-term consequences of illegal immigration being so bad for our country that scaring Ms. Sanchez and her children is by far the less evil. She actually has a country that's responsible for her welfare--most likely Mexico. So I recommend that all those who feel bad for the plight of all the Maria Sanchezes demonstrate in front of Mexican consulates and embassies and encourage vigorous international efforts to get Mexico to do right by its citizens. To claim these people are America's problem is actually an insult to Mexican soverignty and to its dignidad as a nation.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 13, 2007, 04:43:01 AM
Excellent post. I definitely agree that we must enforce our laws. And that allowing massive immigration from one culture/language is a risky practice at best. From what I have read, California is in danger of becoming a de facto Mexican province, with illegal aliens streaming in every day. Texas is probably not far behind.

I do have sympathy for people who want a better life, but then, who doesn't want a better life? My view is that you take care of your "own" first, and after they are OK, then you deal with outsiders. In terms of nations, I would put the welfare of Americans first, and then worry about people in other countries who want to come here. It is the responsibility of their countries to see to their welfare, not ours.

An article by Bob Herbert  in the NY Times points out that the poverty rate is rising. He doesn't say, but it seems reasonable to assume that at least some of it may be due to people's jobs being lost to immigrants or being downgraded by the availability of cheap labor.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051207C.shtml

Let's look out for our own people first, before we try to play Lord and Lady Bountiful to the Third World.
 

I hear much hand-wringing in this forum about the plight of those swept up in ICE raids. I'll tackle this sort of political argument here.

<snip>

Of course those who advocate amnesty for illegal aliens don't consider them lawbreakers. But that's not up to you, or to me. I'm not a country--just a citizen of one. I don't approve of all our laws, and I despise some of them. And I do what I can to change laws I don't like. But I don't set myself above our legal system just because it isn't perfect. No sane person wants to live without laws, and making each individual an autonomous arbiter of our legal system produces just such a result.

Historically, America has benefitted greatly from immigration. One reason is our skill, both personally and institutionally, in assimilating foreigners. However, it's always a problem when you get an influx of foreigners from one culture--enough to form huge ghettos where they can preserve their original language and culture and not assimilate. That's the problem Europe is facing today. And it's the problem we're facing in the Southwest here. I'm fine with letting thousands of Maria Sanchezes into our country legally, if that's what our country needs. But I'm not in favor of letting millions in illegally.

And as with the last two times in the last 40 years that we granted amnesty to everyone who'd managed to get here, I see the long-term consequences of illegal immigration being so bad for our country that scaring Ms. Sanchez and her children is by far the less evil. She actually has a country that's responsible for her welfare--most likely Mexico. So I recommend that all those who feel bad for the plight of all the Maria Sanchezes demonstrate in front of Mexican consulates and embassies and encourage vigorous international efforts to get Mexico to do right by its citizens. To claim these people are America's problem is actually an insult to Mexican soverignty and to its dignidad as a nation.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 13, 2007, 05:09:08 AM
Ekkzu

You assert that you are taking a position that is neither right or left, but essentially, you are simply coming down on the right, with the same reasoning;  you are proceeding on the basis that law must be obeyed.  But laws can be wrong, and under consideration for change.


Of course those who advocate amnesty for illegal aliens don't consider them lawbreakers. But that's not up to you, or to me.
[emphasis added]

It most certainly is.  That is why our representatives are debating the reform of these laws at present.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 14, 2007, 09:59:56 AM
Basically for the last 10+ years, conservatives have been in charge in this country.

You'd think by now folks would have learned to stop voting against their own best interests.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 11:53:41 AM
Basically for the last 10+ years, conservatives have been in charge in this country.

I think it is fairer to say that "neo-conservatives" have been unduly influencing this country.

That dog has had its day. progress is what the American People want, and that will come by way of moderate politics, IMO.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 12:22:30 PM
Basically for the last 10+ years, conservatives have been in charge in this country.

I think it is fairer to say that "neo-conservatives" have been unduly influencing this country.

That dog has had its day. progress is what the American People want, and that will come by way of moderate politics, IMO.

Do you think a Hagel-Blumburg ticket would be moderate?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 02:37:25 PM
Lest my comments cast me in the "hand-wringing" category, I should point out that the purpose of the  National Center's international (they also help with abducted children not taken out of/brought into the US) work is to RETURN children to OTHER countries after they are brought here in violation of international law (I assume no one would want that violated any more than they want US laws violated).


I wouldn’t be concerned about being cast in any category created by Ekhzu.

What about countries where women have no parental rights?  I vaguely remember a case of an American woman who left an abusive husband in a Muslim nation with her daughter.  (Iran?  I can’t remember.)  By their laws, she had no rights, and the daughter was taken back – or even kidnapped from the U.S. – once there, she hadn’t a chance of recovering her.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:06:42 PM
Lest my comments cast me in the "hand-wringing" category, I should point out that the purpose of the  National Center's international (they also help with abducted children not taken out of/brought into the US) work is to RETURN children to OTHER countries after they are brought here in violation of international law (I assume no one would want that violated any more than they want US laws violated).


I wouldn’t be concerned about being cast in any category created by Ekhzu.

What about countries where women have no parental rights?  I vaguely remember a case of an American woman who left an abusive husband in a Muslim nation with her daughter.  (Iran?  I can’t remember.)  By their laws, she had no rights, and the daughter was taken back – or even kidnapped from the U.S. – once there, she hadn’t a chance of recovering her.


I remember a story like that.  It was Saudi Arabia.  The mother finally did get her daughters when they travel to Europe, if I remember correctly.  It was on 60 Minutes I think.  You know that "liberal" Sunday evening news show.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 03:15:12 PM
Quote
I vaguely remember a case of an American woman who left an abusive husband in a Muslim nation with her daughter.  (Iran?  I can’t remember.)  By their laws, she had no rights, and the daughter was taken back – or even kidnapped from the U.S. – once there, she hadn’t a chance of recovering her.
Not Without My Daughter.  Sally Fields, with Albert Molina as her Iranian born Doctor Husband.  "Based on a true story."  She remained in Iran until she could figure out a way to smuggle her daughter out as well.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 03:18:36 PM
I remember a story like that.  It was Saudi Arabia.  The mother finally did get her daughters when they travel to Europe, if I remember correctly.  It was on 60 Minutes I think.  You know that "liberal" Sunday evening news show.

Those liberals, have they no respect for the law?  Promoting an international kidnapping, no less.

I think there have been a number of stories like this.  Wasn't there a film with Sally Fields based on a true story?  

More is coming back to me about the one I read years ago.  I read it in a neighborhood newspaper (they must have been liberals too), the mother was very sympathetic, the case dragged on for years with the daughter back in her father's nation.  He placed her in the semi-equivalent of a Jihadist convent (for her "education") where the daughter eventually made a formal statement she wanted to remain and denounced the mother.  


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 03:20:03 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:24:21 PM
It is a sad story no matter where it happens; parents should not kidnap their own children, IMHO.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:28:45 PM
IMMIGRATION
No More Delay

"I am optimistic we can pass a comprehensive immigration bill and get this problem solved for the American people this year," President Bush said last week, putting "pressure on senators as they prepare to hold a vote on the issue this week." The need for comprehensive immigration reform is greater than ever, as our current system is broken. Between 1990 and 2005, the number of undocumented immigrants doubled to 12 million while the size of the U.S. Border Patrol tripled in the same period. To address the growing number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., comprehensive immigration reform gained momentum in Congress last year but ultimately was stonewalled by the right wing. "To save what could be his last hope for a major second-term domestic achievement," Bush is continuing to call for comprehensive reform this year, but his shift to more restrictive measures on immigration is stalling prospects of a fair reform package passing in Congress. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) said Bush has compromised his "basic principles" in his new plan, which would "restrict workers' ability to bring family members to the U.S. and [impose] a large fee to seek citizenship."

BREAKING APART IMMIGRANT FAMILIES: "The Bush administration has proposed managing the future flow of legal immigration by stressing job skills and education over family ties," a departure from the current system where "more than 60 percent of all legal immigrants enter under family preferences." "Our immigration policy has long respected the stability that family ties bring. Relatives help set up family businesses; they pitch in to pay for children's education. ... Good immigration policy doesn't simply fill jobs; it reunites families as well." But under the White House's plan, "legal immigrants would lose the right to petition to bring adult children and siblings to the U.S. ...  The proposal would limit or end preferences for people who had family members living legally in the U.S., and award many more visas based on employability criteria, such as education and skills." Bush's plan would also require undocumented immigrants to pay thousands in fines for a three-year work visa, and these visa holders "also wouldn't be able to bring family members to the U.S." This hard-line approach is being brought to the negotiating table by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and other Senate conservatives. "Kyl wants a temporary program -- workers would have to return to their home country after three years and could not bring family members unless their incomes exceed 150 percent of the poverty level and they have health insurance." "Temporary means temporary," Kyl stated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 03:45:17 PM
It is a sad story no matter where it happens; parents should not kidnap their own children, IMHO.

I think it is a sad story too, with no simple answers.  But parents should not kidnap their children?  Can't say I go with that.  As defined by Iranian law, when Sally Fields left, she was kidnapping, she had no parental rights.  And so was the other mother (I still can't recall the country - but I don't think it was S.A.) 

And without knowing the details of international law, i.e. their position on "kidnapping" -- seems it would be, since the mother had/has no rights, she was indeed "kidnapping." 

Is a child taken under those circumstances exploited?  Or is the parent acting in their best interests?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 03:51:26 PM
This kind of brings me back to the famous line from Grapes of Wrath about how a man (or a human, more generically) has to do what he's got to do.  And the other line about the law being an ass.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:52:30 PM

Is a child taken under those circumstances exploited?  Or is the parent acting in their best interests?


That's a tough question.  Probably both.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 04:51:42 PM

Is a child taken under those circumstances exploited?  Or is the parent acting in their best interests?


That's a tough question.  Probably both.

Agreed.  One could take the hardline route that people made their own bed and should sleep in it.  But I don't a person who makes all their life decisions knowing all the consequences.  Another famous line is that people don't really understand what marriage is until they get a divorce.  I suppose one could say that is true anywhere in the world.

I think sex education classes should also include curriculum on laws regarding marriage, children, various rights and responsibilities.  Including other countries.

Whiskeypriest,

I missed your first post on the Fields movie (crisscrossing).  Thank you for the second, with the link.

NYTPerdue,

Interesting area.  What does your organization's position on these cases dealing with nations where women have no parental rights?

I think I read about another one where the American child was taken to a Meditarrean country - Greece, Corsica, ..?  The child was hidden and the community wouldn't cooperate with the police.  Everyone helped the kidnapping parent.  The police weren't too keen on searching either.  The mob ruled.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 14, 2007, 04:56:27 PM
Since when is Bush concerned about the American people? He's concerned about getting his big corporate masters all the cheap labor they want, and keeping the far right wing happy, but about the average American? Not in this lifetime.

As for "more restrictive measures" on immigration, I think Bush is leaning more toward doing what actually might have some chance of passing Congress, such as limiting immigrants' rights to bring their families here. Even most Americans who favor finding some path, however torturous, to a legal status of some sort for illegals who are already here, probably are not ready as Cap and Incadove are, to throw open our borders and admit anyone who wants to come. Most polls show that a majority of responders want to limit further immigration, not increase it.

I agree that "temporary" means temporary, and that people who are admitted as temporary workers should not bring their families for the American taxpayer to have to provide with education, health care, housing, etc. I also agree with the principle of allowing immigration based on what is best for this country, such as people with education and higher job skills, instead of what is best for the immigrant him/herself. The objective should be to provide higher level workers, rather than to "reunite" families, especially for "temporary" workers.


IMMIGRATION
<snip>
"To save what could be his last hope for a major second-term domestic achievement," Bush is continuing to call for comprehensive reform this year, but his shift to more restrictive measures on immigration is stalling prospects of a fair reform package passing in Congress. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) said Bush has compromised his "basic principles" in his new plan, which would "restrict workers' ability to bring family members to the U.S. and [impose] a large fee to seek citizenship."

BREAKING APART IMMIGRANT FAMILIES: "The Bush administration has proposed managing the future flow of legal immigration by stressing job skills and education over family ties," a departure from the current system where "more than 60 percent of all legal immigrants enter under family preferences." "Our immigration policy has long respected the stability that family ties bring. Relatives help set up family businesses; they pitch in to pay for children's education. ... Good immigration policy doesn't simply fill jobs; it reunites families as well." But under the White House's plan, "legal immigrants would lose the right to petition to bring adult children and siblings to the U.S. ...  The proposal would limit or end preferences for people who had family members living legally in the U.S., and award many more visas based on employability criteria, such as education and skills." Bush's plan would also require undocumented immigrants to pay thousands in fines for a three-year work visa, and these visa holders "also wouldn't be able to bring family members to the U.S." This hard-line approach is being brought to the negotiating table by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and other Senate conservatives. "Kyl wants a temporary program -- workers would have to return to their home country after three years and could not bring family members unless their incomes exceed 150 percent of the poverty level and they have health insurance." "Temporary means temporary," Kyl stated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 04:59:52 PM
Since when is Bush concerned about the American people? He's concerned about getting his big corporate masters all the cheap labor they want, and keeping the far right wing happy, but about the average American? Not in this lifetime.

As for "more restrictive measures" on immigration, I think Bush is leaning more toward doing what actually might have some chance of passing Congress, such as limiting immigrants' rights to bring their families here. Even most Americans who favor finding some path, however torturous, to a legal status of some sort for illegals who are already here, probably are not ready as Cap and Incadove are, to throw open our borders and admit anyone who wants to come. Most polls show that a majority of responders want to limit further immigration, not increase it.

I agree that "temporary" means temporary, and that people who are admitted as temporary workers should not bring their families for the American taxpayer to have to provide with education, health care, housing, etc. I also agree with the principle of allowing immigration based on what is best for this country, such as people with education and higher job skills, instead of what is best for the immigrant him/herself. The objective should be to provide higher level workers, rather than to "reunite" families, especially for "temporary" workers.


IMMIGRATION
<snip>
"To save what could be his last hope for a major second-term domestic achievement," Bush is continuing to call for comprehensive reform this year, but his shift to more restrictive measures on immigration is stalling prospects of a fair reform package passing in Congress. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) said Bush has compromised his "basic principles" in his new plan, which would "restrict workers' ability to bring family members to the U.S. and [impose] a large fee to seek citizenship."

BREAKING APART IMMIGRANT FAMILIES: "The Bush administration has proposed managing the future flow of legal immigration by stressing job skills and education over family ties," a departure from the current system where "more than 60 percent of all legal immigrants enter under family preferences." "Our immigration policy has long respected the stability that family ties bring. Relatives help set up family businesses; they pitch in to pay for children's education. ... Good immigration policy doesn't simply fill jobs; it reunites families as well." But under the White House's plan, "legal immigrants would lose the right to petition to bring adult children and siblings to the U.S. ...  The proposal would limit or end preferences for people who had family members living legally in the U.S., and award many more visas based on employability criteria, such as education and skills." Bush's plan would also require undocumented immigrants to pay thousands in fines for a three-year work visa, and these visa holders "also wouldn't be able to bring family members to the U.S." This hard-line approach is being brought to the negotiating table by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and other Senate conservatives. "Kyl wants a temporary program -- workers would have to return to their home country after three years and could not bring family members unless their incomes exceed 150 percent of the poverty level and they have health insurance." "Temporary means temporary," Kyl stated.

Stop dishonestly misstating my position.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 14, 2007, 05:24:54 PM
Interesting article on why the Democrats and Republicans both tend to "redistribute" income upward:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051407I.shtml


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 14, 2007, 05:27:00 PM
You have said numerous times that you favor open borders. How did I "misstate" your position?


Stop dishonestly misstating my position.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 05:35:23 PM
Just as I have explained it so many times, enough to now call it blatantly and deliberately dishonest on your part.

You know very well that I do not favor opening our borders to anyone. 

BTW, you sound like you want a slave labor temporary program yourself.  How is that in the best interests of the American worker? 

What are temporary workers supposed to do with their children?  Doesn’t the boss man owe them anything by way of working standards or conditions?

What happens to these children as they grow up, in their own countries or the U.S.  Ever consider what kind of attitudes develop in those nations towards ours, as a result of these policies?

Do you even have children of your own?  Are you a working parent?

In addition to the obvious humanitarian issues, there is a strong argument on behalf of our national interests too, to have citizenship paths for persons working here temporarily, as well as allowing their having immediate family members with them.

The piper comes knocking for payment, one way or the other.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 14, 2007, 05:56:20 PM
Well, back in the NY Times forum you said you favored open borders. To me, that means open to anyone who wants to come. If you meant something more restrictive than "wide open", then I am drawing the wrong conclusion. To me, open borders means essentially "no rules".

I don't consider "temporary" or "guest" worker programs in the best interest of the American worker, but if we are going to have such programs, they should be "temporary". If people want to apply for legal residence with a chance to become citizens eventually, they should apply through the legal channels for this.

Ideally, temporary workers would leave their families at home. With legal status, they would be able to travel back and forth to visit them. The children should grow up as citizens of their home countries, but with a much better standard of living than they would have had if their parent hadn't participated in a work program. We are not obligated to take care of the entire Third World; therefore, the children should not expect us to be willing to import the entire family just to hire someone to wash dishes or bus tables. That's not a rational expectation.

No, I have no children, which may affect my opinions in this area, but to me it is just not a rational expectation for someone who wants to come here to do low-paid, low-skilled work to expect to bring his entire family with him. On the salary he (or she) will make, they couldn't support their family here, but they can send money "home" where living costs are cheaper and support them much more comfortably. Citizenship should be reserved for people who apply for legal immigration through the necessary legal channels, IMO.
 

Just as I have explained it so many times, enough to now call it blatantly and deliberately dishonest on your part.

You know very well that I do not favor opening our borders to anyone. 

BTW, you sound like you want a slave labor temporary program yourself.  How is that in the best interests of the American worker? 

What are temporary workers supposed to do with their children?  Doesn’t the boss man owe them anything by way of working standards or conditions?

What happens to these children as they grow up, in their own countries or the U.S.  Ever consider what kind of attitudes develop in those nations towards ours, as a result of these policies?

Do you even have children of your own?  Are you a working parent?

In addition to the obvious humanitarian issues, there is a strong argument on behalf of our national interests too, to have citizenship paths for persons working here temporarily, as well as allowing their having immediate family members with them.

The piper comes knocking for payment, one way or the other.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 06:55:49 PM
Well, back in the NY Times forum you said you favored open borders. To me, that means open to anyone who wants to come. If you meant something more restrictive than "wide open", then I am drawing the wrong conclusion. To me, open borders means essentially "no rules".

I said I favored borders that are more open, legally.  I certainly think we should do what we can to move in that direction.  I said that this did not mean "flinging them open" as you so often mischaracterize any variation or degree of the open borders model - like a Niagara Fall effect;  I repeatedly said I favored regulation for crime.  I made repeated references to the EU model and policies we could adopt (for example, investing in Mexico more) in order to move in that direction.  I have said these things so many times, and in response to so many misstatements on your part, that I can only conclude you will say anything to try to "win" for your network of restrictionist organizations. 

It doesn't seem like discussion to me anymore.  Just silliness.


I don't consider "temporary" or "guest" worker programs in the best interest of the American worker, but if we are going to have such programs, they should be "temporary". If people want to apply for legal residence with a chance to become citizens eventually, they should apply through the legal channels for this.

I think people should just be allowed to come and work here if there is an economic need and the opportunity to do so.  If we are going to have borderless trade agreements, I think it is only intelligent and just to allow labor to follow.  I think protecting working conditions in the U.S. for anyone protects Americans workers too.  And do not forget that paths to citizenship that are not so filled with mountains to climb and oceans to swim across, give people more of chance to put back into the economy in a way that benefits all.  One can start a business as an illegal immigrant, but one can build that business up even more if they have legal status.  But the Republican far-right position just seems like pointless moral hysteria.  When will the "punishment" for crossing the border be enough?  Seems like another form of the Leviticus mentality, and not very smart in terms of the consequences, not to mention just human decency.

If we do have temporary programs, I think they should be set up in such a way that people are working under decent and humane conditions.  As such, I would support the reforms proposed by the Southern Law Poverty Law Center at the conclusion of their report.




Ideally, temporary workers would leave their families at home. With legal status, they would be able to travel back and forth to visit them. The children should grow up as citizens of their home countries, but with a much better standard of living than they would have had if their parent hadn't participated in a work program. We are not obligated to take care of the entire Third World; therefore, the children should not expect us to be willing to import the entire family just to hire someone to wash dishes or bus tables. That's not a rational expectation.


The status of family members, childcare issues, are important to working parents anywhere.  For good reasons too, and if one has personal experience with these matters, they know it's not this cut and dry thing you make it out to be.  It's not only most rational to make this an important issue for temporary workers, it's irrational and out of touch with the reality of people's lives, IMO, to think otherwise.  Remember too, in addition to simple humanitarian factors, that support systems for families take what could otherwise turn into a burden on the taxpayer at another point down the road.

I do not think you are viewing this enough as a business person might.  There are investments in people and returns.  In all sorts of ways in an economy.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 07:03:38 PM
Chakotay

What do you think creates a Che Guevera?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 08:05:12 PM
Chakotay

What do you think creates a Che Guevera?

A Mr and Mrs Guevera, of course.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 08:31:22 PM
Someone please explain what we are going to do with a bunch of workers with no access to their wives/husbands for a three year term? Who is going to provide the needed ho-houses?

And, let's not forget, that in the case of farm workers, the whole family, excluding children under age five, may be employed in the fields rather than just the father. It's nice to say to let the kiddies stay home, but if mother and father are sought as workers, who is going to take care of the kids back in the home country?




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 08:48:21 PM
And we're talking about people who are very poor already, their resources already very limited. 

To me, it sounds like putting a mean-spirited squeeze on the already deprived, pointlessly crippling people even more, rather than empowering them to better take care of themselves and give back into the economies and well being of both nations.

But apparently, some folks have high stakes in keeping these folks down.  After all, they recently murdered a union organizer down in Mexico.  And now we have an Ohio representative heading across borders (if not already done) to investigate.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 08:50:58 PM
I think the people who put fruits and vegetables on America's tables deserve more.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 09:07:52 PM
Nytempsperdu,

Thank you for the clarification.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 12:00:39 AM
Chakotay

But the Republican far-right position just seems like pointless moral hysteria.  When will the "punishment" for crossing the border be enough?  Seems like another form of the Leviticus mentality, and not very smart in terms of the consequences, not to mention just human decency.


Not to mention that there is big money being made in "enforcement" by the same private contractors profiting from Iraq.  Which kind of shows up that Leviticus purse-lipped mentality for the pure bunk that it is.

MrUtley

Ha, cute one on Mr. and Mrs.

Chakotay

I won't ask you to look any further for the answer.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 08:31:37 AM
And we're talking about people who are very poor already, their resources already very limited. 

To me, it sounds like putting a mean-spirited squeeze on the already deprived, pointlessly crippling people even more, rather than empowering them to better take care of themselves and give back into the economies and well being of both nations.

But apparently, some folks have high stakes in keeping these folks down.  After all, they recently murdered a union organizer down in Mexico.  And now we have an Ohio representative heading across borders (if not already done) to investigate.





THEY ARE CRIMINALS.  THEY BROKE THE LAW.  THE MUST GO TO JAIL AND NOT PASS GO.  DONJA KNOW.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 09:45:11 AM
Saminh

[slapping forehead!] ;-)

BTW, neither is this an example of regulating crime at the border, IMHO.  (The story is running in Times Select, but not being a member, I googled it from other sources, this being the first one google listed.)  War on terror meets the war on drugs.  Catching the bad guys:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/23/Feldmar/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 15, 2007, 10:31:11 AM
Awww! You beat me to it!

Chakotay

What do you think creates a Che Guevera?

A Mr and Mrs Guevera, of course.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 15, 2007, 10:59:20 AM
The problem is that allowing "free" movement of people to come here to work means that the big corporations that employ them probably will not
protect working conditions for Americans or for immigrants. That's the whole point of having a pool of cheap labor available. The corporations will use these migrant workers as a way of keeping salaries and benefits down. The constant availability of cheap labor will guarantee that these jobs will probably never pay enough for an American to live on.

Frankly, I can't see any reason that we should make our "paths to citizenship" easy. We really don't need to encourage more uneducated, unskilled Third Worlders to come here; our population is increasing much too rapidly as it is. To hear the immigration "activists" tell it, illegal aliens should not only be given amnesty, but virtually instant citizenship too! I doubt if you'd find many Americans who'd agree with that. People who came here illegally should have to get at the very back of the line, behind everyone who came legally or started their paperwork to come legally ahead of them.

I just don't believe that people who came here in violation of our law and national sovereignty have any right to expect to define the terms of their "legalization" process. If it were up to me, they'd be told to go home and make application through the legal process, and forget about amnesty, if they wanted to eventually be citizens. If they wanted to sign up as temporary workers, they'd be expected to come alone and not burden US taxpayers with their family costs. "Temporary" should mean just that, although they would be free to travel back and forth to visit their families.

As for "business" persons, IMO the big corporations who want these "guest" workers couldn't care less about them or the welfare of the American worker. They see illegals or "guest" workers as a way to fatten up their bottom line; nothing else matters, especially to "multinationals", who see themselves as American only when it's to their advantage. 




I think people should just be allowed to come and work here if there is an economic need and the opportunity to do so.  If we are going to have borderless trade agreements, I think it is only intelligent and just to allow labor to follow.  I think protecting working conditions in the U.S. for anyone protects Americans workers too. 

And do not forget that paths to citizenship that are not so filled with mountains to climb and oceans to swim across, give people more of chance to put back into the economy in a way that benefits all.  One can start a business as an illegal immigrant, but one can build that business up even more if they have legal status. 
<snip>
The status of family members, childcare issues, are important to working parents anywhere.  For good reasons too, and if one has personal experience with these matters, they know it's not this cut and dry thing you make it out to be.  It's not only most rational to make this an important issue for temporary workers, it's irrational and out of touch with the reality of people's lives, IMO, to think otherwise.  Remember too, in addition to simple humanitarian factors, that support systems for families take what could otherwise turn into a burden on the taxpayer at another point down the road.

I do not think you are viewing this enough as a business person might.  There are investments in people and returns.  In all sorts of ways in an economy.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 11:09:06 AM
Chakotay

Well, looks like the world's changing, immigrant workers have some more demands.  Dear me, when will these people learn their place?

BTW, your television idol has been caught fabricating news and lying to cover it up again:

CBS contributor Dobbs defends false leprosy claim after confrontation by CBS' Stahl

During a CBS News interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl, which aired on the May 6 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, CNN host and CBS Early Show special contributor Lou Dobbs defended CNN correspondent Christine Romans' citation -- initially made on the April 14, 2005, edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- of the false claims that "there were about 900 cases of leprosy [in the United States] for 40 years," and that "[t]here have been 7,000 in the past three years." The day after the 60 Minutes interview, during the May 7 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs and Romans again defended the claims, with Romans attributing them to the late "Dr. Madeleine Cosman" (who did not have a medical degree but, rather, a Ph.D. in English and comparative literature). In fact, according to the National Hansen's Disease Program (NHDP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there have been just 431 reported cases of Hansen's disease, or leprosy, over the "past three years." The NHDP reported 8,490 cases of Hansen's disease from 1966 to 2005, as compared with Cosman's claim in a 2005 article that "in 40 years ... 900 people were afflicted." Cosman appears to have derived her false claim by misinterpreting a February 18, 2003, New York Times article.

[...]

During the May 7 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Romans stated, "We don't make up numbers here," adding that she was quoting the "7,000 cases of leprosy" statistic from an article "in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" by "Dr. Madeleine Cosman, a respected medical lawyer and medical historian." Romans was apparently referring to Cosman's article in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal, headlined "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine."
[in full at link]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705110004?f=h_latest



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 15, 2007, 02:11:21 PM
People who are breaking the law just by being here aren't in the best position to be making demands. "Their place" is back home in their own country, unless they have asked for and received permission from the US to come here.

I looked at the article and also at Dr. Cosman's original piece. She didn't actually say that the 7000 cases were "new" or tied to illegal aliens. That section could have been written more clearly, but the rest of her article, about the problems being caused American hospitals by illegal immigrants, is quite valid. Considering how we allow our generosity to be abused by people who have no right to be here, maybe we should replace "Uncle Sam" with a big, red,white and blue sucker!

Chakotay

Well, looks like the world's changing, immigrant workers have some more demands.  Dear me, when will these people learn their place?

BTW, your television idol has been caught fabricating news and lying to cover it up again:

CBS contributor Dobbs defends false leprosy claim after confrontation by CBS' Stahl
...


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 03:13:40 PM
First, let’s get the legalities straight.

A felony:

Section 1324 of the INA clearly levies felony criminal penalties for harboring illegal aliens. Under Sections 1324(a)(1)(A) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii):

"Any person who ... knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation ... shall be ... fined [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."



A misdemeanor:

Illegal entry upon a first offense is in fact a misdemeanor under federal law, punishable by not more than six months imprisonment, under Section 1325(a) of the INA:

Any alien who ... enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers ... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under [the INA] or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
The provision does stipulate that "for a subsequent commission of any such offense," an offender may be subject to fines and "imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both."

A felony is defined as "an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year is authorized."


However, we ALL know who gets demonized and treated harshest, and it isn’t the American citizen that is doing the hiring…


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 03:23:40 PM
Frankly, I can't see any reason that we should make our "paths to citizenship" easy. We really don't need to encourage more uneducated, unskilled Third Worlders to come here; our population is increasing much too rapidly as it is.

That is such nonsense.

First, no one expects it to be easy, just realistic. Hard work should be rewarded not punished.

Second we should be more concerned with the 100,000+ H1B visas given out mostly to Indian IT professionals each year.

Wonder where your job went? It wasn't a Mexican that got it.

As for overpopulation, no US immigration policy will change what is actually a global problem.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 03:27:22 PM
Who made these laws that the immigrants are supposedly breaking? Was it Congress directly, or an agency under one of the branches of government? Are these laws the "will of the people"?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 06:24:12 PM
Chakotay

Give it a break.  Here's the "Dr." Cosman statement:

Leprosy, Hansen's disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

Illegal Aliens and American Medicine, Dr Madeline Cosman, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring 2005


More on nutjob Cosman and the Dobbs "we don't make up numbers" and "if we reported it, it's a fact" story at http://migramatters.blogspot.com/2007/05/look-at-lou-dobbs-leprosy-expert.html

The only "suckers" (your term) I see in this story are the people droning out on Dobbs' bull hook, line, and sinker.  As for Uncle Sam, I think he could be renamed Uncle Halliburton - the same person profiting from American and Iraqi deaths, now also making money per head putting immigrants - including children and infants - in prison.

Got shares?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 07:24:31 PM
Quote
THEY ARE CRIMINALS.  THEY BROKE THE LAW.  THE MUST GO TO JAIL AND NOT PASS GO.

I see, so people who could be working, paying taxes, etc. while waiting for other workers/taxpayers to process their paperwork will instead be in jail supported by people who are working, paying taxes, etc.  Oh well, at least it will give work to the prison builders and employees so they can pay taxes, etc.  (BTW, where is GO anyway?)

(weezo: Immigration & Naturalization Act is federal law enacted by Congress.)   

Quote
the 100,000+ H1B visas given out mostly to Indian IT professionals each year.

Wonder where your job went? It wasn't a Mexican that got it.

Thanks for this refreshing reminder.

That was supposed to be sarcasm.  Tonight, on ABC News, Gibson reported that a deal is about to be presented in the senate whereby most of the illegal immigrants will be granted citizenship.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 08:43:23 PM
That sounds good! Give them citizenship, the vote, taxes to pay, and health care to keep them healthy. End of problem.

Then, if we want, we can close the border and say enough for now. Educate those who are here and let them learn how to be good American citizens.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:17:54 AM
I don't know about citizenship, the vote, and health care, but I'm more than okay with taxing them.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 09:22:30 AM
Liquid,

If they don't have citizenship and the vote, it is unfair to tax them. It is taxation without representation, which was one of the reasons on which our country was founded.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 09:27:23 AM
Liquid,

If they don't have citizenship and the vote, it is unfair to tax them. It is taxation without representation, which was one of the reasons on which our country was founded.

Thanks for the reminder. ;-)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:29:21 AM
Liquid,

If they don't have citizenship and the vote, it is unfair to tax them. It is taxation without representation, which was one of the reasons on which our country was founded.

Did you pay taxes before you turned 18?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:32:04 AM
Should tourists have the right to vote?

Should companies or individuals doing business with this country from another country have the right to vote because they paid tariffs?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:37:47 AM
Should people with work visas to this country be allowed to vote?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 09:58:26 AM
Should DC residents pay taxes???


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 10:02:21 AM
Its a nice rallying cry but there are plenty of instances where people are taxed without representation.   


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 10:17:13 AM
That's why it is important for those working here and paying taxes, and learninf the language and playing by the rules should have a realistic pathway to citizenship.

Why would we throw obstacles in front of good productive people? And that's MOST immigrants.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2007, 10:51:19 AM
srnich,

Why would we throw obstacles in front of good productive people? And that's MOST immigrants.

As usual, your good sense shines through.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:38:12 PM
There are some pretty mean spirited people in our country; the are called republican.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 02:21:56 PM
thanks cap and sam.


Did you see the republican "debate" last night?

I couldn't believe what some said about keeping gitmo open...

Not surprisingly McCain didn't see torture and captivity the same way.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 16, 2007, 03:22:31 PM
US immigration policy may not change the world's overpopulation crisis, but if we secure our borders and limit immigration of all kinds, we can try to keep it from overrunning our country. And the "hard work" of some immigrants (I've seen a few who could be mistaken for door stops) will be rewarded if they come here legally. People who just can't be bothered to do the paperwork to come here legally have no right to complain about being deported, IMO.



First, no one expects it to be easy, just realistic. Hard work should be rewarded not punished.

As for overpopulation, no US immigration policy will change what is actually a global problem.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 16, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
All federal laws are voted on and passed by Congress, then signed by the President. There are also regulations which can be handed down by the various federal agencies, and work much like laws, except that the agency involved can rescind or change them at any time without having to involve Congress or the President. 

Who made these laws that the immigrants are supposedly breaking? Was it Congress directly, or an agency under one of the branches of government? Are these laws the "will of the people"?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 16, 2007, 03:29:02 PM
The only people who have the right to vote are US citizens.

Should people with work visas to this country be allowed to vote?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 16, 2007, 03:31:17 PM
If they are here legally, they do have a realistic pathway to citizenship. If they have broken our laws, there is no reason to grant citizenship to them. If they were playing by the rules, they wouldn't be here illegally.

That's why it is important for those working here and paying taxes, and learninf the language and playing by the rules should have a realistic pathway to citizenship.

Why would we throw obstacles in front of good productive people? And that's MOST immigrants.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 03:36:17 PM
Liquid,

If they don't have citizenship and the vote, it is unfair to tax them. It is taxation without representation, which was one of the reasons on which our country was founded.

Did you pay taxes before you turned 18?

Actually, I was not referring to minors, but to adults - those old enough to vote. Children paying taxes was generally insignificant. I probably paid sales taxes on my little purchases in high school. Perhaps a dollar or two a year at most. The only money I could spend was what I made from babysitting. I graduated at 17, and began working, but I think my income was so low that when I filed my first tax return, after I turned 18 (actually the age of majority was 21 back then), I probably got all my taxes back except social security. Back when I was a kid, at least in my part of society, children were not given the great sums to spend that they are today.

In the case of children, the vote of their parents suffices to support the chldren's needs from the government.


Chakotay, My questions about the source of the immigration quotas and eligibility was whether these are set by Congress, responding to the desires of the people, or by agencies who are not directly bound by the will of the people.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 03:37:10 PM
The only people who have the right to vote are US citizens.

Should people with work visas to this country be allowed to vote?

I don't disagree.  I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of instances where people are taxed without representation


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 16, 2007, 04:50:58 PM
As I understand it, Congress sets the limits on legal immigration. Of course, the president has to sign any bills before they become law (or let them take effect without his signature), but Congress puts the numbers before him. That's my understanding of the process, anyway. As for the "will of the people"...I'm not sure that really enters into it. Most of us don't really benefit from immigration, legal or illegal, and certainly not directly, so we aren't the ones who get consulted. It's usually the big corporations who get to have input.



Chakotay, My questions about the source of the immigration quotas and eligibility was whether these are set by Congress, responding to the desires of the people, or by agencies who are not directly bound by the will of the people.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 07:20:04 PM
Chakotay,

I suspect you are right that those who were here before have absolutely no say in immigration. When the railroads wanted cheap workers, they brought in lots of chinese. When they were done, they were shocked that the Chinese wanted to stay and bring their families.

But, to make a point, Congress has no business passing laws that are not supported by "we the people". Bear in mind that "we the people" include ALL of the people, not just those who agree with you. It is likely that some people, besides the corporations, want nice friendly new neighbors.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:02:11 PM
I think much of the current immigration benefits us in the form of lower costs for goods and services.  I do think that the United States would be better served to pursue an immigration policy that attracted a more skilled immigrant flow as I think that the economic benefits could be great over the long run.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 02:05:01 PM
Maybe so, but they do it every day. Although I, and I suspect, a number of the people on this forum, keep my Congresspersons well informed on my opinions about immigration and other topics, I seriously doubt that it carries much weight unless it is a "hot" topic. In fact, most of the replies one gets to letters, e-mails, etc., from Congress are actually written and sent out by their staff. The Congressperson probably never sees either the original letter or "his/her" reply. They, especially Republicans, aren't interested in anyone with less than a 7-figure income, so they aren't concerned that excessive immigration is pushing down American salaries and benefits, particularly for the poorest Americans. Not their problem.

Chakotay,

But, to make a point, Congress has no business passing laws that are not supported by "we the people". Bear in mind that "we the people" include ALL of the people, not just those who agree with you. It is likely that some people, besides the corporations, want nice friendly new neighbors.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 02:15:36 PM
That is a matter of opinion, I suppose. I'd rather pay more for goods and services and eliminate illegal immigration and reduce the level of legal immigration. When you have a population that may top 400-420 million in just over three decades, that is too fast a growth rate.

IMO, we would be better served to secure our borders to eliminate illegal immigration as much as possible, and reduce our rate of legal immigration by at least half. That would still leave almost a million legal entries a year. Also, we should try to aim for skills that we need, such as nursing, and downplay "family reunification". Some cultures count "family" as anyone with whom they have a gene or two in common. We need to be more selective, and consider what's best for our country, not just for the immigrant.

I think much of the current immigration benefits us in the form of lower costs for goods and services.  I do think that the United States would be better served to pursue an immigration policy that attracted a more skilled immigrant flow as I think that the economic benefits could be great over the long run.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:37:34 PM
I'm not sure I buy that the current population growth in the United States is too high, in fact I think we may even struggle to sustain our economy if we don't continue to allow immigration.  First, despite, the hype, the immigration rate is not growing as rapidly as it did a decade ago. As the baby boomer generation retires, we are going to see a very rapid expansion of the elderly population in this country.  Estimates put it at nearly a third of the current population over the next couple of decades.  The dependency rate will double in this country without an influx of a younger working population.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:45:32 PM
I think much of the current immigration benefits us in the form of lower costs for goods and services.  I do think that the United States would be better served to pursue an immigration policy that attracted a more skilled immigrant flow as I think that the economic benefits could be great over the long run.

I agree with your position on lower costs for goods and services.  Immigrants are also consumers and business creators in our economy.  There was also NYT article previously discussed on the other forum whereby some experts assert that, without population growth from immigration at present, our population would not be growing enough.  And I think there are ways people contribute to a nation that can not be measured in dollars and cents.  Especially if we look at our immigration past, and the people who have come out of it, and what they have done for our nation.

I disagree with your position on importing skilled labor, though certainly we should to some extent.

A big issue for Americans today is the outsourcing of jobs, or bringing in skilled persons from other countries, whereby those individuals are willing to do the same educated, technologically savy job for much less.  I think there was one individual in the early part of the Times forum whose job was threatened for exactly that reason.  And the so-called protections for Americans here are easy to get around.

On the other hand, it seems reasonable to assume that we shall continue to need a body of “unskilled labor” – persons willing to do jobs that more and more Americans are no longer that interested in.  For example, migrant farm labor.

It’s reasonable IMO to give these persons avenues to citizenship because we can otherwise create a permanent underclass in American society.

We also have a long tradition of fine people in our country whose parents or grandparents came here impoverished, and their children as well as subsequent generations moved on to make important contributions to our society – sometimes exactly because they had stepped out of these kinds of roots in their past.

Personally, I would like to know that America shall one day have a president whose father, mother, or grandparent walked across the Sonora desert, or worked in the vineyards in upstate New York, or picked apples in the Washington state orchards.  I think this kind of background can better inform a person perspective and understanding of things.

On the other hand, I would prefer to see more education and training putting Americans into those jobs that require higher education and skills.  Filling those needs by turning to people who are already here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:47:07 PM
We are going to see a major labor force shortage if we don't keep the doors open to immigration.  Plus, that large elderly segment is highly unlikely to favor tax increases that go to schools and other public services.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:51:26 PM
Quote
On the other hand, I would prefer to see more education and training putting Americans into those jobs that require higher education and skills.  Filling those needs by turning to people who are already here.

The problem is that over the next couple of decades without an influx of skilled workers, there won't be enough Americans to fill the positions that require higher education and skills being vacated by retiring baby boomers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:59:55 PM
Quote
On the other hand, I would prefer to see more education and training putting Americans into those jobs that require higher education and skills.  Filling those needs by turning to people who are already here.

The problem is that over the next couple of decades without an influx of skilled workers, there won't be enough Americans to fill the positions that require higher education and skills being vacated by retiring baby boomers.

Unless we put more into education and training, especially math and science.

Some of this shortage stuff is pure bunk, IMO.  For example, they shout about shortages of qualified teachers.  Give me a break.  The market is stuffed with unemployed, educated teachers with Masters degrees.

These myths do keep the universities in business though.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 03:02:15 PM
Quote
Unless we put more into education and training, especially math and science.

And do you really think the retiring baby boom generation is going to vote to raise their taxes for that?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 03:03:53 PM
Quote
Some of this shortage stuff is pure bunk, IMO.  For example, they shout about shortages of qualified teachers.  Give me a break.  The market is stuffed with unemployed, educated teachers with Masters degrees.

I'd like to see the statistics that back that up.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 03:08:23 PM
Quote
Unless we put more into education and training, especially math and science.

And do you really think the retiring baby boom generation is going to vote to raise their taxes for that?

Judging from internet conversations, which isn't very scientific, I'd say some of the biggest education supporters I see are retired persons no longer raising children.  So though it is possible you are correct, I can't say that your point is accurate either.

Why do the seniors I communicate with support education?  Is that because they are grandparents?  Know where public education got them?  Know where the nation will be heading without it?  Have a view as to how the piper will come knocking sooner or later?  Know where their children's jobs will be heading if we don't put Americans and their education first?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 03:14:35 PM
Liquidsilver,

There are other sources to fund education too.  Imagine all that could otherwise done with what we have poured down the drain in Iraq.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 03:16:31 PM
That would be great if the majority of seniors voted for tax increases to support education and other public services.  But I can say from my own experience that whenever a town meeting is called around here -- grandparents come out in full force to vote down any proposed increases in such taxes.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 03:20:21 PM
Not that I necessarily blame them when you are living on a fixed income


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 03:22:27 PM
Speaking as one of those aging baby boomers (born in '45), I will state that I would far rather put my tax money into education and social services than into the war machine. I suspect that many of the baby boomers who will be retiring over the next decade or so, as survivers of Viet Nam, will feel similarly.

It may be true that seniors do not vote for increases in taxes, but they will not vote against existing taxes being applied more heartily to education. But, I do not live in an area where we have a "school tax", the budget for schools comes out of the overall city/county budget and the general state budget, with a boost from the lottery earnings.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:30:31 PM
NOt sure this is what Graham Nash was singing about on "Immigration Man":

NEW LAW:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/05/17/665813.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 04:22:01 PM
Quote
Some of this shortage stuff is pure bunk, IMO.  For example, they shout about shortages of qualified teachers.  Give me a break.  The market is stuffed with unemployed, educated teachers with Masters degrees.

I'd like to see the statistics that back that up.

For your assertions or mine?  I see myself as quite willing to concede when I am basing an opinion on personal experience or observations, and the limitations therein.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 04:26:43 PM
But LiquidSilver,

Feel free to speak with a university professor in education, at some point, when they don't think the university is listening.  Ask them how many of their students they keep in touch with never went into education after they took out gazoodles in loans to pay for that graduate degree and jump through the mystical hoops called "turning out teachers."

While America weeps for its need for qualified educators.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 04:29:41 PM
IMHO

These catch phrases go out over the air, and people like parrots just start repeating them like mantras, without even knowing what they are saying.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 04:31:06 PM
Soon enough people are saying it, and we somehow believe there are statistics to back this up, when there are none.

The emperor is naked.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 04:59:20 PM
Keep in mind that only the very earliest boomers are nearing retirement. The Baby Boom ran from 1946-1964 (or from 1943-1960 by some standards), so there are another 20 years or so before all of the boomers are even eligible for retirement. If Bush were to succeed in gutting Social Security, Medicare, and other "entitlement" programs as he has tried to do, we may never be able to retire. It's a lot like the old fable of the donkey pulling a cart with a carrot dangling just out of his reach: no matter how far the donkey chases that carrot, he'll never catch it.

Quote
Unless we put more into education and training, especially math and science.

And do you really think the retiring baby boom generation is going to vote to raise their taxes for that?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 05:17:36 PM
I suppose it depends upon one's priorities. Mine are the environment, wildlife, stability and welfare of this nation, education, and others. I don't want to see our population grow to the point that our remaining open spaces are paved over, our wildlife decimated, and the stability of the nation possibly endangered.

No one is suggesting that all immigration should be stopped. All illegal immigration, yes, but legal immigration is another story. We admit about 2 million legal entrants every year. Not all plan to stay: some are essentially tourists. Some are here to go to school. Some are on temporary work visas. Some are here as permanent residents, with the intention of becoming citizens. In all, the US admits far more legal immigrants than any other country.

I doubt that our economy is in any real danger. There is certainly no shortage of people who want to come here. In fact, ICE has a huge backlog of requests for admittance, and another for processing of citizenship applications. I don't foresee a shortage of would-be immigrants anytime soon, unless we allow our country to become so overrun with illegals that the economy sputters to a halt.

I'm not sure I buy that the current population growth in the United States is too high, in fact I think we may even struggle to sustain our economy if we don't continue to allow immigration.  First, despite, the hype, the immigration rate is not growing as rapidly as it did a decade ago. As the baby boomer generation retires, we are going to see a very rapid expansion of the elderly population in this country.  Estimates put it at nearly a third of the current population over the next couple of decades.  The dependency rate will double in this country without an influx of a younger working population.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 06:50:15 PM
Whether or not there is a shortage of teachers depends on where you are looking. Urban areas cannot get enough qualified teachers to fill their ranks, but suburban schools with the easy to teach kids, have no shortage whatsoever.

There is also the problem of what the person with the teaching credentials is qualified to teach. English and history teachers are a dime a dozen, but science, math, and foreign language teachers are scarce as hens teeth, especially those who can truly teach and inspire young people. There is no shortage of special ed teacher looking to teach the mildly retarded, but ask for a teacher for autistic children or emotionally disturbed children, and your pickings are very slim.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:27:29 PM
Senators from both parties announced an agreement this afternoon on immigration-reform legislation that would bring illegal immigrants and their families “out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life,” as Senator Edward M. Kennedy put it.

This is good news.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 07:32:16 PM
I find the urban shortage assertion suspect too (not meaning you personally).  Dunno - ask Cap how many applications they get and how many actually get hired.  But, even assuming there is legitimacy to the claim, that does not mean there is a shortage of qualified teachers out there.  That being the perpetual chant.

I am willing to buy it on science and math.  Foreign languages, sounds likely.  

Special education, I think there are issues in the mystical hoop jumping process itself.  

There are great, experienced teachers out there who have been in the field for many years.  Ask them what they had to go through in order to be a qualified teacher.

Qualified teacher training and the resulting hiring process is loaded with great amounts of horse manure.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 07:35:15 PM
Senators from both parties announced an agreement this afternoon on immigration-reform legislation that would bring illegal immigrants and their families “out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life,” as Senator Edward M. Kennedy put it.

This is good news.


Amen.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 07:55:53 PM
There isn't a shortage of qualified teachers in terms of supply, the issue is the revolving door where large numbers of qualified teachers leave for reasons other than retirement such as job dissatisfaction and the pursuit of other jobs. The demand for teachers largely stems from this frequent turnover not from enrollment or retirement. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 08:45:47 PM
I became a teacher more than 25 years ago, and don't remember there being a lot of hoops to jump through to get the job. It was a rural county. They needed and LD teacher. I wanted to teach LD kids and was certified in special ed, just needed the additional certification for LD which you couldn't back then get until you were actually teaching, so we matched up just fine. Two weeks after I applied, I was working.

But, I think Liquid has a great point. The pay is usually horrid compared to doing anything else with your degree, especially if you have a subject degree rather than an education degree. And the working conditions can be appalling. I worked for 14 years in a classroom on the end of the system run. We got no heat in winter and no AC in the warm months (in Virginia, where it starts going to 80 degrees in April). In addition, I had to pay for additional classes every five years. After 20 years teaching, I have enough post grad credits to equal a masters, but can't get the masters because they are spread over time and various institutions.

The good side of it is that I truly enjoyed teaching, judging from the results of my students as they are approaching their late 30's, I was reasonably successful, and, even though I will never be rich, that was never my goal in life anyway.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 17, 2007, 10:20:32 PM
hg,

There isn't a shortage of qualified teachers in terms of supply, the issue is the revolving door where large numbers of qualified teachers leave for reasons other than retirement such as job dissatisfaction and the pursuit of other jobs. The demand for teachers largely stems from this frequent turnover not from enrollment or retirement.

Exactly so!!

Here in Denver, the average stay in the Public Schools is >5 years.
First chance they get, the young teachers get to the suburbs or out of teaching.
My particular High School faculty is comprised of old warhorses like me or by folks under age 35.
Denver and most cities in the USA want world-class schools at Third World salaries, not to mention the heavy-handed, top-down management style here.
Our District is so top heavy that it resembles the Mary Rose. 
(OK all you history buffs, decipher that one!)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:35:28 AM
hg,

There isn't a shortage of qualified teachers in terms of supply, the issue is the revolving door where large numbers of qualified teachers leave for reasons other than retirement such as job dissatisfaction and the pursuit of other jobs. The demand for teachers largely stems from this frequent turnover not from enrollment or retirement.

Exactly so!!

Here in Denver, the average stay in the Public Schools is >5 years.
First chance they get, the young teachers get to the suburbs or out of teaching.
My particular High School faculty is comprised of old warhorses like me or by folks under age 35.
Denver and most cities in the USA want world-class schools at Third World salaries, not to mention the heavy-handed, top-down management style here.
Our District is so top heavy that it resembles the Mary Rose. 
(OK all you history buffs, decipher that one!)

All due respect, Cap, because you are one of my favorite posters.  But maybe someone should bring an age discrimination lawsuit - or a related class action - against some of these districts for their hiring practices.  Or is there a stupidity suit?

Unless I am missing something about a large portion of the working population that is not deemed appropriate material for standing in front of a classroom.

Surely it can't be that their numbers are that lacking in the applications sitting in a pile.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:39:25 AM
Cap/postscript

I stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding that the take in Europe is quite different.  Such that, what we "take" for granted here, might be questioned.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:56:31 AM
Cap/postscript 2/finale

Not that I'm any expert here, but if the districts have a big application pile, and a revolving door problem, doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps they're hiring the wrong people for the job?

I know that's not the standard reasoning or approach to the issue, but just thought I'd put it out there to a person who I've known for some time is an old war horse.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 01:53:39 AM
BTW Cap,

I’m not disagreeing with the need for higher salaries for urban teachers.  Just the lenses by which teachers are viewed, evaluated, and hired.  Who is allegedly the best and brightest for the job.

Apparently, they are nevertheless hiring teachers who wish to work in the suburbs, not urban schools. On some level, aren't they looking at candidates the same way a suburban school hires?  When suburban and urban teaching can be so different?

If so, perhaps they shouldn’t.

From what I see of teachers hitting the market, no offense, but a lot of them just look like they popped out of the same cookie cuttie factory mold.

As a parent, I prefer diversity, frankly. 

What is the psychological profile of war horses when they start out?  I suspect not cookie cutter.

But again, what do I know?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 18, 2007, 03:16:05 AM
incadove,

Not that I'm any expert here, but if the districts have a big application pile, and a revolving door problem, doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps they're hiring the wrong people for the job?

Such a simple thought, such a complex response.

In point of fact, the reality is that this nation does not want to see inner-city, minority (which is redundant) children educated.

Doing so would dry up the supply of hewers of wood and drawers of water that this red-in-fang-and-claw capitalist society needs to function.

The Power Elites who really run this country from their boardrooms, country clubs, and golf courses allow just enough of my type of student through the gate so that they can convince themselves that they are not discriminating.

The day when my students can get their scholarships, can enter the elite universities, and can sit at the seats of power without it making the newspapers is the day when Dr. King's dream becomes a reality.


My latest crop of kids graduates on the 23rd.  We are unique in that our student body is 80% minority and 83% of our seniors will go on.  That's a statistic that puts us light years ahead of every other urban, open enrollment high school that I know of, and it places us ahead of many suburban schools in the Denver Metro area. 

Our kids have done this in spite of appalling shortages of not only technology but also basic books and maps.  The wall maps in my classroom, for example, have remarkably detailed sections showing the Soviet Union.  From this, I am expected to teach geography.  Also, in the neighboring suburban Districts, each student is given 2 books per course - one for school and one for home.  I, on the other hand, have one set of books per classroom, to be rotated among my students.  Try assigning homework on that basis.

With 40+ years of experience, I can cope, but beginning teachers see these conditions and look to escape.

In addition, we face unending reams of useless paperwork heaped upon us by central administration. Principals sign off here on central administration's mandates "on behalf of their teachers".  Talk about being left voiceless...



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 06:23:08 AM
Congratulations on your success, Cap.  Had I stayed in the profession, I'd be in my 43rd year of teaching.  I only lasted 9 years, though, and left to work in the business world, not so much for the money (here in NH it is not easy to find work that pays extremely well), but because I didn't want to get up in the morning and go to school any longer.  In 1964 teaching was fun; by 1973, it wasn't.  So much had happened in our society during that time.  One of the great effects of Viet Nam, I think, was the developing drug culture.  In 1964, we didn't have a drug problem; by 1973, we did.  In 1964, kids rarely challenged your poistion; by 1973, they did, and they had the power.  Administration and parents rarely stood behind the teachers, and the respect we once had we had no longer.  It was time to leave.

I also believe that school districts prefer hiring inexperienced young teachers because they don't have to pay them like they do the more experienced folks, so when there is attrition, they hire those fresh faces.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 07:37:34 AM
Sam,

By teaching in a rural district, I had the respect of the parents and, for the most part, of the administration. When the administration stated clearly that my students were not worthy of their effort and mine to provide them with the technology they needed to be able to succeed, I left for another district. I had started my kids on computers that I'd run an online campaign to get donated, old computers, but still basically good for a start. As the technology became more sophisticated and provided spell checkers and color screens, my students and I found the improvements were even more beneficial than the original basic keyboards with a disk drive and mono screens. But, the new administration was firmly convinced that computers should only be available to the brightest students, not these kids with low expectations. It didn't matter that I had statistics that showed that computers were quite beneficial to these kids, it only mattered that these kids were not the best and brightes and didn't deserve to have what was beneficial to them. When I visited the school years after I left, I was disappointed to see that none of the special ed teachers were even attempting to use computers with the special kids. I tried to interest them in it, but they were, for the most part, computer-phobes themselves. That is what the administration hired after the got rid of me. It is heartening to me to know that teachers like Cap are still around, doing their best to provide what they can to the children who are marginalized by adminstrators and politicians alike. That is when you make solid allies out of the parents. Parents are rarely without hope for their own children.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 10:02:20 AM
Sounds like a good start:

Senate negotiators from both parties announced Thursday that they had reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/washington/18immig.html?hp


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 18, 2007, 12:34:33 PM
As the old saying goes, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. This agreement is between members of the committee and King George43. Now they have to persuade the rest of the senate and all of the house to accept it. If they weren't looking at election campaigns starting in a few months, it might fly, but I have my doubts whether it will at this time.

I like the enforcement provisions, but I think the provisions for "legalizing" the illegal aliens are much too generous. They should have to go home and apply legally in order to qualify for a "citizenship" path, and wait their turn with all the honest people who did it the right way. Those who wanted to settle for a "work permit", could apply here, but with no citizenship attached. We should not, under any circumstances, reward illegal behavior with US citizenship.

Sounds like a good start:

Senate negotiators from both parties announced Thursday that they had reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/washington/18immig.html?hp


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 01:04:51 PM
I don't know I really can't fault illegal immigrants for coming to this country for life, liberty, in the pursuit of happiness.  As far as crimes go, I think its on par with stealing bread to feed your family. 

Tighten the borders for homeland security's sake.  But I think those that are currently here should pay a penalty but be allowed to stay.

The factor of the matter is that if I had a family and lived in a country that gave me very little opportunity for advancement or to provide for my family -- I probably would make the same choice as those illegal immigrants currently living here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 01:09:26 PM
Speaking about "illegals", yesterday a local tv station went to a busy intersection just outside Richmond and counted, from one of the four corners, 356 people who went through the red light illegally. When the county police heard they were there, they sent an officer who gave out about 40 tickets for running the red light, out of the 356 observed by the reporter. If your reason for disdaining the immigrants is that they broke the law, they seem to have a lot of precedence here in the good old USA for breaking an inconvenient law!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 18, 2007, 01:39:34 PM
I understand why illegal aliens may choose to come here, but understanding why a person does something doesn't give them a "free pass" to do as they please if following the law happens to be inconvenient for them.

It's not just "stealing bread to feed the family", though. By their presence here as a source of cheap labor, they are, at least indirectly, driving down American wages and benefits. They can take jobs for far less than an American could live on, and since the employers can dip into the cheap labor pool so easily, there is no incentive for them to try to hire more expensive American workers. This especially affects the poorer, less educated Americans. The illegals are, in a sense, stealing bread for their families out of the mouths of American families. 

I am concerned about the vast numbers of Third World poor who would love to come here. Our population is already exploding, our water resources are suffering severe strain in many areas, and much of our open space is being paved over, all due to swelling population. If we give what amounts to amnesty to the illegals already here, that will just encourage others in their home countries to come and wait for the next amnesty. There will be no end to amnesties because of world overpopulation. The welfare of this country should come first, and Americans should come first in their own country.   

I don't know I really can't fault illegal immigrants for coming to this country for life, liberty, in the pursuit of happiness.  As far as crimes go, I think its on par with stealing bread to feed your family. 

Tighten the borders for homeland security's sake.  But I think those that are currently here should pay a penalty but be allowed to stay.

The factor of the matter is that if I had a family and lived in a country that gave me very little opportunity for advancement or to provide for my family -- I probably would make the same choice as those illegal immigrants currently living here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 01:41:27 PM
Nothing wrong with pursuing, "life, liberty,and happiness" in America. Just do so legally.

Of course, which illegal immigrants will come forward first...


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 18, 2007, 02:39:00 PM
chak,

I like the enforcement provisions, but I think the provisions for "legalizing" the illegal aliens are much too generous

Needless to say, I like the bill for the opposite reasons.

At least it's a first step toward open borders.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 02:45:24 PM
Quote
I am concerned about the vast numbers of Third World poor who would love to come here. Our population is already exploding, our water resources are suffering severe strain in many areas, and much of our open space is being paved over, all due to swelling population. If we give what amounts to amnesty to the illegals already here, that will just encourage others in their home countries to come and wait for the next amnesty. There will be no end to amnesties because of world overpopulation. The welfare of this country should come first, and Americans should come first in their own country.   

So do a better job tightening the borders.  I'd rather see the money keeping out additional illegal immigrants than worry about the ones already here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 03:27:06 PM
I like the enforcement provisions, but I think the provisions for "legalizing" the illegal aliens are much too generous. They should have to go home and apply legally in order to qualify for a "citizenship" path, and wait their turn with all the honest people who did it the right way. Those who wanted to settle for a "work permit", could apply here, but with no citizenship attached. We should not, under any circumstances, reward illegal behavior with US citizenship.


Good citizens should shun politicians who dehumanize migrant people into "illegals" as if having a typo in the morass of immigration paperwork makes an immigrant more worthy of the title "illegal" than a domestic born citizen who is a murdering crack dealer. Private and tax-funded media sources spread misinformation regarding immigrants and immigration law. When more people have the opportunity to walk a mile in the footsteps of newcomers, more will see for themselves that immigration reform is needed everywhere. Does anyone else feel that labor should have as much mobility as outsourced and insourced jobs (and money)? Why isn't the WTO as concerned about labor protectionism as it is about bananas and steel? If anyone knows of a place where native-born criminals and corrupt politicians live in fear of deportation I'd like to hear about it.

>:-<

Enough of my rant, more good info here:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=42#688


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 03:35:57 PM
Cap

Thank you for your thoughtful, complex response;  I'll be thinking about it. 

Reading what you say, these barriers seem almost insurmountable, Dr. King's dream further away than ever before.  There have so many advancement in society;  yet in some ways, over time, it seems harder than ever for people to get ahead.  And after all, what is the very nature of a university that is "elitist" by definition?  And these schools are becoming further out of reach than ever before for all Americans (according to a recent NYT article).  For your students not be making the papers getting in, doesn't that mean we wouldn't have elitist schools (,period)?

I, on the other hand, have one set of books per classroom, to be rotated among my students.  Try assigning homework on that basis.

How does one assign homework on that basis?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 03:42:26 PM
I've been following Migra Matters blog;  I am finding they have some interesting and comprehensive commentary on the legislation from a pro-amnesty perspective.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 18, 2007, 09:02:52 PM
Chak,
I understand why illegal aliens may choose to come here, but understanding why a person does something doesn't give them a "free pass" to do as they please if following the law happens to be inconvenient for them.

Let's see now.
Antigone broke the law.
Jean Valjean broke the law.
George Washington broke the law.
Garrison broke the law.
Gandhi broke the law.
Dr.  King broke the law.
Rosa Parks broke the law.
Dr. Ellsburg broke the law.
The Chicago demonstrators broke the law.
The Kent State protestors broke the law.

Creon upheld the law.
Jauvert upheld the law.
The Tories upheld the law
The slave catchers upheld the law.
The Raj upheld the law.
Sheriff Rainey and Bull Connor upheld the law.
J. Edgar upheld the law.
John Mitchell upheld the law.
Mayor Daley upheld the law.
The Ohio National Guard upheld the law.

I'll cast my lot with the lawbreakers, thank you very much!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 10:07:32 PM
And do start with the Revolutionary War. Although I now understand the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the East India Company, a corporation that had won the right to sell tea without duty on it while its competitors were saddled with the duty, it is clear that the Patriots broke the law, and the British Army tried to uphold it.

Just watched a PBS piece called Liberty, about the beginnings of the American Army. And, I thought of that little student several years ago, who remembered what I had told the class about George Washington - the usual stuff on honesty, bravery, morality, but who best remembered that George Washington was selected to lead the new American Army because he "had the best uniform". Actually, I had told the kids that he had a special uniform made to impress the Congress, and the child remembered it as having the best uniform. Oh, the delights of teaching!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 19, 2007, 01:25:57 AM
Orinus has a nice dissection of a SPLC appearance on Lou Dobbs, "Lou Dobbs v Reality," his paranoia immigrant bashing campaign, his support of the [gag] Minutemen, and wingnuts like Pat Buchanan, following in the footsteps of he-who-is-now-roasting-in-hell.  The piece includes a link to the full transcript at CNN.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/05/lou-dobbs-vs-reality.html



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 19, 2007, 05:03:07 AM
Is it "dehumanizing" to call someone who robs a bank a criminal? IMO, it is no more dehumanizing to call an illegal alien "illegal" than to call the bank robber "criminal". This is supposed to be a nation of laws. If we try to say that it's OK to break laws you don't like or don't agree with, then we will eventually live in anarchy.

There are well-established laws, rules and regulations concerning the legal method of immigrating to this country. Would-be immigrants who just can't be bothered to go through the legal process should not be given a "free pass" if they come illegally. This is patently unfair to the people who went through the time and effort involved to come here legally.



Good citizens should shun politicians who dehumanize migrant people into "illegals" as if having a typo in the morass of immigration paperwork makes an immigrant more worthy of the title "illegal" than a domestic born citizen who is a murdering crack dealer. Private and tax-funded media sources spread misinformation regarding immigrants and immigration law. When more people have the opportunity to walk a mile in the footsteps of newcomers, more will see for themselves that immigration reform is needed everywhere. Does anyone else feel that labor should have as much mobility as outsourced and insourced jobs (and money)? Why isn't the WTO as concerned about labor protectionism as it is about bananas and steel? If anyone knows of a place where native-born criminals and corrupt politicians live in fear of deportation I'd like to hear about it.

>:-<

Enough of my rant, more good info here:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=42#688


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 19, 2007, 05:07:29 AM
I'd like to see us do both. I'd especially like to see the employers targeted with stiff fines and jail time for repeat offenders. "De-magnetize" the "jobs magnet" and the illegals won't have much reason to come here.

Quote
I am concerned about the vast numbers of Third World poor who would love to come here. Our population is already exploding, our water resources are suffering severe strain in many areas, and much of our open space is being paved over, all due to swelling population. If we give what amounts to amnesty to the illegals already here, that will just encourage others in their home countries to come and wait for the next amnesty. There will be no end to amnesties because of world overpopulation. The welfare of this country should come first, and Americans should come first in their own country.   

So do a better job tightening the borders.  I'd rather see the money keeping out additional illegal immigrants than worry about the ones already here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:39:04 AM
Is it "dehumanizing" to call someone who robs a bank a criminal? IMO, it is no more dehumanizing to call an illegal alien "illegal" than to call the bank robber "criminal". This is supposed to be a nation of laws. If we try to say that it's OK to break laws you don't like or don't agree with, then we will eventually live in anarchy.

There are well-established laws, rules and regulations concerning the legal method of immigrating to this country. Would-be immigrants who just can't be bothered to go through the legal process should not be given a "free pass" if they come illegally. This is patently unfair to the people who went through the time and effort involved to come here legally.



Good citizens should shun politicians who dehumanize migrant people into "illegals" as if having a typo in the morass of immigration paperwork makes an immigrant more worthy of the title "illegal" than a domestic born citizen who is a murdering crack dealer. Private and tax-funded media sources spread misinformation regarding immigrants and immigration law. When more people have the opportunity to walk a mile in the footsteps of newcomers, more will see for themselves that immigration reform is needed everywhere. Does anyone else feel that labor should have as much mobility as outsourced and insourced jobs (and money)? Why isn't the WTO as concerned about labor protectionism as it is about bananas and steel? If anyone knows of a place where native-born criminals and corrupt politicians live in fear of deportation I'd like to hear about it.

>:-<

Enough of my rant, more good info here:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=42#688

If we are a nation of laws, why are Bush and Cheney still in office?  These guys are criminals.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 07:56:06 AM
Because laws are for the "little people", not for the important politicians. Like Leona Helmsley, some people feel they are above the law, and we let them get away with it, letting it for "history" to condemn them.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 19, 2007, 08:49:58 AM
Quote
IMO, it is no more dehumanizing to call an illegal alien "illegal" than to call the bank robber "criminal".

The crops are all in
And the peaches are rotting
The oranges are stacked
In their Creosote dumps
They're flying them back
To that Mexico border
To pay all their wages
To wade back again

Chorus
Goodbye to you Juan, goodbye Rosalita
Adios mis amigos, Jesus and Maria
You won't have a name
When you ride the big airplane
All they will call you
Will be deportee

My father's own father
He waded that river
They took all the money
He made in his life
My brothers and sisters
Come working the fruit trees
And they rode on the trucks
'Til they took down and died

Chorus

Well some are illegal
And some are not wanted
Our work contracts out
And we've got to move on
Six hundred miles
To that Mexico border
They chase us like outlaws
Like rustlers, like thieves

Chorus

We died in your hills
And we died in your deserts
We died in your valleys
We died on your plains
We died 'neath your trees
And we died in your bushes
Both sides of that river
We died just the same

The sky plane caught fire
Over Los Gatos Canyon
Like a fireball of lightning
And shook all our hills
Who are all those friends
All scattered like dry leaves
The radio says
They are just deportees

Chorus

Is this the best way
We can grow our best orchards?
Is this the best way
We can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves
And rot on my topsoil
And beknown by no name
Except deportee

Chorus


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 09:22:05 AM
Because laws are for the "little people", not for the important politicians. Like Leona Helmsley, some people feel they are above the law, and we let them get away with it, letting it for "history" to condemn them.

Of course the common denominator is death.  Is that bitch dead yet?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 19, 2007, 01:30:38 PM
Chakotay

Saying that people "can't be bothered" to apply legally is a laughable statement, considering the figures on how many green cards are issued per year, as one example, and how many people want to come here.  Not to mention the life situations of some migrants.  Like the thousands hopping freights to ride across Mexico at risk of life or limb to get into the U.S. for work.

Don't you think they'd make an appointment with their attorney, or hop down to the closest office with their forms typed out, if they could?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 20, 2007, 04:57:28 AM
The fact that coming here legally involves some inconvenience is not an excuse for those who choose to do so illegally. No matter how many people "want" to come, that does not mean that we must automatically admit them. Enough people in the Third World want to come that this country would be "standing room only" if we allowed all of them.

One of the few things about the proposed legislation that I like is that it aims to shift our immigration policies toward accepting people based on merit rather than just on whose relatives got here first. We have, IMO, gone too far in emphasizing "family" and should shift the emphasis to education, training, English fluency, etc.

Chakotay

Saying that people "can't be bothered" to apply legally is a laughable statement, considering the figures on how many green cards are issued per year, as one example, and how many people want to come here.  Not to mention the life situations of some migrants.  Like the thousands hopping freights to ride across Mexico at risk of life or limb to get into the U.S. for work.

Don't you think they'd make an appointment with their attorney, or hop down to the closest office with their forms typed out, if they could?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 06:02:11 AM
The fact that coming here legally involves some inconvenience is not an excuse for those who choose to do so illegally. No matter how many people "want" to come, that does not mean that we must automatically admit them. Enough people in the Third World want to come that this country would be "standing room only" if we allowed all of them.

One of the few things about the proposed legislation that I like is that it aims to shift our immigration policies toward accepting people based on merit rather than just on whose relatives got here first. We have, IMO, gone too far in emphasizing "family" and should shift the emphasis to education, training, English fluency, etc.

Chakotay

Saying that people "can't be bothered" to apply legally is a laughable statement, considering the figures on how many green cards are issued per year, as one example, and how many people want to come here.  Not to mention the life situations of some migrants.  Like the thousands hopping freights to ride across Mexico at risk of life or limb to get into the U.S. for work.

Don't you think they'd make an appointment with their attorney, or hop down to the closest office with their forms typed out, if they could?

We're not talking about "inconvenience" in these cases;  we're talking about impossibility.  One cannot cut a line that doesn't exist for that group in the first place.

I think the family provision compromise under discussion is unfortunate.  People have elderly parents who could be entirely supported by their children here.  They're not taking jobs, they're not taking up space except in the housing that their family already lives in -- not you or I.  So what "skin" is it off of anyone's nose to let these folks in?

Indeed, they shall only be additional consumer money going into the American economy.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 06:08:22 AM
Orcinus is still on a roll, and has another nice dissection on the dehumanizing term "illegal" along with a jaunt down t.v. lane and Dobbs' struggle with the English language, MLK, and getting off the air before anyone says anything about Gandhi.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 06:10:43 AM
Warning:  if you struggle with the term "alienation" that website might not be for you either.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 20, 2007, 07:30:03 AM
Quote
We have, IMO, gone too far in emphasizing "family" and should shift the emphasis to education, training, English fluency, etc.
Are you serious?  It would take 10 years for my wife - Polish - to get any of her family members into this country.  We've checked.  Even her father, who is 78, would have to wait 10 years.  You got - for example - the foreign equivalent of a BSN?  Hello!  Anything we can get you?  There are quotas and waiting lists for family admissions that, from the more popular countries, take a long time to overcome.  Emphasizing family for immigration purposes?  Yeah, a lot of family members will get in - eventually.

And of course from someone who chooses to dehumanize, it is no surprise that you shuw such blatant unconcern for the family structures in most other countries, where children are expected to continue to care for their parents, and in many cultures, less well-off family members.

The whole idea of English fluency is a chimera as well.  I wager I know more immigrants, documented and (probably - Don't ask, don't tell!) undocumented than anyone on these boards.  Not a one of them has not learned English enough to get by, even those who live in ethnic enclavees where they do not need to speak English in their daily lives.  And their children are all fluent.  While most of the immigrants I know are either Eastern European or Asian, the same holds true with the Latino immigrants I know.

Quote
I think the family provision compromise under discussion is unfortunate.  People have elderly parents who could be entirely supported by their children here.  They're not taking jobs, they're not taking up space except in the housing that their family already lives in -- not you or I.  So what "skin" is it off of anyone's nose to let these folks in?
Well, for one thing, they are a drain on the social welfare system.  They are unlikely to have health insurance, so they would need to be on public assistance for their health.  And since we are talking about older people in your example, their medical needs could be very expensive.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 20, 2007, 08:39:41 AM
Whiskey,

I am a bit confused by your last post. Would not your wife's father at age 78 be a "drain" on the health system as well as the seniors from the Latino communities. If I have misunderstood what you are saying, please excuse.

I am glad we have a bill coming into enaction. I like the fact that those who are already here will be allowed to apply for citizenship. I think the cost of doing so at $5,000 a head is not justified. I think back to the time when immigrants, who had not applied in advance but just arrived on ships at Ellis Island were handed their ID's upon embarkment from the ships. I wonder what justification there is for such a hefty charge to immigrants now. Perhaps the cost of citizenship will propel them into higher paying jobs where they will then compete with existing Americans in the job market. Or, perhaps it will compel them to demand better wages for the unskilled jobs they are willing to take.

But, an imperfect solution is better than no solution, and can be amended as needed by another administration.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:50:20 AM
Whiskey,

I am a bit confused by your last post. Would not your wife's father at age 78 be a "drain" on the health system as well as the seniors from the Latino communities. If I have misunderstood what you are saying, please excuse.

I am glad we have a bill coming into enaction. I like the fact that those who are already here will be allowed to apply for citizenship. I think the cost of doing so at $5,000 a head is not justified. I think back to the time when immigrants, who had not applied in advance but just arrived on ships at Ellis Island were handed their ID's upon embarkment from the ships. I wonder what justification there is for such a hefty charge to immigrants now. Perhaps the cost of citizenship will propel them into higher paying jobs where they will then compete with existing Americans in the job market. Or, perhaps it will compel them to demand better wages for the unskilled jobs they are willing to take.

But, an imperfect solution is better than no solution, and can be amended as needed by another administration.


I doubt this bill will make it through the house.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 20, 2007, 01:00:04 PM
Whiskey,

I am a bit confused by your last post. Would not your wife's father at age 78 be a "drain" on the health system as well as the seniors from the Latino communities. If I have misunderstood what you are saying, please excuse.
Yes, he would be.  The two parts of my post were not interrelated.  In one, I was responding to the assumption that we put a priority on families.  The other I was pointing out that immigration of older people is not without significant cost.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 02:36:03 PM
It would take 10 years for my wife - Polish - to get any of her family members into this country.  We've checked. 

I suppose the irony of the proposed compromise is there isn't a family plan to begin with, whereby chain immigration is running amuck.  And that the aspect of immigration being done away with are the folks who actually have been standing on a line. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 06:16:18 PM
There is another immigration bill in congress, I believe, that would allow the immigrant partner of gay people to be allowed to enter the country permanently as straight couples are allowed to.  I wonder if that will get anywhere this year, or will Bush veto that bill.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 20, 2007, 07:02:37 PM
Sam,

I suspect that Bush would veto that one. Why would legislators who are trying to get the basic relief for the immigrants in the law, waste time on such an issue.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 07:34:50 AM
Sam,

I suspect that Bush would veto that one. Why would legislators who are trying to get the basic relief for the immigrants in the law, waste time on such an issue.

Because it is the right thing to do.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 21, 2007, 11:30:17 AM
Sam,

I suspect that Bush would veto that one. Why would legislators who are trying to get the basic relief for the immigrants in the law, waste time on such an issue.

Because it is the right thing to do.
Oh, that.  Good luck.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:30:19 PM
Sam,

I suspect that Bush would veto that one. Why would legislators who are trying to get the basic relief for the immigrants in the law, waste time on such an issue.

Because it is the right thing to do.
Oh, that.  Good luck.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 05:49:19 PM
LGBT families and immigrant legislation reform was part of the platform presented by the May 1 demonstrators.  I am not clear what the details were, but IMO gay families should have the same recognition and rights to come to this country.  Also, there is likely a need for immigration reform so that LBGT persons who are persecuted for their sexual orientation in countries can seek asylum in the U.S.  The Iraq invasion made it much worse for people in this respect, not better, I understand.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 12:17:21 AM
Gay families?  What exactly is a gay family?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 01:36:35 AM
Some of the families your family is going to church with, while they leave you home alone on Sundays.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 01:42:40 AM
The NYT has 3 items on immigration.  An editorial, an article on the changing role of employers in the immigration debate, and some letters.  Here is an excerpt from one letter that I liked written by a Reverend in Manorhaven NY:

Your arguments are sound and clear. The progressive bloc has yielded entirely too much to the anti-immigrant and produced an accord that is unjust and unworkable. I would add here, also, that comprehensive immigration reform must include discussion on issues of trade and serious economic assistance to poorer countries that will genuinely help them develop viable economies and other social structures.

Until that happens, nothing will change the flow of men and women into our country in their effort to maintain their human dignity and that of their families. Until that happens, we owe them whatever assistance we can offer. The legality of their presence is irrelevant to the more basic human and divine demand that we look after our brothers and sisters in need.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: prairiepop on May 22, 2007, 09:36:50 AM
Quoting from a quote, here, "...we owe them whatever assistance we can offer. The legality of their presence is irrelevant to the more basic human and divine demand that we look after our brothers and sisters in need."  The good and fuzzy-minded preacher has apparently never moseyed down to New Orleans where US citizens still suffer, still go without, are still waiting for "whatever assistance we can offer."  Offering our national largesse to ILLEGALS while our own poor [in many other venues than NO] are struggling to stay alive, to feed and educate their kids, to make it thru the dark nights out there--how can we 'owe' the border-crossers more than we owe our own?  The 'legality of their presence' is highly relevant--we don't know who they are, what they are, where they're going, and which among them might be planning an act of terrorism.  Start with our OWN brothers and sisters in need--then help some legal immigrants.  My great-grandparents were immigrants who gained citizenship
thru naturalization and a lot of paperwork...they were screened at Ellis Island, learned English, obeyed the law and loved their new country.  They would not understand how those who come in illegally by the millions could qualify for amnesty and public assistance...  Medicaid and foodstamps are definitely a cut way above from the old Federal cheese and sacks of beans hand-outs of the Depression...  The preacher quoted above is but one more fuzzy-minded zealot...working, it must be said, against the interests of our national security and the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 09:40:00 AM
Quoting from a quote, here, "...we owe them whatever assistance we can offer. The legality of their presence is irrelevant to the more basic human and divine demand that we look after our brothers and sisters in need."  The good and fuzzy-minded preacher has apparently never moseyed down to New Orleans where US citizens still suffer, still go without, are still waiting for "whatever assistance we can offer."  Offering our national largesse to ILLEGALS while our own poor [in many other venues than NO] are struggling to stay alive, to feed and educate their kids, to make it thru the dark nights out there--how can we 'owe' the border-crossers more than we owe our own?  The 'legality of their presence' is highly relevant--we don't know who they are, what they are, where they're going, and which among them might be planning an act of terrorism.  Start with our OWN brothers and sisters in need--then help some legal immigrants.  My great-grandparents were immigrants who gained citizenship
thru naturalization and a lot of paperwork...they were screened at Ellis Island, learned English, obeyed the law and loved their new country.  They would not understand how those who come in illegally by the millions could qualify for amnesty and public assistance...  Medicaid and foodstamps are definitely a cut way above from the old Federal cheese and sacks of beans hand-outs of the Depression...  The preacher quoted above is but one more fuzzy-minded zealot...working, it must be said, against the interests of our national security and the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. 
So as long as there is one American in need, fuck 'em?  Interesting perspective.

"What then must we do?"  When faced with poverty need and want the imperitive is to help where and how one can.  That there are others in need elsewhere does not strike me as a particularly just reason for denying it here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:42:15 AM
I have a feeling that there won't be an immigration law passed this year, and it will won't happen until after the '08 election.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 22, 2007, 10:29:07 AM
I agree. We need to take care of our own people first, then we can consider what to do to help outsiders. In fact, many of our poorest citizens are suffering in large part because of the presence of illegal aliens, who will do the low-skilled labor that our own poor used to do, and do it for less in salary and benefits. The more "freebies" we offer to illegals, the more of them will be encouraged to come here. Americans should come first in their own country.

Quoting from a quote, here, "...we owe them whatever assistance we can offer. The legality of their presence is irrelevant to the more basic human and divine demand that we look after our brothers and sisters in need."  The good and fuzzy-minded preacher has apparently never moseyed down to New Orleans where US citizens still suffer, still go without, are still waiting for "whatever assistance we can offer."  Offering our national largesse to ILLEGALS while our own poor [in many other venues than NO] are struggling to stay alive, to feed and educate their kids, to make it thru the dark nights out there--how can we 'owe' the border-crossers more than we owe our own?  The 'legality of their presence' is highly relevant--we don't know who they are, what they are, where they're going, and which among them might be planning an act of terrorism.  Start with our OWN brothers and sisters in need--then help some legal immigrants.  My great-grandparents were immigrants who gained citizenship
thru naturalization and a lot of paperwork...they were screened at Ellis Island, learned English, obeyed the law and loved their new country.  They would not understand how those who come in illegally by the millions could qualify for amnesty and public assistance...  Medicaid and foodstamps are definitely a cut way above from the old Federal cheese and sacks of beans hand-outs of the Depression...  The preacher quoted above is but one more fuzzy-minded zealot...working, it must be said, against the interests of our national security and the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
Quote
I agree. We need to take care of our own people first, then we can consider what to do to help outsiders. In fact, many of our poorest citizens are suffering in large part because of the presence of illegal aliens, who will do the low-skilled labor that our own poor used to do, and do it for less in salary and benefits. The more "freebies" we offer to illegals, the more of them will be encouraged to come here. Americans should come first in their own country.

I would rather invest the time, energy, and money educating and training those impoverished low-skilled Americans so that they won't have to work those jobs.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 22, 2007, 10:34:46 AM
Well, when the Bushies have plunged our country hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars into debt just where are we to find the money to provide for outsiders and our own "brothers and sisters in need"? The poorest of America's poor, who are also usually the least educated, are being pushed out of low-skilled jobs by illegal aliens who will take those jobs for much less. Add in an anchor baby or two, and the illegals are getting far more help from this country than its own citizens are. We should take care of our own, not the citizens of other countries.


So as long as there is one American in need, fuck 'em?  Interesting perspective.

"What then must we do?"  When faced with poverty need and want the imperitive is to help where and how one can.  That there are others in need elsewhere does not strike me as a particularly just reason for denying it here.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 22, 2007, 10:38:02 AM
That could be a part of the solution, but as long as we fail to stop the inundation of illegal aliens, we will be forever going one step forward and two steps backward. We will never solve the problem of illegal immigration by granting amnesty; that will only encourage others from those countries to come here to wait for the next amnesty!

Quote
I agree. We need to take care of our own people first, then we can consider what to do to help outsiders. In fact, many of our poorest citizens are suffering in large part because of the presence of illegal aliens, who will do the low-skilled labor that our own poor used to do, and do it for less in salary and benefits. The more "freebies" we offer to illegals, the more of them will be encouraged to come here. Americans should come first in their own country.

I would rather invest the time, energy, and money educating and training those impoverished low-skilled Americans so that they won't have to work those jobs.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:46:56 AM
Shutting off the borders and granting some form of amnesty to the illegal immigrants can be mutually exclusive policies. The borders should be closed because it is as much a homeland security issue as it is an immigration one.  Sending millions of illegal immigrants back to their country of origin is not a realistic or viable option - it is far less costly to grant them some form of amnesty and allow them to become legal, taxpaying residents of this country. 

Further the reason why people immigrant here is because they do see it as the land of opportunity.  Well, if you want to change that, than crack down on employers of illegal immigrants.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 11:04:43 AM
Quote
Well, if you want to change that, than crack down on employers of illegal immigrants.
I've argued before that if you really want to crack down on illegal immigration, start jailing CEOs whose companies employ them, managers who allow them to work, rich people who have them clean their houses.  Make it a mallum prohibitum offense, so knowledge of their illegal status is not an issue; make the CEO responsible for every illegal immigrant they employ.  I imagine once the CEO of Holiday Inn serves some time in the slammer for the Holiday Inn Brownsville employing undocumented aliens in the kitchen staff, the policies on employment there will tighten considerably.

Hell, the aliens themselves are only trying to make a living.  Nail the people who are using them and abusing the system.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 11:11:12 AM
People have a tendency to focus on supply be it oil, illegal immigration, drugs, etc.

Fighting supply is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources.  As long as there is demand, there will always be supply.

The issue is and always has been demand.   If you diminish and eventually eliminate the demand then the supply is irrelevant. 




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 01:54:17 PM
I think the key part of the Reverand's statement is here, not about relevancy/irrelevancy part that evoked knee jerk reactions:

comprehensive immigration reform must include discussion on issues of trade and serious economic assistance to poorer countries that will genuinely help them develop viable economies and other social structures.

Until that happens, nothing will change the flow of men and women into our country in their effort to maintain their human dignity and that of their families.


Since the immigration restrictionists are so concerned with the flow of men and women into our country in the first place, why would they fight an argument that addresses precisely this point?  Or simply pretend it doesn't exist?

Could it be that this will never happen in the immigration compromise because neither side is really interested in stopping that flow?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:10:30 PM
People have a tendency to focus on supply be it oil, illegal immigration, drugs, etc.

Fighting supply is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources.  As long as there is demand, there will always be supply.

The issue is and always has been demand.   If you diminish and eventually eliminate the demand then the supply is irrelevant. 


That about sums it up.

But the "wall builders" won't hear you.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:14:21 PM
inca - Could it be that this will never happen in the immigration compromise because neither side is really interested in stopping that flow?

You are correct too.

And at the same time we could make millions building walls.

Halliburton anyone?

I used to feel sorry for the naive.


USED to.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 05:37:39 PM
inca - Could it be that this will never happen in the immigration compromise because neither side is really interested in stopping that flow?

You are correct too.

And at the same time we could make millions building walls.

Halliburton anyone?

I used to feel sorry for the naive.


USED to.


Well said, as ever, SR. 

A wall, a “temporary only” program, a growing slave underclass, and a permanent illegal supply climbing over, or tunneling under.  But not to worry, Halliburton will throw them in profit per head prisons, and start the cycle all over again.  And if all else fails, they can start another war, including more mass migration from elsewhere.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 06:00:04 PM
This is also what the far right calls, The Family Values Way.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 23, 2007, 03:46:06 PM
Yes, exactly. That is why I favor at most limited wall-building, but a strict enforcement of our laws against hiring illegal aliens. If we punish illegal employers enough that other employers will decide it isn't worth the risk to hire illegals, at least some of the illegals would go home if they can't find work.

Fighting supply is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources.  As long as there is demand, there will always be supply.

The issue is and always has been demand.   If you diminish and eventually eliminate the demand then the supply is irrelevant. 





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 06:52:44 AM
Yes, exactly. That is why I favor at most limited wall-building, but a strict enforcement of our laws against hiring illegal aliens. If we punish illegal employers enough that other employers will decide it isn't worth the risk to hire illegals, at least some of the illegals would go home if they can't find work.

Fighting supply is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources.  As long as there is demand, there will always be supply.

The issue is and always has been demand.   If you diminish and eventually eliminate the demand then the supply is irrelevant. 




Americans talk about a wall along the border, but what about our borders that face the oceans?  No possible way to protect those borders with a wall. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:22:07 PM
"Oceans no longer pro-TECT us." - GWB



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 05:07:34 PM
Well, looks like the Dems caved to Bush.  Cowardly group.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 24, 2007, 06:49:34 PM
chak,

If we punish illegal employers enough that other employers will decide it

There you go being silly again.

Do you really think the long arm of the law is going to touch Mrs. Smith who hires an undocumented person as the nanny for her 2-year old?

Do you really think the long arm of the law is going to touch Mr. Jones who hires an undocumented person to lay the sod he purchased at the local garden supply store?

Of course, if you eliminate the borders and allow free movement of people throughout the Western Hemisphere, the problem disappears.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:30:20 PM
That will never happen, Cap, though it would eliminate a lot of today's problems.  But I doubt we'll see that in our life time. ::)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 25, 2007, 12:29:35 AM
The future looks bleak right now under the Bush administration.  But history teaches us that things can sometimes unexpectedly change, and even quickly.

I don't know how long the EU was in people's minds before it happened, but from where I sat, it looked like it happened overnight.  Didn't see it coming.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 25, 2007, 12:30:56 AM
I remember too how startling it was when the Berlin wall came down.  And what a revelation it was, as described to me by a German who lived there when it happened.

What goes up must come down.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 25, 2007, 12:58:42 AM
I do laugh (and I am having fun) when I say some things, although I also mean them quite seriously.

The point is, however, living behind walls – whichever side one is one – and whether those walls are concrete or theoretical - is not living in freedom.

And people shall ever make an effort to be free, regardless of what setbacks they experience (and assuming we are around to do so).

It is human nature.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 07:34:19 AM
As opponents from the right and left challenge an immigration bill before Congress, there is broad support among Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents alike — for the major provisions in the legislation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:26:02 PM
Cry-me-a-river Bonerhead doesn't like the bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner told a closed gathering of GOP "rapid responders" last night that the Senate immigration bill is a "piece of @#$%." Said Boehner, according to two attendees: "I promised the President today that I wouldn't say anything bad about ... this piece of @#$% bill."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/23/201107.aspx


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:28:04 PM
...and I was ... snif ... just starting... sniff ... to .... snif, snif ... feel sorry for the bugger... snif....


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 26, 2007, 04:56:00 AM
There again the Bush administration prefers to turn over our security to anyone but Americans. Remember how he tried to turn over our port security to Dubai? We could have every cargo container inspected, but it will cost $$$$$$. AFAIK, a relatively small number of illegal aliens tries to enter through the ports, though. The great majority of illegals are Mexican and come across our land borders, one way or another, not by boat. 


Americans talk about a wall along the border, but what about our borders that face the oceans?  No possible way to protect those borders with a wall. 
[/quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 26, 2007, 05:04:47 AM
The way in which a poll is phrased, and the way the choices are phrased, can influence the outcome of the poll. We recently had a school bond election here, and I was one of the voters who was asked to take a telephone poll. The poll was long (too long, IMO) and several questions limited the choice of answers in such a way that I ended up responding in a way that didn't fully indicate my actual views. (The bond failed, although the poll results showed that a majority were for it.) So much for the validity of many polls. I just don't believe that most Americans are willing to allow this inundation of illegal aliens to continue or to allow aliens who have stolen American identities to become citizens anyway. This sorry excuse for legislation is just pandering to the "minority" vote and to big business.

As opponents from the right and left challenge an immigration bill before Congress, there is broad support among Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents alike — for the major provisions in the legislation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 26, 2007, 06:41:03 AM
Chak,

I am one American who would welcome the influx of Mexicans who want to work hard and make the American Dream their own. Most of us are, or are descended from immigrants who have been here about 400 years. The parts of the US that were once part of Mexico should be easily available to Mexicans, as well as the rest of the country. We have some Mexicans moving into my area. Usually they are migrant workers who come for the farm season and return to Mexico before the holidays. But each year, more stay through the winter and get good jobs. Around here, they have to learn English pretty quick, since there are few Spanish speakers in the area. The young children, in particular, seem to learn very quickly. It is so sad that when they return to Mexico for the mid-winter, they return without having had the opportunity to go to school down there. It's obvious why they enjoy coming here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:48:02 AM
If this legislation passes, it could be one of the few things that Bush will be able to point to as a success of his administration.  I can't think of anything else that could be called a success.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 27, 2007, 04:49:29 AM
You may not be having as many moving in on you as many other places, especially in border states. It makes for an uneasy mix. The problem with having such an overwhelming number coming in from one country, and having a constant flow, is that it limits assimilation. There are always more from the old country coming.

Your idea that the states that were once part of Mexico should be "available" to Mexicans is sheer nonsense, IMO. These "border" states are a part of the United States, and no one has a "right" to enter the US without permission. The more Mexicans or other Spanish speakers you have in an area, the less likely it is that they will learn English and assimilate.

No country benefits from being Balkanized into competing racial/ethnic/linguistic groups. IMO, we should cut down on legal immigration and take whatever steps are needed to seal our borders. Then we can worry about what to do with the however-many millions of illegal aliens who are already here.

Chak,

I am one American who would welcome the influx of Mexicans who want to work hard and make the American Dream their own. Most of us are, or are descended from immigrants who have been here about 400 years. The parts of the US that were once part of Mexico should be easily available to Mexicans, as well as the rest of the country. We have some Mexicans moving into my area. Usually they are migrant workers who come for the farm season and return to Mexico before the holidays. But each year, more stay through the winter and get good jobs. Around here, they have to learn English pretty quick, since there are few Spanish speakers in the area. The young children, in particular, seem to learn very quickly. It is so sad that when they return to Mexico for the mid-winter, they return without having had the opportunity to go to school down there. It's obvious why they enjoy coming here.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 27, 2007, 05:15:24 AM
chak,

You may not be having as many moving in on you as many other places, especially in border states. It makes for an uneasy mix. The problem with having such an overwhelming number coming in from one country, and having a constant flow, is that it limits assimilation. There are always more from the old country coming.

Ho Hum!  Old News.

You have posted nothing that this country has not seen before - first spoken by the Brahmins about the Irish, then by the Irish against the Poles, Jews, and Italians, and now by them against Latinos.

The fact remains that we are not now and never have been a melting pot; we are a stew, with each ethnic group adding its bit to flavor things up.

So, WELCOME, wayfaring strangers of Mexican origin!  Add your salsa to the spice that is America.

I love (TOO MUCH!!) going to the food court at the local mall and having an all-American lunch - a taco, a slice of pizza, and an egg roll!

Face facts, Jack, you are fighting a losing battle against the forces of nature and of history.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 27, 2007, 07:04:23 AM
Chak,

Seems to me as I think back on immigrations I have known in my lifetime, that the people preferred, and were preferred to bunch up into groups and keep an ethnic community while they were assimilating. Such was the case with the Puerto Ricans in Reading, the Viet Namese in Williamsburg, the Arabs in Richmond, the Italians in Philadelphia, and currently, the Russians in Brooklyn. The crux of the problem seems to be that it is your turn (the border states) to welcome the immigrants and help them on their way to Americanization. It won't happen in a single generation. Know that they will not remain bunched up in the first states they arrive at. The Eastern cities have been doing it since the beginning of the country.

And, the Latinos are already fanning out to other parts of the country where there is work that attracts them. Give them time, and a welcoming hand, and all will go well.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 28, 2007, 03:35:02 AM
I wish that I shared your optimism, but I have to live surrounded by these "new arrivals". There are always the professional complainers in the "La Raza" groups to deal with, but also we simply have too many people who aren't learning English and don't want to be "Americans": they want to be "Mexicans", but think they should be able to turn part of our country into Mexico.

It is an uneasy mix much of the time because the people we get are not the more educated and sophisticated classes, but rather they are the uneducated, unskilled poor who will probably never get beyond sweeping floors. Their behavior leaves a lot to be desired: one of the more  outrageous examples was a guy who wanted "cabrito" (baby goat) for a BBQ....so he bought a live goat and slaughtered & butchered it in his front yard in front of all the neighborhood kids! He just couldn't understand the difference between slaughtering livestock at his shack in rural Mexico and in his front yard in a residential neighborhood. People like that are hard to stomach, much less "welcome".

I seriously doubt that the previous "Americanization" process will work as well on these people. The examples you cited were not contiguous to the US, so there wasn't an unending stream of new arrivals to reinforce the language and the customs of the old country. If we could close down the border for a few years, we might make some progress, but as it is, we have inundation, not immigration.

Chak,

Seems to me as I think back on immigrations I have known in my lifetime, that the people preferred, and were preferred to bunch up into groups and keep an ethnic community while they were assimilating. Such was the case with the Puerto Ricans in Reading, the Viet Namese in Williamsburg, the Arabs in Richmond, the Italians in Philadelphia, and currently, the Russians in Brooklyn. The crux of the problem seems to be that it is your turn (the border states) to welcome the immigrants and help them on their way to Americanization. It won't happen in a single generation. Know that they will not remain bunched up in the first states they arrive at. The Eastern cities have been doing it since the beginning of the country.

And, the Latinos are already fanning out to other parts of the country where there is work that attracts them. Give them time, and a welcoming hand, and all will go well.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2007, 06:13:23 AM
chak,

It is an uneasy mix much of the time because the people we get are not the more educated and sophisticated classes, but rather they are the uneducated, unskilled poor who will probably never get beyond sweeping floors.

IOW, these are exactly the people Emma Lazarus told us we need when she wrote so many years ago.

I don't know about you, but 3 of my 4 undocumented grandparents were illiterate in both English and their native languages until the day they died.  Among them, they raised 5 of the best Americans I could ever think of.

Take your blinders off once and for all; go across the street and say, Welcome, neighbor!" to the newcomers.  They might even find you worth knowing.

BTW, grilled cabrito is outstanding.  Sooner or later, some enterprising newcomer will open a store specializing in cabrito and all the other good things your new neighbors use.

And,yes, I teach in a high school which is 80% Hispanic.  Yesterday's graduation was done bilingually.

Would you really have these proud parents sit through a ceremony honoring their children and not know what was going on?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 06:27:09 AM
Chak,

I found your "outrageous" example of "unacceptable" behavior to be very amusing. If that is the worst behavior that occurs, these people will be fine neighbors. In farm country, it is not unusual for children to witness butchering, and they get a healthy understanding of where their food comes from.

When there was a flood of Puerto Ricans into Reading, I remember my Mom complaining that they were unsuitable because they did not understand the use of basements, which most houses in the city had. They tended to toss their garbage down in the basement, sans containers, which had to be cleaned out when the odor reached a neighbor's nose. One of the good Pa Dutch folks found it less than obnoxious and set up a business to employ the Puerto Ricans, raising mushrooms in those basements. Until the next generation came up ready to take other jobs, this was the main occupation for the immigrants.

When a boatload of Vietnamese ended up in Williamsburg years ago, it was found that they were skilled at arranging flowers. They were put to work creating beautiful silk flower arrangements that were sold cheaply to tourist for many years. In time, they learned the value of their artistry, and now those same arrangements are quite pricey.

If you, and your neighbors, would put your Yankee ingenuity to work with the Mexicans, I'm sure you can find solutions to the problems that come up. Perhaps you will need to provide a community butchering place, all nice and spiffy clean, for these people. Skill in butchering sounds like the beginning of a useful job.

And, do pay attention to what your children are doing in their neighborhood. If you don't want them to learn the fine skill of butchering a goat, call them home to their toys. Wandering the neighborhood being nosey is not necessarily a good activity for children anyway. OTOH, it is a good learning experience, and cost you not a cent in eduction tax money!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:39:56 AM

DHS shows virtually no "terrorism" connection
by Chris in Paris · 5/28/2007 04:34:00 AM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (9) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

Despite its original mission created after 9/11 and repeatedly being told this is the mission by Bush, DHS has very little to show in terms of actual links to terrorism though it clearly has a very strong record of acting as an immigration service. Much like the "war on terror" there is quite a gap between words and actions.

    Of the 814,073 people charged by DHS in immigration courts during the past three years, 12 faced charges of terrorism, TRAC said.

    Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed.

    "The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that's just not true," said David Burnham, a TRAC spokesman. "Either there's no terrorism, or they're terrible at catching them. Either way it's bad for all of us."

    The TRAC analysis also found that DHS filed a minuscule number of what are called "national security" charges against people in the immigration courts. The report stated that 114, or 0.014 percent of the total of roughly 800,000 individuals charged were charged with national security violations.

    TRAC reported more than 85 percent of the charges involved more common immigration violations such as not having a valid immigrant visa, overstaying a student visa or entering the United States without an inspection.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 28, 2007, 07:04:06 AM
I don't take my political instruction from Emma Lazarus. She was a poet, not a lawgiver. When the US had previous large waves of immigration, there were still plenty of good jobs for people with little education. That is no longer the case.

I don't know whether any of my ancestors were illiterate when they came here, but the ones that I knew weren't. The ones from 300 years ago...who knows? In a 21st century economy, we should be trying to get immigrants who are educated and have needed job skills that fit our economy. We just don't need all these semi-literates and people with a 6th grade education in the numbers that are coming, unless we are trying to establish a permanent underclass.

I'll pass on the cabrito. I can't get past the cruelty involved, just as I won't eat veal or lamb, either. You'd have to be a really cruel person to hang a baby animal upside down in a tree, slash its throat, and start skinning/gutting while the poor creature was still twitching. Ugh! Another thing not to like about my new "neighbors" (really, just the people who live nearby--not neighbors.)

As for the bilingual graduation ceremony, I don't know how long these people had lived here, but surely they could have learned enough English by now to understand that their kids were being handed their diplomas. The more we cater to Spanish (or any foreign language) speakers, the longer they will take to learn English, if ever. Excellent reason to have a constitutional amendment to make English our official language. People choose to come here--no one is dragged across the border--they need to learn the langauge and assimilate. 

 

chak,

IOW, these are exactly the people Emma Lazarus told us we need when she wrote so many years ago.

I don't know about you, but 3 of my 4 undocumented grandparents were illiterate in both English and their native languages until the day they died.  Among them, they raised 5 of the best Americans I could ever think of.

Take your blinders off once and for all; go across the street and say, Welcome, neighbor!" to the newcomers.  They might even find you worth knowing.

BTW, grilled cabrito is outstanding.  Sooner or later, some enterprising newcomer will open a store specializing in cabrito and all the other good things your new neighbors use.

And,yes, I teach in a high school which is 80% Hispanic.  Yesterday's graduation was done bilingually.

Would you really have these proud parents sit through a ceremony honoring their children and not know what was going on?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 28, 2007, 07:15:23 AM
I doubt that you'd have found it too amusing if it had been your kids who were exposed to such cruelty. Butchering is one thing; slaughtering another. When some cretin hangs a baby animal in a tree upside -down, slashes its throat and starts in gutting/skinning before the poor creature has even stopping convulsing, don't expect civilized people to welcome them to the neighborhood. The police were called to perform that "function".

There is a slaughterhouse nearby where they will do custom slaughtering and butchering. These people were just ignorant enough to think they could do this sort of thing in a residential neighborhood. They were soon "educated" on the difference between "city life" and "down on the farm". 

I'd rather put my ingenuity into figuring out if some of these people are illegal, so I could turn them in to the immigration authorities. Especially since Bush and the US Senate seem determined to sell out the US to Mexico. Well, judging by all the empty beer and liquor bottles I see heaped in their trash cans, they should at least keep the breweries profitable. 

Chak,

I found your "outrageous" example of "unacceptable" behavior to be very amusing. If that is the worst behavior that occurs, these people will be fine neighbors. In farm country, it is not unusual for children to witness butchering, and they get a healthy understanding of where their food comes from.


If you, and your neighbors, would put your Yankee ingenuity to work with the Mexicans, I'm sure you can find solutions to the problems that come up. Perhaps you will need to provide a community butchering place, all nice and spiffy clean, for these people. Skill in butchering sounds like the beginning of a useful job.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 28, 2007, 08:01:30 AM
Actually, I don't think that immigration shoud have been folded in to Homeland Security. I first heard about it from a European immigrant to California and then it made things a lot clearer to me as to why there was a backlog of more than several years long standing in Philadelphia for instance, as if you could get a message to them, much less ask a pertinent question you might like to have answered fast. This may have been the start of "understanding" that it had nothing to do with the war, and the war had nothing to do with homeland security  although it was all disfunctional.

Your bringing up Paris is why I am here as I did not see a reply button when I really wanted to mention to weezo that this topic was brought up at The Guardian when a friend of mine at the Labor Bureau began a forum for the French political election where the campaign from the right was heavily immigration; I have to assume the fool in office as of now intends to work on his alliance by gathering up troops for Iraq from the local former French African colonial population.  They never seem to understand the bottom line on this --using the banlieu population, and your high unemployment problem--and calling it Patriotism. Patriotism to what exactly?

Anyway, weezo, in the course of this, a British poster went into a rant and the only thing that really got him about ex-colonials as neighbors was their habit of, well, there is a well-known book by this title, The Goat in the Bathtub(don't think it has yet been translated into English,however; sounds a bit like a childrens' book, doesn't it).

I decided to reply to the Brit.poster by telling him people gossiped about that particular habit too when Castro came to New York and stayed at the Hotel Theresa in Harlem.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 08:24:41 AM
Chak,

It is interesting that you are so squeemish about the source of your food. Is it really that different to eat the flesh of a young animal as compared to the tougher meat of an older animal?

From about five years and older, I would have welcomed the opportunity for my sons to have observed exactly where their food comes from. I do not believe in sheltering children from  reality. In rural areas, young children learn that Bambi is slaughtered, hung to bleed, and turned into a delicious meal. It is life, and there is no reason to shelter children from it.                   

It is apparent that these people possess skills that would give them jobs above the "unskilled labor" pool. Those who can butcher are considered skilled laborers. I suspect you are grossly underestimating the value of your new neighbors.

Why don't you try to learn Spanish yourself, and find out how hard or easy it is for you to learn another language before you impose your position on others? If you learn Spanish well enough, you could help the newcomers learn English, and provide a service instead of wasting your time with complaints. If you know Spanish yourself, you could then, if you still want to, ferret out those illegals from among the legal immigrants. You can't do it if you don't speak their language.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 28, 2007, 08:55:42 AM
Chak,

I am one American who would welcome the influx of Mexicans who want to work hard and make the American Dream their own. Most of us are, or are descended from immigrants who have been here about 400 years. The parts of the US that were once part of Mexico should be easily available to Mexicans, as well as the rest of the country. We have some Mexicans moving into my area. Usually they are migrant workers who come for the farm season and return to Mexico before the holidays. But each year, more stay through the winter and get good jobs. Around here, they have to learn English pretty quick, since there are few Spanish speakers in the area. The young children, in particular, seem to learn very quickly. It is so sad that when they return to Mexico for the mid-winter, they return without having had the opportunity to go to school down there. It's obvious why they enjoy coming here.



Welcome and influx??? Are you serious??

This is like saying, "Ask NOT what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for the Mexicans."


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2007, 09:06:23 AM
chak,

I'd rather put my ingenuity into figuring out if some of these people are illegal, so I could turn them in to the immigration authorities.

I'll just bet you would love to play at being vigilante (Now, there's a good Spanish word for you, you nativist SOB), wouldn't you?

The Jauverts, Torquemadas, McCarthys and their ilk always get off on butting in where they don't belong.

If you take the law into your own hands, my racist adversary, you have no right to call yourself a law-abiding American.

We all know that if our new residents were blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, there would not be a peep out of you.  If you say otherwise you're only proving that denial ain't just a river in Africa.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2007, 09:07:49 AM
Garrick,

Welcome and influx??? Are you serious??

Yes and yes!!

Come on in; the water's fine.

We need your new blood to rescue America from its own decadence.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 28, 2007, 11:05:28 AM
Quote
You'd have to be a really cruel person to hang a baby animal upside down in a tree, slash its throat, and start skinning/gutting while the poor creature was still twitching.
My friend, have you ever visited an abattoir?  Trust me, if you are going to eat meat it does not pay to think too much about how it gets to the table.

Also, this differs from, say, cleaning a fish precisely how?  Or boiling the lobster alive?

My view is if the positions are the food chain were reversed and they had the power to do so, cows would pen us up like veal and slaughter us too.  Screw them.  Enjoy the osso bucco.


Title: Happy Memorial Day Feasting!
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:28:16 AM
Mmmm…….  As the great daughter and further back of farm people, all zis talk of ze young got es making me VEERY hungrey.  Here are some tasteee notions as well.  Would ze slaughter bother you as much eef you wereth at an outdoor Paris market en la bon France, Chakotee?

http://www.cookeryonline.com/goats/index.html

Peut-être chèvre barbequed. Bon appétit !



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 28, 2007, 11:30:26 AM
I doubt that you'd have found it too amusing if it had been your kids who were exposed to such cruelty. Butchering is one thing; slaughtering another. When some cretin hangs a baby animal in a tree upside -down, slashes its throat and starts in gutting/skinning before the poor creature has even stopping convulsing, don't expect civilized people to welcome them to the neighborhood. The police were called to perform that "function".

There is a slaughterhouse nearby where they will do custom slaughtering and butchering. These people were just ignorant enough to think they could do this sort of thing in a residential neighborhood. They were soon "educated" on the difference between "city life" and "down on the farm". 

I'd rather put my ingenuity into figuring out if some of these people are illegal, so I could turn them in to the immigration authorities. Especially since Bush and the US Senate seem determined to sell out the US to Mexico. Well, judging by all the empty beer and liquor bottles I see heaped in their trash cans, they should at least keep the breweries profitable. 

Chak,

I found your "outrageous" example of "unacceptable" behavior to be very amusing. If that is the worst behavior that occurs, these people will be fine neighbors. In farm country, it is not unusual for children to witness butchering, and they get a healthy understanding of where their food comes from.


If you, and your neighbors, would put your Yankee ingenuity to work with the Mexicans, I'm sure you can find solutions to the problems that come up. Perhaps you will need to provide a community butchering place, all nice and spiffy clean, for these people. Skill in butchering sounds like the beginning of a useful job.




Ever take a kid fishing?  Ever clean a fish?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:38:19 AM
I doubt that you'd have found it too amusing if it had been your kids who were exposed to such cruelty. Butchering is one thing; slaughtering another. When some cretin hangs a baby animal in a tree upside -down, slashes its throat and starts in gutting/skinning before the poor creature has even stopping convulsing, don't expect civilized people to welcome them to the neighborhood. The police were called to perform that "function".

There is a slaughterhouse nearby where they will do custom slaughtering and butchering. These people were just ignorant enough to think they could do this sort of thing in a residential neighborhood. They were soon "educated" on the difference between "city life" and "down on the farm". 

I'd rather put my ingenuity into figuring out if some of these people are illegal, so I could turn them in to the immigration authorities. Especially since Bush and the US Senate seem determined to sell out the US to Mexico. Well, judging by all the empty beer and liquor bottles I see heaped in their trash cans, they should at least keep the breweries profitable. 

Chak,

I found your "outrageous" example of "unacceptable" behavior to be very amusing. If that is the worst behavior that occurs, these people will be fine neighbors. In farm country, it is not unusual for children to witness butchering, and they get a healthy understanding of where their food comes from.


If you, and your neighbors, would put your Yankee ingenuity to work with the Mexicans, I'm sure you can find solutions to the problems that come up. Perhaps you will need to provide a community butchering place, all nice and spiffy clean, for these people. Skill in butchering sounds like the beginning of a useful job.




Ever take a kid fishing?  Ever clean a fish?

Reminds me of an overnight blue fish expedition I went on where our catch was later cleaned by the blood lusting Yankee date of the other gal.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:48:57 AM
BTW Chak

Bet your neighbor would give you a better deal all around than Smithfield.

Bet he cleaned up better after himself too.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 12:14:18 PM
Cap,

¡Felicitaciones a ti y tus estudiantes y sus familias! Mayo sus sueños vienen verdad.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 28, 2007, 12:34:54 PM
Re: Immigration
« Reply #408  Mr.Utley, Native Delawarean:

The opinion in California and Texas,although people in either place most often come from different states in Mexico, if Chicano or in general from Mexico, is that the entire southwestern USA is Mexico, The source of the problem was the US military with time on its hands.

Did anybody bother to see, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee,last night?
Slightly to the North but same "occupational hazard" if you are not Anglo-Saxon. Speaking of which, somebody earlier mentioned the Coasts without Walls. I notice today at nytimes.com an, as yet unread, article on The Neighbors are learning to speak Mandarin on the Eastern Shore of Brooklyn. I'm familiar, as I used to phone for Gallup at times between 1987 and 1989 and often had the phone picked up in Chinese. No problem.  The wall-less condition of our coasts, demands Coast Guard attention because as a matter of fact most Chinese have arrived at great expense for inferior accomodations by sea.

But, note on butchering. My mother always instilled in my housekeeping notes that you find a Good German butcher, and depending on where you live in Delaware you are probably familiar with a good Amish butcher like one of mine.  The other is a man with a family helping him out in a large renowned farm-market begun by Mennonite but he and is family are from Cambodia and you may be familiar with another spelling than I am but I usually say, Meung, or Mung,or Moong tribesmen. They stopped preparing venison for local hunters because as you probably know there is a problem that deer carry from pasture to pasture that sometimes the cows pick up and you have to be quite cautious when skinning deer or preparing them in the first place.

As to Smithfield, however, I forgot who mentioned them, but do you know what they've been doing to their legal American workers? I can spot you some on-line literature if you need to know where that ham is coming from. I heard from them last Winter, the workers that is, just about when I was considering whether I'd like to have very thinly sliced ham on biscuits for Xmas brunch. I changed my mind. I tried contacting his highness John Edwards who handled so many suits for people with irresponsible doctors but no reply about the Smithfield operation in North Carolina where the workers are stuck with hazardous working conditions and no collective bargaining. By now, the boycotting has gone on to your local supermarket carrying their product.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 01:02:52 PM
Madu,

I'm sitting here not far from Smithfield, and have heard nothnig about a problem with the packers. Thin sliced Smithfield ham is as much a part of Christmas as putting a star on the top of the tree. My Virginia-born hubby could never enjoy his Christmas birthday without that delicacy, tinged with yellow mustard, and tucked inside some fresh, hot biscuits.

Please provide details!

Anne in Virginia


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2007, 01:06:13 PM
incadove.

¡Felicitaciones a ti y tus estudiantes y sus familias! Mayo sus sueños vienen verdad.


Mil gracias.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:56:43 PM
One pig is slaughtered every two seconds...
One Smithfield worker described the brutality: “The line is so fast that there is no time to sharpen the knife. The knife gets dull, and you have to cut harder.


Smithfield's pigs live by the hundreds or thousands in warehouse-like barns, in rows of wall-to-wall pens. Sows are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment. They trample each other to death. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The floors are slatted to allow excrement to fall into a catchment pit under the pens, but many things besides excrement can wind up in the pits: afterbirths, piglets accidentally crushed by their mothers, old batteries, broken bottles of insecticide, antibiotic syringes, stillborn pigs -- anything small enough to fit through the foot-wide pipes that drain the pits. The pipes remain closed until enough sewage accumulates in the pits to create good expulsion pressure; then the pipes are opened and everything bursts out into a large holding pond.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 04:19:46 PM
Seems the the problem with the drain for waste is only compromised by the insecticide bottles and syringes. Otherwise, it is all offal and suitable to be composted into good fertilizer. Better instruction to the employees may solve the problem of the insecticide bottles, syringes, and batteries. Why are batteries in there anyway? Perhaps a standard trash container near the pens would solve the problem.

I would suspect that neighbors, unless there is a sufficient buffer between the pens and the closest neighbors, would find the smell problematical. I'm sure the holding ponds have to be moved from time to time as they fill up.

If the worst of the slaughter system is unsharpened knives, that could be solved by issuing multiple knives per shift, and requiring employees to sharpen all knives at the beginning or end of the shift.

These are not insolvable problems, and they seem somewhat minor to me. Not enough to put me off of that once a year treat.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 06:17:51 PM
It's not just smell, but multiple environment issues from pig manure, North Carolina, I believe, producing more pig poop than all the people in California and some other state combined. 

Smithfield has a long history of human rights abuse, animal rights abuses, environmental abuses, law suits, also documented by scientists at the University of North Carolina, Human Rights Watch, et al.  Very high injury rates in the industry too.

There is a boycott that has recently spread beyond the infamous North Carolina plant.  Think it includes Virginia.

Lots of stuff on the web for those interested in researching more.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 06:37:04 PM
It's worth noting that Smithfield sells products under other many other names, including Butterball Turkeys and some other deli products.  They're world wide now, breaking into Poland, among other nations, where they can take advantage of people and the lack of environmental regulations even more.

Give me Chak's neighbor's goat any day.  Lower in fat, higher in protein, organic, free range bred, tastier recipes too if you know how to prepare it.

I imagine there are other places to get ham too for the holidays.  But they sell that under different names as well.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 09:24:37 PM
Inca,

If you get a chance, share a link to at least one reasonably accurate source of information. Smithfield is a big supplier of meats around here, and are a cut above the no-name brands in taste and quality. Their greatest competitor, or perhaps it is an alternate name, is Gwaltney. Again, good products, fair price.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 09:49:27 PM
Inca,

If you get a chance, share a link to at least one reasonably accurate source of information. Smithfield is a big supplier of meats around here, and are a cut above the no-name brands in taste and quality. Their greatest competitor, or perhaps it is an alternate name, is Gwaltney. Again, good products, fair price.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4834364.html

http://www.smithfieldjustice.com/

http://www.smithfieldjustice.com/Documentos/News/PDFs/NYT_Paula_Deen.pdf

http://www.smithfieldjustice.com/Documentos/News/PDFs/Workers_Letter_to_Paula_Deen.PDF

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/

http://www.ufcw.org/

http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&artNum=14474

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1595

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_2001_Feb/ai_70739005


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 10:13:36 PM
I think Gwaltney is another Smithfield.  One can find their products and names at their website.

The websites I provided have additional articles to boot.

Chow down, hubby, come holiday time.

;-)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 02:34:50 AM
Inca,

I checked out a number of the links you provided, but I did not see mention of poor conditions for pigs that would lead to a threat of the wholesomeness of the product. I did see a serious labor dispute, but Virginia is like North Carolina, in that both are "right to work" states. Teacher organizations are not allowed to operate as unions in Virginia. Yes, this does mean that some teachers are fired for petty reasons since the union can neither defend them nor directly bargain for their rights or salaries. Hubby has been in the same situation as a trademan working for the state government. He has been forbidden to become unionized as well.

So, while I have some sympathy for the workers who say that their injuries are the highest in the industry, I do understand that unionization in a right to work state is not a "right". And, yes, I know that unions have been in the downswing since the Reagan administration, especially when the Republicans are in power.

Thanks so much for providing the links. I have a better understanding of what the situation is with the Smithfield products.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 05:44:37 AM
Inca,

I checked out a number of the links you provided, but I did not see mention of poor conditions for pigs that would lead to a threat of the wholesomeness of the product. I did see a serious labor dispute, but Virginia is like North Carolina, in that both are "right to work" states. Teacher organizations are not allowed to operate as unions in Virginia. Yes, this does mean that some teachers are fired for petty reasons since the union can neither defend them nor directly bargain for their rights or salaries. Hubby has been in the same situation as a trademan working for the state government. He has been forbidden to become unionized as well.

So, while I have some sympathy for the workers who say that their injuries are the highest in the industry, I do understand that unionization in a right to work state is not a "right". And, yes, I know that unions have been in the downswing since the Reagan administration, especially when the Republicans are in power.

Thanks so much for providing the links. I have a better understanding of what the situation is with the Smithfield products.

Living in states where unions are part of life, it's difficult for me to picture the state of mind in Virginia.  I support the boycott because I can, and because I think their labor and environmental practices are vial, denigrating, and disgusting.  They are far from the only food in town.  And I think that supporting such efforts raises the standard of living and working conditions for everyone in the community/U.S., not just those working for Smithfield.  A company that also used the immigration issue to break up union organizing, cut a deal for themselves, and have working families taken away in shackles and chains.  While they evaded prosecution.

I see numerous health issues related to the products themselves simply by how they are described as being proceeed.  Here is a link that deals with some;  among other items, it states:


Bacteria-Laden Bacon and Harmful Ham
Extremely crowded conditions, poor ventilation, and filth in factory farms cause such rampant disease in pigs that 70 percent of them have pneumonia by the time they’re sent to the slaughterhouse. In order to keep pigs alive in conditions that would otherwise kill them and to promote unnaturally fast growth, the industry keeps pigs on a steady diet of the antibiotics that we depend on to treat human illnesses. This overuse of antibiotics has led to the development of “superbacteria,” or antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains. The ham, bacon, and sausage that you’re eating may make the drugs that your doctor prescribes the next time you get sick completely ineffective. Learn more about the effect of eating meat from sick, diseased, and drugged animals.
http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?c=pork1209&gclid=CL7FiZ2Fs4wCFRX2ggodP2uiSQ



I have the impression that you have a prima facie trust of this product, whereby one would have convince you long and hard that it is something unhealthy to ingest, even once.  But for myself, the quality of the meat we take into our bodies has a lot to with the quality and health of the animal's life, and what went into their systems, which also winds up, in one form or another in ours.

But bottomline for me, is that I stand with the Smithfield workers.  I look back with pride to know that I participated in the grape boycott that helped Cesar Chavez and his union gain ground in this nation.  I'd like to see the same thing happen for the people in these stories too.  I stood with the teachers in some of the strikes that went on when I was a student, and I'm glad that I did.  So now I'm standing with the people who put meat in our groceries store in such large quanities.  They work so hard, and for a company that is grotesquely disrespectful of basic human rights, and the environment that we all share.  How can they possibly care about the quality of the food going into the consumer's body?

So I do it because I can, and because it's the right thing to do.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 05:57:55 AM
Recently, I've become appalled at the price we pay for produce and fresh meats in CO2 pollution.  It's really a shame that there are so few local sources of fruits, veggies, and meats.  To produce a bag of salad mix, requires more pollution than its worth.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 10:39:15 AM
Sam,

We have become intoxicated with the ease of using grocery stores in lieu of raising our own food or shopping at a variety of sources. If you are feeding a large family, it makes sense to purchase a wide assortment of greens for a good salad mix, but when the birds fly the nest, it is just so much easier to buy that bag of already mixed greens. Then, too consider the consumption of gas to drive around to various farm outlets in lieu of a single trip to a big grocery store. I remember when grocery stores, in season, sold local produce, but these days the produce is imported even when the local gardens are in full production because it is just simpler for the stores to deal with wholesalers than to buy the produce piecemeal.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 10:52:42 AM
Inca,

I admire your resolve to stand behind the workers at the Smithfield plant and boycott the product.

It may be inconceivable to you to live in a state where unions do not routinely protect the workers, but it is, for the present, a cherished way of life in parts of the south. The result is that workers make less money, but industry is more willing to move into southern states and provide jobs where there were none before. This is a good for our overall economy, and the economy in Virginia is strong. By comparison, states which stand by the unions are taking a direct hit in their economies, as for example in the Detroid and the Pittsburg areas where unemployment is rampant. I have sisters living in those two areas and get more news from there than other areas of "the rust belt".

If I were asked to make a suggestion to the workers at Smithfield, it would be to pool their capital and build their own meat processing company in competition to Smithfield. Worker-owned industries would be a great alternative to capitalist-owned industries. The work rules could favor the workers and the product could be marketted to those who feel it is important to support workers as well as capitalists. In that situation, I would probably move my shopping preference away from Smithfield to support the new products.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 29, 2007, 12:36:26 PM
"I look back with pride to know that I participated in the grape boycott that helped Cesar Chavez and his union gain ground in this nation.  I'd like to see the same thing happen for the people in these stories too. ...
  So now I'm standing with the people who put meat in our groceries store in such large quanities.  They work so hard, and for a company that is grotesquely disrespectful of basic human rights, and the environment that we all share.  How can they possibly care about the quality of the food going into the consumer's body?

So I do it because I can, and because it's the right thing to do.", from incadove #428

I also joined the boycott in support of the Chavez movement. We were warned at one time, when I attended a meeting of La Raza, that the growers would hire women such as myself as scab labor to keep the wages down. This in its way came to pass, the Labor Dept. unable to find enough jobs in Midwestern  industrial small cities to give to returning(keep that one in mind, today)veterans of the Vienam war, and also provide job services for displaced homemakers in an area experiencing 17% unemployment, failed. Welfare could not provide enough to pay rent and utilities in the city, after I had lost my home with 2 acres of prior orchard land and meadow where I was able to grow my own food for a decade; but it did give me a chance to listen to the mumblings of veterans returned from Vietnam to the ghetto and opened my eyes to the future -- of Homeland Security, to be exact.  There would be no disaster relief, if this country ever had a major disaster, either political or natural, what chance was there the government was likely to ever do anything about nuclear asking for it such as their current saber-rattling with Putin and Iran?

I then went "down country" to places I'd known in my childhood and picked crops at minimum agricultural wage. Reagan and Bush coming in did not change a thing but had led to this amalgamation of corporate farming as we know it now.  Where I live now, I call it "Republican grocery shopping" which supports globalization by cheating immense other populations of a fair wage for their labor and a fair price for commodities produced. It has spread like cancer through the "globe"(or, the glob).

Previously, I never ate grapes, so I never to this day developed the habit (I think, this was the result of having grapes at home as a child, which my grandfather would prune back for my mother when he visited. He came from the Moselle when a very young child.  As the grapes came in, all the boys would pick them while they were still hard as olives and pelt them at each other in grape-wars. Thus we never got the chance to eat them. 

But learning the wages paid back during Cesar Chavez's organizing and since I knew many of the Chicano population migrated from Crystal City,Texas -- the pay for stoop labor on green onions or lettuce (I had an uncle who irrigated lettuce for awhile in Yuma after he returned from WW2 and did not inherit my grandfather's farm in the Midwest from which everybody was displaced except for whom I had thought was the eldest and his family from father to son. But, my favourite uncle died in Arizona from a traffic accident.)convinced me that I didn't have to buy any of that but could grow all my own and eat something else during the off-season. We ate sauerkraut from my own homegrown cabbage varieties, and canned tomatoes, over the winter since tomatos during the Nixon administration became an imperative to experiment with many varieties for the best taste and production in home-grown food. FDA hadn't considered product labeling where allergies were occurring at that time.

And in the Spring, back to the grapes, before the early greens came in like Mustard,Turnip, etc., there were the grape-leaves growing wild. We ate dolmades!

This reminds me, I have to see how the moisture level is where I grow Forellenschluss and or "speckled trout" sommer lettuce in a half barrel.

If I can find my notes saved on pigs grown in enmasse never intended and the health hazard created by  vast manure ponds causing neurological damage, I will post them.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 01:55:10 PM
Madupont

Interesting stories from your background.  Thank you for sharing.  I was a child and an urban consumer during the first grape boycott, but I well remember my mother telling me why we weren’t buying them and why we were supporting Cesar Chavez.  I also remember the boycott later on, information from the union about the pesticides being used, the birth defects among children born to pregnant women working in the fields, the rate of illnesses due to working with them, how the stuff didn’t wash off, how little the pay and the benefits were for putting grapes, and at already such high cost, on consumers' tables.  I supported that one too.  If it wasn’t for that union, they would still be poisoning us with those chemicals because they are scum.  They still are poisoning us, but it isn't as bad.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 01:59:27 PM
Weezo

What is challenging to conceive is not so much living in a state “where unions do not routinely protect the workers,” (which, to me, is like saying democracy is not rulership by the people), but living in any area of the United States where workers don’t have the free right to organize and collectively bargain.

Or that we’re purchasing food where the cost is someone’s fingers or someone’s pregnancy, or someone being beaten up for exercising such a basic right, or the cost of our enviornment, or the cost of our health, or by subjecting animals en masse to extremely inhumane conditions, and in a company that wealthy.

Sounds like you’ve been familiar already with this issue, and have an opinion on unions, period.

Apart from boycotting, and as far as unions are concerned, I don’t find the economic argument convincing.  The North Carolina plant, for example, is in an extremely poor area.  The economy is not doing well. 

Nor do I see a basis for your argument that unemployment in Detroit and Pittsburg is due to unions.   There are plenty of areas of the country that are “doing well” and have unions in various industries and fields.

If you have articles from a reliable source as the basis of your opinion, I would interested in seeing them.

I’m not opposed to your suggestion to the workers at Smithfield either.   Maybe that’s what Chak’s neighbor’s was trying to do when someone called the police and had him hauled off.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 02:16:13 PM
Inca,

My opinion on unions varies to which union, where and when. Power is dangerous, whether in the hands of the industrialists or the unions. Power corrupts, and in the seventies we saw a whole lot of union corruption that was as damaging to the workers as the company abuses had been. I am glad that you agree to the solution being the organization of industries around a worker capital base, so that the workers own the company and can choose which economies make sense and which ones are inhuman.

If I have time, I will look up some links for you on the industrial problems that resulting in movement of industries to lower wage areas. I would think it was self-evident, but perhaps not.

As you have put thoughts into my head, I am remembering that I do have another source of pork products other than the local Food Lions and Walmarts. There is a garden center on my way home from one of the food lions, that sells smoked pork products, perhaps not as consumer-oriented packaging. I will check it out. They do not carry fresh pork products, nor chicken or beef. I think they get the meats from local small producers. Their eggs come from local farms, as does much of their produce in season. I was a bit disappointed on my last visit there, to see out of season produce for sale. I wonder if the newer generation running the business is using the same sources for produce as the local Food Lions.

We are putting in more of a garden this year than in past years, since hubby is retiring early and we both now have the time to do it. I will be planting some corn and beans over the next week, to supplement the tomatoes and peppers. We do not use pesticides in the garden, and usually, only manure and other natural sources, as fertilizer. I like to pick a tomato in the garden, and eat it on the spot, and you can't do that if you spray for bugs.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 02:45:39 PM
I am glad that you agree to the solution being the organization of industries around a worker capital base, so that the workers own the company and can choose which economies make sense and which ones are inhuman.

What I said was that I was not opposed to your suggestion to the Smithfield workers.  There is a distinction between that statement and taking the position that this is *the* solution.

If I have time, I will look up some links for you on the industrial problems that resulting in movement of industries to lower wage areas. I would think it was self-evident, but perhaps not.

What I refered to were links regarding the specific argument you made earlier concerning the link between unions and the failure or success of specific economies in specific regions of the country;  and the point that this was not the case in other areas.

But if you don't have any reliable material to substantiate that position, I would not be surprised.

As you have put thoughts into my head, I am remembering that I do have another source of pork products other than the local Food Lions and Walmarts. There is a garden center on my way home from one of the food lions, that sells smoked pork products, perhaps not as consumer-oriented packaging. I will check it out. They do not carry fresh pork products, nor chicken or beef. I think they get the meats from local small producers. Their eggs come from local farms, as does much of their produce in season. I was a bit disappointed on my last visit there, to see out of season produce for sale. I wonder if the newer generation running the business is using the same sources for produce as the local Food Lions.

We are putting in more of a garden this year than in past years, since hubby is retiring early and we both now have the time to do it. I will be planting some corn and beans over the next week, to supplement the tomatoes and peppers. We do not use pesticides in the garden, and usually, only manure and other natural sources, as fertilizer. I like to pick a tomato in the garden, and eat it on the spot, and you can't do that if you spray for bugs.

Wonderful that you have a garden.  I don't think there are too many alternatives for pork, but I have not researched the market, or what other companies one can use that aren't Smithfield.  I recall reading from the material I shared earlier that this market is extremely narrow.  I do see that people can buy meat over the internet.  For example, (I think) the goat meat link I came across earlier and posted.  That seems to be a growing industry in the southern region from what they report.  One of their links also cross references health data on that product and other meats like pork, beef, lamb, chicken.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 02:54:33 PM
Postscript

Incadove:  What I refered to were links regarding the specific argument you made earlier concerning the link between unions and the failure or success of specific economies in specific regions of the country;  and the point that this was not the case in other areas.

Nor is it even the case, for example, in at least the area the North Carolina plant is located in, and thus, necesassarily the region you indicated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 02:58:13 PM
BTW

As far as "solutions" are concerned, I do think that supporting boycotts like the Smithfield one, is being part of the solution, not the problem.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 29, 2007, 03:52:26 PM
This web-site like many others have copied out the original report which was done four years ago. So take a look at this for now. And, I will begin a close comparison to see if everything is included from the original report. It doesn't read exactly like the articles(but bears a similarity in queasy effect to those) that I cross-file referenced in triplicate from medical journals for my father who was a doctor,kept a medical library, and was a professor of anatomy who taught at a university as well as teaching interns and residents in hospital.

1.http://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/5-03/NYTimes5-8-03.html

Neighbors of Vast Hog Farms Say Foul Air Endangers Their Health


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 03:56:53 PM
If you've never been down wind from a hog farm, you really need to educate yourself and learn what an awful experience that can be.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 29, 2007, 05:33:20 PM
I'm not so much squeamish as appalled by cruelty of any sort to defenseless animals. At least with adult animals, they have had a life of some duration and they are normally stunned before slaughter. Baby animals, such as this little goat, or veal calves or lambs are too often inadequately stunned, or as in this case, not at all.

As for showing any "talent" for butchering, I doubt that the offender had any real training. At any rate, it was "explained" to him that a residential neighborhood was not the place to be slaughtering/butchering livestock!

I have in fact had two years of Spanish in high school, but that was almost 50 years ago. I can read it with the aid of a dictionary. However, when people make the conscious choice to immigrate into a country where the language is not their own, it is their responsibility to learn the language of that country, not that of the citizens of that country to learn every foreign language that some immigrant wants to speak! I can't think of any reason that I'd want to live in any other country, but if I did, and the language there wasn't English, I'd feel obligated to learn the language of that country to the best of my ability.   

Chak,

It is interesting that you are so squeemish about the source of your food. Is it really that different to eat the flesh of a young animal as compared to the tougher meat of an older animal?

From about five years and older, I would have welcomed the opportunity for my sons to have observed exactly where their food comes from. I do not believe in sheltering children from  reality. In rural areas, young children learn that Bambi is slaughtered, hung to bleed, and turned into a delicious meal. It is life, and there is no reason to shelter children from it.                   

It is apparent that these people possess skills that would give them jobs above the "unskilled labor" pool. Those who can butcher are considered skilled laborers. I suspect you are grossly underestimating the value of your new neighbors.

Why don't you try to learn Spanish yourself, and find out how hard or easy it is for you to learn another language before you impose your position on others? If you learn Spanish well enough, you could help the newcomers learn English, and provide a service instead of wasting your time with complaints. If you know Spanish yourself, you could then, if you still want to, ferret out those illegals from among the legal immigrants. You can't do it if you don't speak their language.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 29, 2007, 05:40:32 PM
If I know that someone is breaking the law, I will cheerfully turn that person in. I'm not talking about something minor, like not placing the lid on his trash can, but for example, giving alcohol to minors, or selling drugs, or is in this country illegally. And it doesn't matter if they are blonde-haired, blue-eyed Scandanavians (or red-haired Irish). If I knew that someone like that was here illegally, I'd turn them in just as quickly.

Yeah, maybe it is similar to vigilanteism, but the numbskulls in Washington don't seem to have much interest in enforcing immigration law. Someone has to. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Dumbya to do it.

chak,

I'd rather put my ingenuity into figuring out if some of these people are illegal, so I could turn them in to the immigration authorities.

I'll just bet you would love to play at being vigilante (Now, there's a good Spanish word for you, you nativist SOB), wouldn't you?

The Jauverts, Torquemadas, McCarthys and their ilk always get off on butting in where they don't belong.

If you take the law into your own hands, my racist adversary, you have no right to call yourself a law-abiding American.

We all know that if our new residents were blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, there would not be a peep out of you.  If you say otherwise you're only proving that denial ain't just a river in Africa.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 29, 2007, 05:45:17 PM
I've never actually been to one. Some years ago, I did see a film called "Meat" that played on PBS. It was a study of the slaughterhouse from start to finish. The most important point is that the animals (at least those that were filmed) were stunned, then slaughtered while essentially unconscious.

In fact, I eat little meat. For one thing, we don't really need it, and for another, too much saturated fat is really bad for us. Combined with entirely too much cruelty, it's a good reason to avoid it. 

Quote
You'd have to be a really cruel person to hang a baby animal upside down in a tree, slash its throat, and start skinning/gutting while the poor creature was still twitching.
My friend, have you ever visited an abattoir?  Trust me, if you are going to eat meat it does not pay to think too much about how it gets to the table.

Also, this differs from, say, cleaning a fish precisely how?  Or boiling the lobster alive?

My view is if the positions are the food chain were reversed and they had the power to do so, cows would pen us up like veal and slaughter us too.  Screw them.  Enjoy the osso bucco.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 29, 2007, 05:49:23 PM
I couldn't agree more. IMO, all animals raised for food should be free-range and at the end of the "process" should be stunned unconscious and killed very quickly. There is no excuse for keeping animals in miserable conditions just to save money. Better to let the animals have a decent life and a quick and painless death. Better for us too: free-range animals wouldn't need all those antibiotics and growth hormones.

One pig is slaughtered every two seconds...
One Smithfield worker described the brutality: “The line is so fast that there is no time to sharpen the knife. The knife gets dull, and you have to cut harder.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 05:52:08 PM
Does twitching indicate that the animal is still alive, not unconscious, or hasn't been stunned?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 06:00:11 PM
I think Chakotay's neighbor may have showed business acumen and initiative.  Free advertising through children in the neighborhood, and out there in the open, so shoppers could see the butcher's skill and judge for themselves.

It isn't anything new for children to see animals slaughtered, either on farms or in markets.

And I would be far more concerned about how many human beings they see murdered in cold blood on television by the time they are at the end of elementary school.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 06:03:27 PM
We are alienated from our food supply.  As a result, we acceptingly get crap from hog farms where consumers don't even know what's been going into their meat or where it's coming from or how it's killed or what was harmed in the process.

But one can see when the butcher does it right there.  And knows how fresh it is too.  People can judge for themselves.

But if we're not used to it, who knows how well or how poorly this man slaughtered an animal? 

He might have been quite good at it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 06:20:36 PM
If I know that someone is breaking the law, I will cheerfully turn that person in.

I recall an organization that was arrested in an urban park for making some sort of chili and giving the food away to homeless people.

Guess someone cheerfully called the police on them too.

But frankly, I couldn't see reporting people for feeding the hungrey.  Even if it were against the law.  When it comes to a person needing to eat, if the law gets in the way, the law is an ass.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 29, 2007, 06:50:29 PM
chak,

If I knew that someone like that was here illegally, I'd turn them in just as quickly.


Pray tell us just exactly how you would KNOW the person was undocumented.

Might the person be wearing sandwich boards proclaiming her/his status?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 07:23:02 PM
My feeling is to live and let live.

I am not in law enforcement, and prefer not to live as if I am. I have no quarrel with the government settling with the "illegals" by allowing them a way to become legal.

Chak, for many centuries people got by slaughtering and butchering their animals without "training". It doesn't matter if you have formal instruction in a trade, if you can do it, you should be hireable. I think the man in your neighborhood illustrated that he has the guts and skills to do the job. Perhaps he should move to NC and get a job at the Smithfield plant. Just goes to show that these people coming from Mexico are not only fodder for the "unskilled labor" market - they have skills that can be used in American industries. Would you have felt better if he had prayed over the goat before slitting its throat?







Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 30, 2007, 03:37:03 AM
Here's a note I just sent one of my state's senators (Dianne Feinstein, D-CA):

The opposition to illegal immigration is generally thought of as being a bunch of cranky old white guys. I'm sure most cranky old white guys do oppose illegal immigration, but they've got some interesting company. If you look at exit polling for the last several anti-illegal immigrant-type initiatives here in California (discontinuing social services for illegal aliens, making English the official language etc.), you'll find that around a quarter of Latinos voted for them statewide--and over a third of Democrats did too.

I'm one of those Democrats (who has always voted for you BTW). And ultimately my concern is not whether illegal aliens contribute to the economy or are a net expense, or whether particular illegal aliens would be a credit to society or prey upon it. I'm concerned with rule of law. I vacation in third world countries which are usually democracies but don't really enjoy rule of law--places like the Philippines and Indonesia--and I know from personal experience what a blessing it is to live in a country as law-abiding as this one.

I genuinely fear that we're sliding into a milieu where cheating is expected and playing fields are never level. The current bills in Congress do or do not grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants currently here in California, depending on how you define amnesty. And in a building full of lawyers, as you are, there's no dearth of arguing about this. But let me suggest that the only definition that counts is the one the illegals themselves use: "Does it let me stay here?" If it does, they consider it amnesty.

And if we do that, what ensues will make the 3 million person amnesty of 1986 and the 12 million (?) person amnesty of 2007 look like a drop in the bucket. Beyond the vast numbers who will come, we will also be saying to Americans, to would-be legal immigrants, and to the world, that America always gives in if you just turn up the heat enough.

We'll gradually turn into the Philippines, which has great laws on the books. Trouble is they never get to the streets. Please don't let that happen to this country. Your own grandchildren will not benefit from it. Nor will mine.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 07:06:12 AM
chak,

If I knew that someone like that was here illegally, I'd turn them in just as quickly.


Pray tell us just exactly how you would KNOW the person was undocumented.

Might the person be wearing sandwich boards proclaiming her/his status?
Well, sometimes they tell you.  I know a few who are fairly open about it, at least among those they trust, and I have no intention of ever turning them in.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 30, 2007, 01:36:58 PM
ehkzu,

"countries which are usually democracies but don't really enjoy rule of law--places like the Philippines and Indonesia..."

A little forethought on this one might tell you something, if in doubt try asking Bob, in American History, in a spare moment of his, to tell you about the connection of Teddy Rooseveldt to the Philippines.

There are different ways of looking at this, when we colonized the Philippines as Americans, we weren't too interested in Democracy for non-whitemen (and actually still aren't interested; we are as then interested in commodities as resources). 

Then there's another view. As I told a friend recently, because of a war in the Pacific,and an uncle serving in New Guinea, I learned immediately to look at the geography as a division of islands, Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Malaysian.  So let's stop expecting Democracy in colonial Indonesia which is obviously part of the Malaysian archipelago.  I think the main question is why are people in this forum so het up about Bush's  failed attempt at democratizing his personal relations cooperatively with Mexico when he has a father who refers to some of his grandchildren as,"oh, yes, the little brown ones."?

When the actual bottom line comes from a decision that they look so much like people who might slip over the border undocumented and not mind crossing the desert at 130 degrees F. plus. Probably not from origins in Indonesia or Malaysia however where as you know the climate is humid; but seeing as they are the largest population of Muslims in the world, they probably know somebody who could do the job.   

So then ask yourself why prior to election 2008 which is already stacked, why should Feinstein be interested in a red-herring/smoke-screen issue from the 1940s through 1950s, the likes of Mexican illegals when our real problem following Iraq is obviously Muslim illegals; or why, why, dear me, why Barbara didn't the boy go to war with Mexico instead of infuriating a bunch of rag-tag oil-owning Islamicists?

In order to deal with a problem like that, you need a functioning IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, which is why they folded Dept.of Homeland Security in with it (same as they folded FEMA into DHS) and, of course, since these are no longer functioning as a result, then it is up to California to more than likely use the Schwarzenegger plan (States'Rights, you know) and categorize the Spanish speaking aliens in your midst so that somebody can distinguish them from the other kind. This is a very expensive project for a Republican state; but those are the facts. Don't believe anybody who hands you a fizzy new power soft drink in a cool bottle and says, "Want to be safe? Feel Safe!"

If the Immigration and Naturalization had been functioning in the year following 9/11, then you would know the protocol for finding out if someone illegally Dutch, let us say, or legally Indonesian, about whom your neighbours are mystified, was or was not but completely. Of course, you're not, because you vacation there. But if you lived in my neighbours neighbourhood(with Mr. Ed and his talking horse), how would you go about it? Since Im and Nat have a five year back log that keeps them from even answering the phone,regionally, I slipped into my burnoose and slipped into the casbah,the souk,the bazaar, the whatever, like I was trained to do.  You see, I'm a very friendly sort, maybe too much and when I was told , after asking my neighbours, how are the new neighbours?, I was told they were Dutch but, they don't look very Dutch; and was given a quizzical worried look.

So forthwith I grabbed a bunch of flowering whatever was on hand and introduced myself to the neighbours and soon realized we were not talking the same Dutch so to speak.  He looked at me like I was out of my mind, as many of you do, but I looked at him more closely to analyze how and why he looks like what in particular as he kept talking on the wrong tangent.

My advice would be that they get right on it in California or any other border state you suggest and start doing the same process, because at least in California you do know when somebody is speaking Spanish;where you can bet your bottom dollar a person not speaking a Middle Eastern language in conversation to the person accompanying him or her will instead be speaking English, since the British took care of that for us and for the better part of the last century.

If we put it off any longer, it will only get harder, because they will have co-opted a few more languages, maybe even Spanish, as in the Philippines.

I did get to the bottom of the mystery however, when I realized that in the Nederlands, the welfare system picks up enough to live  on even in the US if you budget very carefully to include your airfare back and forth since you have to check in once awhile to prove that you still qualify, and frankly the Indonesians were our allies as former Pres. Ford would tell you if he were still alive, as they bombed East Timor with the weapons bought with US tax dollars. So sure, you look like a pilot to me, tall enough compared to your average Indonesian, and you felt like moving in across from a private air strip. Perfectly understandable. They moved, after I moved, like chess?,no, I was moving anyway, now I have neighbours who are just regular Muslims who know exactly what they are doing better than I do. 

But keep demanding things of your Legislature because where I live that does one absolutely no good, they are instead solidly  straight ahead in it for the money and the good life because they want to get ahead in this rat race.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:02:40 PM
Interesting article on the "entitlement" feelings of illegal aliens by George Will:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881801/site/newsweek/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:06:37 PM
It can indicate all of the above. It could be reflexive twitching, and the animal could be unconscious...or not. It would be hard to say without examining the animal.

Does twitching indicate that the animal is still alive, not unconscious, or hasn't been stunned?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:11:36 PM
The "free advertising" this clod got was several crying children rushing home to tell their parents, who called the police. I assure you that in most cities of any size, it is strongly discouraged for people to slaughter livestock out in the open in residential neighborhoods. Besides the cruelty involved, there is also the matter of sanitation. Texas gets a lot of flies in the warm months. 

I think Chakotay's neighbor may have showed business acumen and initiative.  Free advertising through children in the neighborhood, and out there in the open, so shoppers could see the butcher's skill and judge for themselves.

It isn't anything new for children to see animals slaughtered, either on farms or in markets.

And I would be far more concerned about how many human beings they see murdered in cold blood on television by the time they are at the end of elementary school.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:12:54 PM
As to the clod's skill or lack of it, you'd have to ask his victim.

But if we're not used to it, who knows how well or how poorly this man slaughtered an animal? 

He might have been quite good at it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:16:15 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if they did. All those illegals at the various marches wearing T shirts that said "illegal" weren't keeping it a secret. 

chak,

[
Pray tell us just exactly how you would KNOW the person was undocumented.

Might the person be wearing sandwich boards proclaiming her/his status?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:20:49 PM
I'd have felt less angry if he'd stunned the little creature unconscious before slicing & dicing it, but I'd still have called the cops. A residential neighborhood is not a slaughterhouse, and this is a city, not "down on the farm". All the clod proved to me was that he was ignorant and tasteless, as well as cruel...and unsanitary. The flies buzzing around the carcass were unbelievable.


Chak, for many centuries people got by slaughtering and butchering their animals without "training". It doesn't matter if you have formal instruction in a trade, if you can do it, you should be hireable. I think the man in your neighborhood illustrated that he has the guts and skills to do the job. Perhaps he should move to NC and get a job at the Smithfield plant. Just goes to show that these people coming from Mexico are not only fodder for the "unskilled labor" market - they have skills that can be used in American industries. Would you have felt better if he had prayed over the goat before slitting its throat?








Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:22:59 PM
It is a topic that has been raised off and on since before the 1986 amnesty. It gets more or less media attention depending on whether the Congress is debating enforcement or not. It never completely goes away, but sometimes it gets shifted to the back burner.

Am I correct in recalling that the need for immigration reform suddenly became an issue just before the last elections?  I remember asking "Why now?" before recalling that use of a wedge issue is such a classic tactic.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:29:13 PM
Good post. Whatever definition we use of "amnesty", we can be sure that to the illegals themselves, if they get to stay, it's amnesty. And we can also be sure that if we are stupid enough to allow another amnesty to be put through, there will be millions more illegals here in 20 years, sitting around waiting for the next amnesty to give them a free pass. Just as you say, giving another amnesty will only foster the impression that the US will always give in and give you what you want if you demand it long enough--even if you're illegal and have no right to demand anything!

Here's a note I just sent one of my state's senators (Dianne Feinstein, D-CA):

The opposition to illegal immigration is generally thought of as being a bunch of cranky old white guys. I'm sure most cranky old white guys do oppose illegal immigration, but they've got some interesting company.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 30, 2007, 05:22:17 PM
Chak,

Is there a perfectly good reason why those children were hanging around the guy's front yard instead of playing in their own backyards? Do you not have backyards in your neighborhood? Since you told the story, I have been wondering why the guy did the slaughtering in his front yard instead of the backyard.

The best thing is to realize that the guy did nothing more than was done in this country since the beginning until we moved the slaughter into butcher shops to shield our eyes from reality. And, they didn't do much about the flies until pesticides were invented.

I guess you didn't think much of the homesteading movement in the sixties either, did you?

Again, why were the children playing in the front of his house and without parental supervision anyway? What were the parents doing? Watching the superbowl on tv?




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 30, 2007, 07:14:23 PM
Criminal Illegal Aliens--How Many?

The U.S. Dept. of Justice provides some stats on foreigners in jail. What I saw on the government website didn't differentiate between legal and illegal aliens.

Total prison population in America as of mid-2005: 2,186,230.

Foreigners in federal and state prison: 91,117, or 6.4% of all prisoners.

Foreigners in local jails: not given, but if that 6.4% statistic applies you'd get 47,842.

And that would total about 139,000 foreigners incarcerated in America, of whom an unknown percentage are illegal aliens. I'd guess it's substantial.

Whatever the number, such people are never, ever highlighted in the stories of immigrants that I see on our local public television station. All the ones I see are honest (apart from being here illegally), sincere, hardworking, with winsome children blinking back their tears as they beg for the right to cut in line ahead of the millions trying to immigrate here legally.
For that matter, the people trying to come here legally are never highlighted either. Hmmm....


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 30, 2007, 07:29:39 PM
Universal Biometric ID--Nothing less & nothing else will control illegal immigration

Three words: universal biometric ID. Something none of the pollsters have asked voters about, and no serving politician has proposed (Newt Gingrich has proposed it, but he's not running for office).

A universal biometric ID is what it would take to control who's here and who's not. It's what could turn off the illegal work spigot--especially with large employers. It could also turn off the social services spigot, if we wished. It would erect an electronic fence blocking everyone trying to access American opportunities and benefits illegally. It would force many of the 10-20 million people here illegally to self-deport to their home countries.

A border fence would only block new entries, would cost a fortune, and would inspire endless digging and climbing. Numerous evasions have also greeted previous ID card technologies, but today we have ways of linking a stored, electronic identity to you that are far, far harder to fake.

So as a people we face a simple choice: hang onto the level of privacy we now have and reconcile ourselves to a river of humanity flowing over our borders; or sacrifice a measure of that privacy in order to know and control who's here--not just immigrants, but criminals and terrorists too.

Then why is hardly anyone talking about universal biometric ID? isn't what the pollsters are asking about. Even supposed hardliners like Tom Tancredo (R-CO) don't dare bring it up. And IDs for immigrants only accomplish exactly nothing. It's the illegals we need to identify, and only universal ID will do that. Unless you offer legalization to anyone who wants it, along with an ID. But then an ID will be meaningless, since we'll have given up our sovereignty.

Of course politicians fear to propose the only thing that would work because zealots of both the right and left would go berserk.

This is sad, because for most of us it's not much of an increment over how much the government already knows about us. And it's sad because we're being denied this protection by the knee-jerk reactions of those who talk the most yet think the least about politics.

BTW new biometric ID technologies may not require a card. For example, Fujitsu's palm vein reader uses the unique, non-rearrangeable pattern of veins in your palm. You just hold your hand over the reader. This would let us process every single person entering legally and hand-swipe everyone else whenever they come in contact with government agencies.

Within a year or two we might even learn how many people are here. That 12 million figure is only a guess, after all.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 30, 2007, 08:35:13 PM
ehkzu,

And that would total about 139,000 foreigners incarcerated in America, of whom an unknown percentage are illegal aliens. I'd guess it's substantial.

And the reason behind what you admit is nothing more than a "guess" is??

By your guesswork standard, I would GUESS that no more than 1% of the incarcerated are undocumented.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 30, 2007, 08:38:03 PM
ehkzu,

So as a people we face a simple choice: hang onto the level of privacy we now have and reconcile ourselves to a river of humanity flowing over our borders; or sacrifice a measure of that privacy in order to know and control who's here--not just immigrants, but criminals and terrorists too.

How nice that you propose that others "sacrifice a measure of that privacy."  You're like the guy who cut off the dog's tail an inch at a time so that the poor pooch would not miss it.

I choose privacy; now stay out of my business!!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 30, 2007, 11:30:26 PM
Staying out of your "business" requires putting up with literally millions of people entering America illegally--some for work, some for murder, human trafficking, and drug dealing, some for attack, some with drug-resistant strains of diseases like TB. That makes it a stealth invasion. And that makes your "business" my business, and every other American's "business."

When I was a kid we didn't have to lock our doors. Now we do. We weren't being invaded. Now we are. Islamic fascism hadn't metastasized into a worldwide mass murder campaign focused on the United States and its citizens. Now it has. And innocent young women weren't booed loudly by affluent Mexicans for the crime of being American. Now they are.

In today's world American citizens have to prove their identity and be entered in various databases already, both private and governmental. I can't fly to Indonesia, say, without showing my passport repeatedly. And that passport is a record of an entry in a database. When you buy a toothbrush at Wal-Mart and use a credit card, that goes into your Wal-Mart electronic dossier. When you phone uncle Vanya in Byelorus, AT&T promptly sends a record of your call to the NSA.

Your "privacy" is a chimera. The only people who really have "privacy" are those who are here illegally. You should be ready and willing to sacrifice more or less nothing in order for our country to get a grip on who's here is to indulge you in a fantasy of privacy that hasn't really existed since we were able to leave our doors unlocked.

Deal with it.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 11:34:18 PM
For that matter, the people trying to come here legally are never highlighted either. Hmmm....

Should we take that to mean that you are opposed to, rather than supporting, the suggested changes in family reunification?  And that you instead support, rather than oppose, letting those who've been standing on line, come in?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 11:41:34 PM
Chakotay

Did you see this goat slaughtered yourself, and from start to finish?

Just wondering how you know that the animal wasn't stunned.  Also, if the animal were stunned, was it necessarily illegal what this individual was doing?

And, do you really think they'd be engaged in this activity if they weren't documented?

I don't know if the fellow was trying to start a business or not, but certainly, they needed to eat, he got his hands on a goat, and he needed a place to slaughter it.  Too bad he didn't have access to a shed. 

Could have saved everyone on all sides of the debate a lot of trouble.  Perhaps you'd be going into a more lucrative business with a partner, rather than moonlighting in a hospital on weekends.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 11:50:30 PM
Ekhzu

As you know, I too am strongly opposed to that totalitarian big brother invasion of privacy called the biometric ID.

These measures are also seen in various opposing states as increasing the risk of identity theft.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 30, 2007, 11:55:11 PM
Chak & Ekhzu,

I am unwilling to sacrifice one more iota of my privacy to those who grip about "illegal" immigrants. This country was started by "illegal" immigrants, and was built by "illegal" immigrants. Most of us, are descended from "illegal" immigrants, and I do NOT see them as a problem. Period.

Take your "biometric ID" and stuff it! In two years, whatever you devise, will be just as easy to fake as any of the current ID's. If you can make it, so can someone else!  


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 31, 2007, 12:53:11 AM
weezo, your certainties are outdated. Unless you've figured out a way to rearrange the pattern of veins inside your hand. Check out Fujitsu's non-contact palm ID system. And that's not the only biometric system that can't be faked using any existing methods. That's the whole reason for biometric ID. Just because ID cards were faked historically doesn't prove anything about the future. If past proved future there'd be no stock market. And if someone, someday figures out a way to fake it, it'll be a long time before that becomes widespread, and we'll be evolving our own means of taking out the fakes. Nothing stands still.

And the argument about everyone coming from illegals is simply an emotional statement. Every country on Earth has a sovereign right to decide who gets to cross its borders, and for how long, and what reason. I travel internationally every year, and I know this from personal experience. There isn't a country on Earth that's OK with illegal immigration. Heck, you should see how Mexican law and Mexican legal authorities treat illegal aliens. They're denied access to all social services, just for a start.

Mexico has a moral obligation to look after Mexicans. America has a moral obligation to look after Americans. Mexico does not have a moral obligation to look after Americans who are in Mexico illegally--and vice versa--other than adhering to international standards for dealing with people guilty of criminal trespass. I fail to see how any of this is difficult to comprehend.

If we choose to extend ourselves to certain foreigners for humanitarian or strategic reasons, that's our prerogative. But there's no principle you can propose for admitting foreigners that puts Mexicans ahead of everyone else. Want to know who we actually owe something to? It's the TWO MILLION Iraqi refugees--comprising most of its middle class and nearly all its Christians--due to The Decider's little adventure. If we admit anyone for humanitarian reasons, it should be them.

Or if you want to make it on the basis of suffering, we'd start with the starving citizens of Niger, which ranks at the very bottom--#177--of the United Nation's "suffering index." Mexico only ranks 53rd on that list.

And if you want to make it on the basis of people who we're simpatico with, who already appreciate American society...well, I can vouch for the Balinese. They love us. And they're great people. Family oriented, hard workers, tolerant.

And the Balinese don't boo innocent American young women for the crime of being American, as the Mexican upper crust audience did to the American entry in the Miss Universe contest a few days ago--and not just a few boos, and not just a little. Talk about having no class.

Nor do the Balinese chant "Osama, Osama" at futbol games with American teams. Why should I want to let people come here from a country that treats Americans this way? This shows a hostility towards more than the tool in the White House. It shows hostility towards America in toto. Remember when some Palestinians danced in the streets on 9/11, handing out sweets to neighbors? I have no intention of welcoming anyone like that to our country.

As for family reunification, I certainly encourage anyone who want to have his whole village around him to stay in his village. My spouse and I stay in California partly because we have family here. And we certainly have an obligation not to tear apart the families of Americans unless there's a good reason. But what's tearing apart Mexican families and depopulating Mexican villages is Mexico's callous, greedy, government. Want family reunification? Demonstrate in front of your nearest Mexican consulate. Demand fundamental reforms in Mexico's government.

Remember, every single illegal alien is a citizen of some country--some country that owes that person the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship, unlike us. If you think we're responsible for everyone everywhere--for letting anyone come here who wants to--the consequence of that policy would be the world's poor coming here until here is no different from where they came from. And we'll have a billion+ population like China and India.

The only other principles you could invoke for letting Mexicans in ahead of everyone else would be if you're Catholic and want your church to dominate American life like it does in Latin American countries; or if you're a racialist who puts Mexicans ahead of others, just because you think Mexicans are the bestest people on Earth.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 31, 2007, 01:10:52 AM
Is Family Reunification simply Chain Migration?

There's a lot to be said for the extended family. You could argue that one of sadder aspects of modern America is how so many of us live in nuclear families, without a rich assemblage of uncles and aunts and grandparents and cousins etc. I've no wish to impose our nuclear family concept on those who wish to move here. Their idea is probably better than our concept of parents-children-no one else.

However, if you agree with me that our primary goal with immigration is to help America prosper (both financially and emotionally), we can't just let someone come over, then bring dozens of relatives, with American taxpayers winding up supporting many of them.

How to reconcile these things? I have a proposal I haven't heard anyone else make: when someone applies for a visa with the intent of settling here, that person must list everyone he/she ever wants to bring over. Then we evaluate the group collectively. If the applicant can create an escrow account sufficient to cover everyone's fiscal needs in perpetuity, no problemo. If the group can demonstrate a net profit in productivity for the group, also no problemo. Otherwise, problemo. But it should all be sorted out before the first person comes over in the first place.

Doesn't that sound reasonable?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on May 31, 2007, 01:12:52 AM
Points for anyone who can identify the creature I use for my visual icon.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 01:17:48 AM
As the granddaughter of immigrants, I'm very sympathetic to persons wanting to bring family members over.  And I don't think it's reasonable to create all these conditions, subject to all kinds of biases and preconceptions, in terms of "evaluating" people.  I also think family support systems are very healthy and productive for this nation.

Ekhzu, you still haven’t addressed the issue of people who’ve been standing on line, some for over a decade.

In the past, one of the restrictionist arguments against legalizing people here now is that they "cut in the line" that others have waited on patiently, and, respecting your so-called “rule of law.”

What, now you don’t care about them?

Now that so-called rule of law is irrelevant?





















Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 01:25:44 AM
The argument, as I recall, went:

Is it fair to them?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 31, 2007, 01:32:19 AM
ehkzu,

Every country on Earth has a sovereign right to decide who gets to cross its borders, and for how long, and what reason.

Agreed.  And I want MY sovereign nation to declare that it is open to all.  Free movement of goods, capital, and people from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego would suit me just fine, thank you.

Nativist hysteria like yours is nothing new. 

You are familiar with the Know Nothings of the 1840's, right?

You are familiar with the Anti-Japanese League of the early 20th Century, right?

You are familiar with Hearst's "Yellow Peril" rantings, right?

You are familiar with Nast's anti-Irish cartoons, right?

You are familiar with the film Gentlemen's Agreement, right?

Sheesh, talk about being stuck in the past!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 06:44:35 AM
Ekhzu,

Your thinking on the biometric ID is absolutely foolish. Sure the ID is exclusive, but all that needs to be done is to put a new person into the "system". There are people who devote their lives to hacking systems and they succeed more often than not.

As to the fact that pointing out that everyone arrived here as an illegal immigrant is not "emotionalism". What is "emotionalism" is your notion that those who are here have some greater status than those to seek to come here. This country was built by illegal immigrants and there is no denying it. What is so unique about this point in time that we need to close our doors to the very system that enabled our greatness and prosperity?

You seem to have a foolish hatred of "foreigners", perhaps because they so clearly see our warts. We cannot hold ourselves as above criticism, especially when we show our foolishness to the world in who we elect as our "leaders".

I think you would do well to do an indepth study of who was in your part of the country before your family came there. It might divest you of some of your arrogance. Pay particular attention to the "rights" given to the Mexicans in the treaty that made California and other western states part of the United States. It was the white settlers who swarmed into California that took about the Catholic roots in that area. You are more of an  "immigrant" than those you complain about.

Get it through your thick head. Many if not most Americans do not object to the immigration of Mexicans. They are good people, prone to hard work, family values, and a strong religiousness. What more could you want in a new American?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 31, 2007, 09:39:07 AM
You seem to have a foolish hatred of "foreigners", perhaps because they so clearly see our warts. We cannot hold ourselves as above criticism, especially when we show our foolishness to the world in who we elect as our "leaders".

Nice one!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:36:19 AM
Points for anyone who can identify the creature I use for my visual icon.

Painted bunting?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:40:37 AM
Paradise tanager?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:43:22 AM
Rainbow lorkeet?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on May 31, 2007, 12:37:08 PM
the capO

I thought you might like to take a look at this one from a digest that I read on occasion on-line, they post everyday, although I don't; I sometimes do not get a chance to read it everyday but they have a great back-up system of recent past issues archived by covers where you can catch up your reading.  And, I mean, they are by definition obsessed with immigration simply from having done so much of it themselves.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=7083

How America inspired the Third Reich
 
The Nazis learned about Zyklon B from the US treatment of Mexicans
 
 
 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 01:10:05 PM
I don't know what neighborhoods are like in your neck of the woods, but in Texas, especially in older neighborhoods, houses are often rather close together, with just chain-link fences. It's hard not to know what your neighbors are doing (unfortunately). And even in this videogame generation, kids still play in each other's yards.

As for what this guy was doing, maybe it was common in rural areas, but this is not a rural area. It was also once common to have no sewers and toss body wastes into the streets, but thankfully, we've progressed since then. This guy needed to make it into the 20th century. Apparently he learned his lesson: no more live animals.

Chak,

Is there a perfectly good reason why those children were hanging around the guy's front yard instead of playing in their own backyards? Do you not have backyards in your neighborhood? Since you told the story, I have been wondering why the guy did the slaughtering in his front yard instead of the backyard.

The best thing is to realize that the guy did nothing more than was done in this country since the beginning until we moved the slaughter into butcher shops to shield our eyes from reality. And, they didn't do much about the flies until pesticides were invented.

I guess you didn't think much of the homesteading movement in the sixties either, did you?

Again, why were the children playing in the front of his house and without parental supervision anyway? What were the parents doing? Watching the superbowl on tv?





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 01:12:37 PM
No surprise. Any immigration story that makes it into the media is probably going to be one of those sappy, emotionalistic "aren't immigrants wonderful" blah blah blah stories. Big media probably doesn't hire a whole lot of illegals, but their advertisers do! 

Criminal Illegal Aliens--How Many?

The U.S. Dept. of Justice provides some stats on foreigners in jail. What I saw on the government website didn't differentiate between legal and illegal aliens.

Total prison population in America as of mid-2005: 2,186,230.

Foreigners in federal and state prison: 91,117, or 6.4% of all prisoners.

Foreigners in local jails: not given, but if that 6.4% statistic applies you'd get 47,842.

And that would total about 139,000 foreigners incarcerated in America, of whom an unknown percentage are illegal aliens. I'd guess it's substantial.

Whatever the number, such people are never, ever highlighted in the stories of immigrants that I see on our local public television station. All the ones I see are honest (apart from being here illegally), sincere, hardworking, with winsome children blinking back their tears as they beg for the right to cut in line ahead of the millions trying to immigrate here legally.
For that matter, the people trying to come here legally are never highlighted either. Hmmm....


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 01:16:13 PM
Agreed. I see little if any difference between having to whip out a driver's license and a major credit card in order to give a check and a biometric ID. Either one is more of a nuisance than a problem. The world that many of us grew up in, where doors could be unlocked, children could wander the streets freely, and business could be done on a handshake, is in the past. We just have to deal with that.

Staying out of your "business" requires putting up with literally millions of people entering America illegally--some for work, some for murder, human trafficking, and drug dealing, some for attack, some with drug-resistant strains of diseases like TB. That makes it a stealth invasion. And that makes your "business" my business, and every other American's "business."

When I was a kid we didn't have to lock our doors. Now we do. We weren't being invaded. Now we are. Islamic fascism hadn't metastasized into a worldwide mass murder campaign focused on the United States and its citizens. Now it has. And innocent young women weren't booed loudly by affluent Mexicans for the crime of being American. Now they are.

In today's world American citizens have to prove their identity and be entered in various databases already, both private and governmental. I can't fly to Indonesia, say, without showing my passport repeatedly. And that passport is a record of an entry in a database. When you buy a toothbrush at Wal-Mart and use a credit card, that goes into your Wal-Mart electronic dossier. When you phone uncle Vanya in Byelorus, AT&T promptly sends a record of your call to the NSA.

Your "privacy" is a chimera. The only people who really have "privacy" are those who are here illegally. You should be ready and willing to sacrifice more or less nothing in order for our country to get a grip on who's here is to indulge you in a fantasy of privacy that hasn't really existed since we were able to leave our doors unlocked.

Deal with it.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 31, 2007, 01:22:13 PM
Quote
The world that many of us grew up in, where doors could be unlocked, children could wander the streets freely, and business could be done on a handshake, is in the past.
And all the men had jobs, all the wives cleaned houses in dresses and heels, children were respectful to their parents and we walked to school three miles uphill both ways.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 01:25:40 PM
See it myself? No. A neighbor did and called me out to see what was going on. By then, the little goat was dead and being sliced and diced. She was the one who heard it bleating when it was hung up and went outside in time to see it slaughtered. Lucky her. We called the cops, of course. Regardless of whether you consider his actions cruelty or not, it is unsanitary and not the sort of behavior that is acceptable in a residential neighborhood. Part of living in a city, as opposed to down on the farm, is that one has to accept that there are some restrictions on behavior. I can't play loud music at 3AM and wake my neighbors (not that I would anyway), and he can't slaughter livestock in the city limits.

As for needing to eat, believe me! that family is not starving! They are all overweight (not that I care, but they weren't killing the goat because they were malnourished!)

I'd much rather work part-time in the hospital than cause suffering and death to animals. I barely eat any meat myself, so I certainly would have no interest in slaughtering animals.

Chakotay

Did you see this goat slaughtered yourself, and from start to finish?

Just wondering how you know that the animal wasn't stunned.  Also, if the animal were stunned, was it necessarily illegal what this individual was doing?

And, do you really think they'd be engaged in this activity if they weren't documented?

I don't know if the fellow was trying to start a business or not, but certainly, they needed to eat, he got his hands on a goat, and he needed a place to slaughter it.  Too bad he didn't have access to a shed. 

Could have saved everyone on all sides of the debate a lot of trouble.  Perhaps you'd be going into a more lucrative business with a partner, rather than moonlighting in a hospital on weekends.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Lhoffman on May 31, 2007, 01:28:46 PM
Chak....do you know, you can't really tell is someone is undernourished by looking at them.  Some very poor people are overweight.  That's because the foods that are the cheapest are often the most laden with fat, starch, sugar or sodium.  Whole...fruits and veggies, unprocessed meats...foods can be quite expensive.

(Although I agree with you about slaughtering meat in a residential area...not done.  Should have taken it out to a more rural area.)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on May 31, 2007, 02:45:46 PM
...uphill, both ways...in the snow


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 02:53:55 PM
Chak,

If a person from a rural area in America moved to a city for the first time, they may also make the mistake of continuing to slaughter and butcher in their city home UNTIL they are TOLD it is a no-no. How did you expect that man to know it was a No-no until he was told? Did you provide a New Neighbor Circular that announced that butchering and slaughtering in one's residental yard is not permitted. It probably is not illegal, but it could offend some squeemish neighbors.

As for me, I lived in apartments and small homes in cities for much of my young life, then moved to a rural area a bit more than twenty years ago. With landscaping in place, we can sit on the patio dressed or undressed as we choose. It is a freedom and sense of privacy which I have learned to cherish. I can understand the dismay of your new neighbor in finding out that his neighbors get to dictate what he can and cannot do on his own property. Talk about the loss of ownership rights to your own property!!!

Get over your grumps, old man. Get to know your new neighbors without the self-righteous superiority mote in you eye, and you are likely to learn that they are good people with talents and skills that add to your community rather than detract from it.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 04:26:09 PM
Chakotay

His actions may have violated the city health codes, but that does not mean he was necessarily slaughtering the goat in an unsanitary manner.

When the group I mentioned earlier handed out beans and rice (it was a vegetarian menu) in an urban park to homeless people, I recall they too were arrested for violations related the city health codes.

But the event itself was not unsanitary.

I am still not seeing where your information came from regarding stunning.  Apparently, your neighbor said so;  but your neighbor came to get you because s/he was so appalled, and apparently unfamiliar with the process of slaughtering animals to begin with.

So I think there is a lot of emotional reactiveness in the tale that may cloud perception of the facts at hand.

Not to mention that you initially came on with this story alluding to the belief that the individual in question was an undocumented immigrant.

Clearly, most undocumented immigrants do not wish to call attention to themselves.  Thus, it stands to reason, that the person likely was either a U.S. citizen or here legally.

Yet you saw someone of another ethnic background - perhaps, I am understanding, because of the color of their skin or their facility with English  - and certainly not even necessarily another nationality, since they may very well have been Americans - but doing something different for your cultural experience and background, and jumped to conclusions about illegal immigrants.

That is the nature of bigotry.  It is like a glasses lenses we put on that filters all the information coming through from the world.

But it is not a very effective way of obtaining accurate information, and therefore, not a very effective approach towards solving problems.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:18:37 PM
Well, yes, overweight can be caused by a bad diet as well as by too much food. I was just replying to the "need to eat" comment.

On the slaughtering, he could have had it done at a local processor for a relatively small sum. If he butchered it himself, it would only be the cost of slaughtering and maybe draining the blood out. Almost anywhere would be better than a residential neighborhood.

I understand that people are going to eat meat, and that meat doesn't come from factories in plastic wrap in nature. But you'd think that anyone with some sense could understand that you don't even have livestock in town, much less slaughter it in the front yard. 

Chak....do you know, you can't really tell is someone is undernourished by looking at them.  Some very poor people are overweight.  That's because the foods that are the cheapest are often the most laden with fat, starch, sugar or sodium.  Whole...fruits and veggies, unprocessed meats...foods can be quite expensive.

(Although I agree with you about slaughtering meat in a residential area...not done.  Should have taken it out to a more rural area.)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:27:33 PM
LOL! Only on "Leave It To Beaver"! Or "The Donna Reed Show." Although we kids were more respectful to adults then: otherwise, we got paddled!


Quote
The world that many of us grew up in, where doors could be unlocked, children could wander the streets freely, and business could be done on a handshake, is in the past.
And all the men had jobs, all the wives cleaned houses in dresses and heels, children were respectful to their parents and we walked to school three miles uphill both ways.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:36:23 PM
I hadn't heard of this, but it helps to remember that the US in the 20s and 30s was in the grip of the eugenics movement. They also sterilized men and women with mental disabilities, and in 1932, began the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study in which almost 400 black men with syphilis were left untreated so that the progress of the disease could be studied! Not really one of the shining moments in our history. It was, without question, a very racist period of history.

the capO

I thought you might like to take a look at this one from a digest that I read on occasion on-line, they post everyday, although I don't; I sometimes do not get a chance to read it everyday but they have a great back-up system of recent past issues archived by covers where you can catch up your reading.  And, I mean, they are by definition obsessed with immigration simply from having done so much of it themselves.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=7083

How America inspired the Third Reich
 
The Nazis learned about Zyklon B from the US treatment of Mexicans
 
 
 



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:45:52 PM
Actually it is illegal. First, city ordinances say no livestock in the city limits. Second, humane slaughter laws demand that the animal be stunned before slaughter. And rules of sanitation do not encourage the placement of entrails, hooves, hide, etc., in the city landfill. I doubt that you'd find many Americans who wouldn't realize that "city life" and "country life" have different rules.

Conforming to the "rules of life" wherever we happen to be is just a part of life. You join the Army, you'd better be prepared for Reveille at the crack of dawn or before. You live in a city, you have to conform to the pattern of life there on at least some issues.

 

Chak,

If a person from a rural area in America moved to a city for the first time, they may also make the mistake of continuing to slaughter and butcher in their city home UNTIL they are TOLD it is a no-no. How did you expect that man to know it was a No-no until he was told? Did you provide a New Neighbor Circular that announced that butchering and slaughtering in one's residental yard is not permitted. It probably is not illegal, but it could offend some squeemish neighbors.

As for me, I lived in apartments and small homes in cities for much of my young life, then moved to a rural area a bit more than twenty years ago. With landscaping in place, we can sit on the patio dressed or undressed as we choose. It is a freedom and sense of privacy which I have learned to cherish. I can understand the dismay of your new neighbor in finding out that his neighbors get to dictate what he can and cannot do on his own property. Talk about the loss of ownership rights to your own property!!!

Get over your grumps, old man. Get to know your new neighbors without the self-righteous superiority mote in you eye, and you are likely to learn that they are good people with talents and skills that add to your community rather than detract from it.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:50:06 PM
Not many unconscious animals continue to writhe and bleat pitifully until their throats are slashed. I'll take my neighbor's word for it.

I said that he is an immigrant; as to his legal or illegal status, I couldn't say. I presume he is legal, but haven't interrogated him on it. I didn't "assume" he was an immigrant: everyone in the neighborhood knows that he and his family are immigrants.

Chakotay

His actions may have violated the city health codes, but that does not mean he was necessarily slaughtering the goat in an unsanitary manner.

When the group I mentioned earlier handed out beans and rice (it was a vegetarian menu) in an urban park to homeless people, I recall they too were arrested for violations related the city health codes.

But the event itself was not unsanitary.

I am still not seeing where your information came from regarding stunning.  Apparently, your neighbor said so;  but your neighbor came to get you because s/he was so appalled, and apparently unfamiliar with the process of slaughtering animals to begin with.

So I think there is a lot of emotional reactiveness in the tale that may cloud perception of the facts at hand.

Not to mention that you initially came on with this story alluding to the belief that the individual in question was an undocumented immigrant.

Clearly, most undocumented immigrants do not wish to call attention to themselves.  Thus, it stands to reason, that the person likely was either a U.S. citizen or here legally.

Yet you saw someone of another ethnic background - perhaps, I am understanding, because of the color of their skin or their facility with English  - and certainly not even necessarily another nationality, since they may very well have been Americans - but doing something different for your cultural experience and background, and jumped to conclusions about illegal immigrants.

That is the nature of bigotry.  It is like a glasses lenses we put on that filters all the information coming through from the world.

But it is not a very effective way of obtaining accurate information, and therefore, not a very effective approach towards solving problems.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 06:53:07 PM
In other words, you haven't a clue about the status of this neighbor. And you want to "interrogate" him? I hope he tells you to stuff your questions where the sun don't shine. You are a shameful neighbor!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on May 31, 2007, 07:11:18 PM
Anne,

In other words, you haven't a clue about the status of this neighbor. And you want to "interrogate" him? I hope he tells you to stuff your questions where the sun don't shine. You are a shameful neighbor!

BRAVO!!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 07:15:17 PM
I'm not planning to interrogate him or anyone else. I know he's an immigrant, and I assume he's legal, since he doesn't try to "hide out", as far as I can tell. And now he knows that you don't slaughter livestock in the city.   

In other words, you haven't a clue about the status of this neighbor. And you want to "interrogate" him? I hope he tells you to stuff your questions where the sun don't shine. You are a shameful neighbor!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 07:55:41 PM
I said that he is an immigrant; as to his legal or illegal status, I couldn't say. I presume he is legal, but haven't interrogated him on it. I didn't "assume" he was an immigrant: everyone in the neighborhood knows that he and his family are immigrants.

No, I said that you earlier appeared to assume that he was an undocumented immigrant.

How does everyone in the neighborhood know that he and his family are immigrants?

Are they Americans?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 08:02:12 PM
He sounds like an American to me.

One doesn't take certain risks even with documents, not having all the rights of citizenry.

He sounds like he may have had a point to pull with the city.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 08:14:33 PM
And now he knows that you don't slaughter livestock in the city.   

Maybe he already knew.  Maybe this man is mad at the powers that be, and is going to fight City Hall.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 08:19:10 PM
Whether or not one agrees, that's part of what makes this nation great.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 01, 2007, 03:44:10 AM
Family reunification pt. II--responding to valid questions

Incadove's point about people waiting in line raises a valid point of law. Current immigration law prioritizes "family reunification" over anything else, and if I recall correctly, about 75% of current legal immigration is "family reunification." And apparently "family" has been taken to mean  "clan" including adult siblings and their families, grandparents, cousins?

Anyway, whatever the current rules are, those waiting in line should of course be dealt with according to those rules. Our Constitution forbids ex post facto laws--i.e. laws which change the rules retroactively.

The change I'm proposing--to evaluate the group that wants to migrate in toto, and to make that judgment call based on benefit to America of that group as a whole--would apply to new applicants, not ones who applied before the new law took effect. Even if I wished otherwise I don't believe that would be legal.

As for the basis of that evaluation--every country decides who it wants. For example, we should exclude gangbangers. That seems like a no-brainer. Likewise elderly people who'd go right onto the welfare rolls--unless they were part of a group application, and the group as a whole looked like a good deal for our country. Or affluent elderly people who could prove they wouldn't be a burden on the state. OTOH I'd prioritize PhDs, working artists, skilled artisans, anybody whose skills would enrich our labor force and our culture. And given the unemployment rate among American blacks and high school dropouts in general, I'd put unskilled laborers at the bottom of the list until or unless all of our own unskilled laborers who are willing to work get work. Too many cases like the experiences of New Orleans blacks of getting reconstruction work after Katrina until the Mexican illegals showed up, willing to work for half as much.

You can't escape the need to judge people with an ultimate thumbs up/thumbs down call--a kind of Ebert & Roeper immigration review. That might seem judgmental...because it is. But we do that already. We already exclude criminals, terrorists, and others. In the past we had quotas for every country, and, earlier, for different races.

If it were my call I wouldn't care about countries or races with one kind of exception. But I'd care a lot about ability to contribute.

Two of my spouse's and my closest friends are a guy from India who's living with a woman from Russia. He's a software engineering manager. She's an art therapist. They're getting their citizenship soon, and we'll celebrate with them. These are certainly examples of people we want here.

As for that exception...one reason we haven't had eruptions of Islamofascist behavior the way Europe has is that they've been assimilated much better here. They haven't formed huge monocultural enclaves (outside of Detroit) but have lived embedded in America. That's a proven pathway to assimilation. So I'd close off Mesoamerican immigration until the ones who are here already become assimilated. If we want unskilled labor we can easily get them from other countries. Brazil, China, Niger, Bangladesh, Indonesia. Whatever we do, we need to bring in people in small enough numbers from any one culture so that they assimilate.

Not that I need to make the world American--just the ones who immigrate here. And not that they have to abandon everything they knew. Every single one of us has ancestors who moved here from someone else, after all. But they have to make learning our culture and our language (if they don't know it already) a really high priority.

And I wouldn't grant citizenship to anyone who can't read English well enough to comprehend the average ballot's summaries of state initiatives. Foreign language ballots are a form of cultural suicide and encourage the formation of cultural enclaves cut off from mainstream society, led by demagogues practising pernicious identity politics. Foreign language versions of Al Sharpton or David Duke.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 01, 2007, 03:51:07 AM
OFF TOPIC -- Point to Mr Utley

Yes, it's a rainbow lorikeet. I took the shot in Hervey Bay, Australia, where this gorgeous bird is as common as pigeons are here. Had to lie on my stomach for ten minutes before I could inch close enough to get the shot.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 01, 2007, 03:59:38 AM
ehkzu,

Not that I need to make the world American--just the ones who immigrate here.

I don't suppose you would care to define "American", would you?
Probably no more than those who say we need to stay in Iraq until we "win", but who can't define that, either.
Later today, I will need to do some shopping at a local mall. 
While I am there, I think I will go to the food court and have an all-American lunch - a taco, an egg roll, and a slice of pizza. 
After all, what could be more "American" than that?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 05:26:11 AM
“American” is ever changing.  And being an immigrant does not mean that one isn’t an “American.”  Assuming our form of government doesn’t change that much, Americans will continue to fight City Hall for the things they want in their communities.  Thus, if more Americans get into goat slaughtering, laws will change accordingly to meet the various needs of communities.  There is an interesting article here from 2002 on cultural changes and goat slaughtering in North Carolina and some compromises that met the sensibilities and tastes of various populations living there.  The article also points out the irony of our response to goat slaugtering practices in the face of how we manage our mass slaughter plants - out of sight, out of mind.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0905/p02s01-ussc.html

I see several goat slaughtering cultural practices apart from the food/farming issues we've discussed.  One, religious from Leviticus as repentance for sinning;  a Muslim custom upon the seventh day after the birth of a child;  another, as part of an African custom welcoming people;  a controversial incident at a temple in India where Hindus slaughtered a ritual goat in protest of a law forbidding the religious practice;  an incident whereby Sony apologized for slaughtering a goat to use as a prop at a God of War II video game launch party;  an email to a Namibian website expressing outrage that people can slaughter their goats in town, and even do so cruelly, but they can only slaughter their dog out in the country – that the police came and stopped someone from slaughtering a dog (for food) in the city.

Here too is a very interesting U.K. based blog description of a Muslim goat slaughtering in Kashmir.  The blogger describes the process in more detail than usual, including how to slit the throat of the animal to kill it quickly, and explains why this approach (in the whole blog description itself) is seen as more humane to the animal than the Western, whereby an electric shock is often employed to stun the animal first.  He states that the animal loses consciousness within seconds, and that the heart should continue to pump in order to drain the blood out of the goat’s body.  The goat cost 2 men a month’s salary.

http://quakerelief-faraz.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

Here is an interesting series of photographs from Nigeria (and through Western Kentucky University) showing a ritualistic slaughtering of a goat (not graphic, ok for the squeemish).  I thought the photographs convey how quick the process can be;  it's more the ritual and "the journey."

http://www.wku.edu/~johnston.njoku/arochukwu/iyi_eke/more_iyi_eke_pictures/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 05:43:37 AM
postscript to above.

The blogger also mentions the twitching, describing it as typical, and not indicative of suffering, more nerve reactions.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 01, 2007, 07:58:40 AM
Inca,

You must enjoy research! Thanks for a fascinating lesson on the killing of goats. Small goats are symbolic religiously, more so than other animals. I'm not sure why, since they are good for milk and wool in addition to meat. Perhaps the religious killing of these useful animals makes it more of a sacrifice.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 08:26:52 AM
Weezo

I do find it an intriguing topic, new to me.  I read another blogger too, Canadian, who shared a story about two Kenyan immigrants who couldn't see celebrating Christmas without slaughtering a goat.  Trouble was, they lived in a condominium.  So, they resorted to the bathtub, but the neighbors heard the noise and thought it was a human being, and called the police.  So apparently, the goat issue is not that new (see links below).  Goats are slaughtered as a very acceptable practice around the world, including the U.S. (as I found, reading an interesting farming site).

THE WESTERN YUGUR STEPPE - China - Photographs
“Preparing a Festive Dish”
(includes a picture of slaughtering a goat indoors,  a person preparing the food, the meal set on the table)
http://home.arcor.de/marcmarti/yugur/cuisine/dish.htm

Albania – Photo - an outdoor suburban goat slaughtering by a merchant and butcher.
http://www.bkwine.com/wine_pictures/balkan/albania/pages/bg11-431-3163.htm



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 08:31:45 AM
Ekhzu

I’m sure your friends are very nice people.  Welcome to them.  And America can continue to let a certain amount of folks in because of their job skills.  But I think it is a big mistake to abandon our traditional approach of letting relatives of family members come in.  Don’t underestimate the contributions of those cousins;  art therapy is fine, but many “chain” migrators go on to give much more to this nation.  I have 2 cousins through chain immigration of one of my grandfather’s large families who were World War heroes.  Can an art therapist beat that?  If not for my grandfather’s determination to help his siblings come here, our nation would not have their contributions.  And there were many more just among that “batch.”  So that’s just a small taste of the talent and heroism that’s there among those who cross our borders and send for their families.

In short, I think this skill stuff evaluation is like playing God.  One cannot make predictions about who is nicer or more acceptable on such a platform.  This might sound corny to some, but people are essentially the same everywhere, and I think we've had an excellent system - the United States has been built on love and relationships, self-determining adventurers and risk takers, and not silicon valley job applications.

What is interesting to me about the goat issue, and especially looking at the Christian Science Monitor article, is that we are actually seeing a healthier food product enter the consumer market as a result of immigration, and despite some of the cultural conflicts that have come up over slaughtering.

Can silicon valley give the American public that?  I really don’t think so.  They prefer meat slaughtering out of sight, out of mind, and as a result, with all the environmental contamination and poorer food quality than the fresh meat valued by the newcomers unafraid to handle their food source in that article.

So that is an example, IMO, of how “quality” and what makes this a better country, is not always what meets the eye.

Also, do not forget that in the effort to bring in new talent in specific fields – let’s take science, for example – those with the qualifications in certain fields we might be looking for are going to be considering whether or not they can bring their loved ones along.

Doesn’t sound like such a good job opportunity if they can’t.

On the other hand, I think this country could stand to invest a great deal more into its education to meet the demands for some of these fields.  And make use of all those intelligent people already here, or those who used their ingenuity to make new lives for themselves here in the first place, and their intelligent children, and extended family members.

Shutting out the elderly is not moral IMO either.

We need a universal health care in this country.  That would redress more issues than we realize. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 08:36:37 AM
Conversation in the Garden

Charlie next door says the folks across the fence
got written up last spring
for slaughtering a goat
in their driveway
and roasting it in a garbage can
filed with burning banana leaves.
Charlie says that's all nice n ethnic n all
but it stinks. Charlie usually smiles
much more than is necessary, but he isn't smiling
when he says this. He's nervous; he knows
at night city backyards become the domain
of cats and thieves. Our plots have flimsy borders
and strange artifacts decompose for dark miles down into
the crowded earth.
The other morning it seemed
someone climbed flfteen feet of the clothesline pole
before it fell. Some crabgrass and a few Califomia poppies
were crushed into a man-sized fetal curl.
Me, I've only been here since mid-January
and already I've a small pile of bones gathered
under the lemon tree, my own things
to bury and burn.
The little lot
is just beginning to bloom.


Eli Coppola

http://www.local.org/deep/deepstyl/dspoetry.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 01, 2007, 10:32:56 AM
Reply to weezo, theCapo, and the other amnestyites in the forum:

Reputable polls (Pew Research, NYTimes/CBS etc.) show that my views generally reflect those of a majority of Americans, whether you agree with those views or not.

So it's more your task to change my mind rather than vice versa--if you want to make a dent in the massive voter revolt that's going on right now. This revolt could even lead to the Democratic party losing its narrow majority in Congress and not gaining the presidency in 2008. I'd regret that. Wouldn't you?

Hint: insulting the people you're trying to convert isn't very persuasive. You might find it cathartic to be like the guys who go to bars to start fights, but in doing so you're only helping my side.

Of course if the namecalling is correct you might be planting a seed that could take root eventually. But when it's so far off the mark it almost isn't worth the trouble to refute...then you're only making yourself look foolish.

You'll that notice below the window where you enter your message, there's a POST button and a PREVIEW button. Try using the PREVIEW button first. As you review your message, ask yourself if you're moving the discussion along or just getting your rocks off. Then take out the invective but leave in the persuasion--the facts and logic that support your argument. It's more work, but you'll be happier in the morning.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 01, 2007, 11:44:52 AM
ehkzu,

So it's more your task to change my mind rather than vice versa--if you want to make a dent in the massive voter revolt that's going on right now.

Nope!

It's not our job to convince anyone who refuses to look at the facts as they are.
Remember that all we need is 50.01% of the vote to send the nativists scurrying.

As far as the term goes, if the shoe fits...

As far as "amnestyite" goes, I am proud of that label, for it acknowledges a truth.  Too bad you cannot accept the truth of your label.

Nationalism is SO 20th Century in a world where one can travel from Lisbon to Prague without a passport.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 01, 2007, 12:19:46 PM
Nationalism is SO 20th Century in a world where one can travel from Lisbon to Prague without a passport.

For now.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 01, 2007, 01:10:43 PM
Ekhzu

As you know, I too am strongly opposed to that totalitarian big brother invasion of privacy called the biometric ID.

These measures are also seen in various opposing states as increasing the risk of identity theft.


Words like "totalitarian" pack a wallop. But precisely because of that they should be used sparingly. "Totalitarian" means "of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy" with synonyms like "authoritarian, dictatorial, despotic." Worst case it's "of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation, especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)."

And of course "big brother" refers to Orwell's "Brave New World," possibly the best-known dystopian novels about a future society that's a Soviet-style state with a Disney World-type smiley face pasted on it.

Using these words by themselves to refute biometric ID proposals employs the logical fallacy of refutation by association. "Hitler wore pants." "You wear pants." "So you're a Nazi."

But if you look at it factually the association of universal ID with totalitarianism melts like a snowman in Houston. If a universal ID is uniquely totalitarian, then totalitarian societies will have it and democracies won't. Right? OK, by that standard here's a partial list of totalitarian nations, taken from Wikipedia's listing of countries with compulsory ID cards:

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Taiwan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand.

'nuff said.

As for "increasing the risk of identity theft" --the devil is in the details. Wikipedia summarizes arguments for and against universal ID at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_card. Overall, a badly implemented biometric ID system probably would increase the risk of ID theft--and a well-implemented BID would decrease it. The biggest unsolved problem with ID theft has nothing to do with the risks/rewards of BID, but with the fact that ID theft has become an international criminal business, and we don't as yet have a comprehensive international police effort designed to track down and prosecute the thieves. Russia is a prime harbor of ID theft organizations. Nigeria's another, just to name some of the worst. And neither country plays well with others.

ID theft has become a highly technical issue. As I pointed out in an earlier post, biometric ID eliminates the kinds of theft that occur at the street level, with fake ID cards readily available to illegal immigrants across America. Biometric ID moves the dangers of ID theft to the large databases required. Criminal organizations with sophisticated technical people--again Russia looms large in this area--have hacked into several commercial databases, though the main source of entry has been corrupted organizational employees. It's a technology race that will never end, with the hackers pitted against the rest of us. Russian hackers recently attacked Estonia because Estonia moved a statue (I couldn't make this up!) and would have brought down Estonia's e-infrastructure if it hadn't been so well designed.

That said, it's not a zero-sum game. ID theft is rampant today, so it's not like not having a universal ID system protects us from ID theft. BID gives us an opportunity to reduce ID theft, and at the very least it pushes the small operators out of the ID theft business and lets us focus on the big, often tacitly state-sponsored criminal organizations.

These are not simple issues, and it does such issues a disservice to condemn new technology based on past experiences with previous technologies. It would be like condemning automobiles because horse poop was a big problem in 19th century cities full of horse-drawn vehicles. Automobiles have plenty of pollution problems, but rampant horse poop isn't one of them.









Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 01, 2007, 01:37:42 PM
Ekhzu,

Actually, I think the term "big brother" came from the novel 1984, which I read in the sixties, and was about a totalitarian state of the future. Of course, that future came and went without this happening. I haven't read Brave New World. It may imitate 1984.

Hedging your bets on a single solution, especially one which would be insulting to a lot of people, doesn't seem like a good idea. It is perhaps instructive that I haven't heard any politicians advocating such a system. A drivers license, although some can be faked, are just fine as an ID, and a social security card works for employers. If it is found that a person is using faked ID's they can be sent back where they came from or let to rot in jail. Putting in place a newer ID system that will require all citizens to have and carry their ID is not a good solution. The immigration problem is just not big enough to be worth the expense involved in such a system.

From your perspective in a border state, I'm sure you feel that a "majority" of Americans have a problem with Mexican immigrants. But in parts of the country that have just a few, if any Mexicans, and they are turning out to be good neighbors, good workers, and good people in general, you will not find as much concensus.

Just came from the grocery store and noticed that since the Mexicans are back for the season, there are more Mexican foods available. That is good. I always like to see more variety of food in the grocery store. There is more good coming from immigrants than bad. But, then I am and always will be, an optimist!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 01, 2007, 02:56:06 PM
My son's teacher (lang arts) says much of the problem he has is kids that know little English.

He said they are also deathly afraid of seeking help, many of them being children of illegals.

And when the teacher asked, most of the kids didn't even know if THEY themselves were documented much less their parents.

Someone has dropped the ball here and it isn't just the immigrants.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 04:10:11 PM
As you know, I too am strongly opposed to that totalitarian big brother invasion of privacy called the biometric ID.

These measures are also seen in various opposing states as increasing the risk of identity theft.


Words like "totalitarian" pack a wallop. But precisely because of that they should be used sparingly. "Totalitarian" means "of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy" with synonyms like "authoritarian, dictatorial, despotic." Worst case it's "of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation, especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)."

Sounds to me like the shoe fits.

It is also described as massively bureaucratic and costly.  That, like building another wall, people find other ladders, the ID theft risk increased precisely because it is so centralized.

I'd rather spend the money on educating Americans, including our newcomers, and universal health care. 

Rather than handing the government another free ride into my privacy.

Legalization will redress any ID theft issues related to immigrants needing papers in order to work.  That portion of ID theft, to my understanding, being but a small portion of a much larger problem not even related to immigration.

countries with compulsory ID cards:

Compulsory IDs are not biometric IDs. 

But I don't like them either, having once lived once abroad in a country that had them.  Being an American, I didn't appreciate the notion that the police could stop me at will on the street, for whatever tickled their fancy, and demand that I produce ... my compulsory ID.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 01, 2007, 04:13:00 PM
Free ride being facetiously employed.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Lhoffman on June 01, 2007, 05:41:31 PM
My son's teacher (lang arts) says much of the problem he has is kids that know little English.

He said they are also deathly afraid of seeking help, many of them being children of illegals.

And when the teacher asked, most of the kids didn't even know if THEY themselves were documented much less their parents.

Someone has dropped the ball here and it isn't just the immigrants.



I can't picture a scenario where a teacher would ask a child if he/she is "documented."  And as far as dropping the ball...there is nothing wrong with parents who don't dump all the problems of the world in their children's lap.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 01, 2007, 05:57:24 PM
Smich,

Sounds like your son's teacher needs help.

When I worked at an elementary school that had some Mexican children during the spring and fall (they went home to Mexico for the winter holidays where they apparently did not attend school), we were successful in integrating them into the regular classes. I was the computer teacher, and had each class for 25 min. per week. The Mexican children loved the computers as much as the other children, and with headphones, enjoyed the same games as their peers. They were Edmark games, such as Millie's Math House, Bailey's Book House, etc., and the featured words, pictures and sound to help children learn.

These games may be helpful to your son's teacher assuming you have the necessary computers already in the school. If the second language students are working on computers, at their own learning pace, it will free up the teacher to work with the other students at their pace. Or, they could all work a lot on the computer and all work at their own pace.

In short, computers and software may be the solution to the problems of the immigrants in the schools.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 01, 2007, 06:40:58 PM
srnich,

And when the teacher asked, most of the kids didn't even know if THEY themselves were documented much less their parents.


If that teacher worked for me, (s)he would be on the next stage out of Dodge.

Please inform that teacher that it is a violation of law for her/him to inquire about the immigration status of any child.

Would that teacher also inquire as to the religious faith, if any, of her/his students?

There are some places where we just don't go.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 02, 2007, 04:20:45 AM
I agree that people who got in line legally and waited (or are waiting) their turn shouldn't have the "rules of the game" changed on them. I also think that we need to eliminate "birthright citizenship" for children born here to illegal aliens, but I wouldn't make it retroactive. Whether through an interpretation by the US Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment, I'd pick a date and say that from this date forward, children born to people in this country illegally would have the citizenship of their parents. They would not be US citizens.

I think it is an excellent idea to favor immigrants who will fit into our 21st century economy rather than people with a 5th grade education who can't speak English. IMO, basing acceptance of an immigration request on whether the person has family here is similar to nepotism, in a way. We should try to get the skilled workers and professionals that are needed in a high-tech economy. 

Family reunification pt. II--responding to valid questions

Incadove's point about people waiting in line raises a valid point of law. Current immigration law prioritizes "family reunification" over anything else, and if I recall correctly, about 75% of current legal immigration is "family reunification." And apparently "family" has been taken to mean  "clan" including adult siblings and their families, grandparents, cousins?

Anyway, whatever the current rules are, those waiting in line should of course be dealt with according to those rules. Our Constitution forbids ex post facto laws--i.e. laws which change the rules retroactively.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 02, 2007, 06:45:59 AM
chk,

I also think that we need to eliminate "birthright citizenship" for children born here to illegal aliens, but I wouldn't make it retroactive. Whether through an interpretation by the US Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment, I'd pick a date and say that from this date forward, children born to people in this country illegally would have the citizenship of their parents. They would not be US citizens.

Thus we see the radical lengths the nativists in our midst are willing to go to impose their exclusionary beliefs on the country.

Point 1:  There's not a snowball's chance in Hell that the "textualists on the SCOTUS will interpret 14 A, Cl. 1 to mean anything but what the plain words say.

Point 2:  There is no way that either method of proposing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment of this type will ever see the light of day.  There are not 75% of the states which will ratify such radicalism.

You nay THINK it will happen; you may WANT it to happen, but the genius of the Founding Fathers was such that it just isn't going to happen.

Personally I would like the "wet foot, dry foot" rule that we apply to Cuban immigrants to be applied to all.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 02, 2007, 11:25:46 AM
Unless, Cap, Bush-Cheney declare marshall law and there is no more constitutional government left in America.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 04:30:41 PM
weezo re:#522 and nytempsperdu re:#523

You know of course that in our state, if I don't drive then I need a "non-driver's" I.D for banking purposes?  Of course, if you drive, then you may not know that having a non-driver's I.D. also identifies me,  along with my photograph, "as voting Democrat" was the way that the dept. of transportation worker " explained " that to me. I don't know if that is because the photograph then identifies me when I am at the polls and sign up to verify my name in the book from voting last time or not? A driver who was previously on the books when having driven me to vote, was not allowed to vote except with a provisional ballot during the Mid-Term elections last Nov. 4th.  The poll-workers (this was in a church, to top it off, since the church receives certain gov't benefits for providing facilities and poll-workers) made the driver sit in a corner to fill out the ballot like some school-child with a behavioural problem. I thought that a strange way to treat a veteran of foreign wars.

Before I get too far off of the topic, when I read your note about the shopping at the Mexican grocery, I decided this is as good a place as any to fill in the rest of the missing half of my account gone astray when I was telling nytempsperdu and you about Kennett Square having been the Mushroom capital of USA(some say, the world) -- and are there similarities to Reading,Pa.

I left off somewhere else, about going to Kennett to find the Bayard Taylor library next door to the post office, and later a block one way or the other down the street to the second-hand Book store that raises money for senior citizens which alerted me that the books came out of some exceptional attics around town.  nytempsperdu probably recalls that out in back of the library is the parking lot with an alley that takes you up to a Mexican grocery store. Ahah, I said, maybe I can find that kind of chocolate that I need to make mole? After a number of visits to the little town with the coffee  houses and the "Amish alley farm mkt.", I checked with a realtor, with the thought in mind of living there. She turned out to be a very ditzy personality for a realtor(maybe they fake it?) But it did give me an opportunity to look around and figure out the housing stock.

One thing I noticed in particular was a neighbourhood, about a block long, both sides of the street, near St. Patrick's Roman Catholic church, where there were signs similar to those put up during election campaigns, in many if not every other yard on the block, they were announcing, "Support your neighbourhood association".  It was very noticeable, in a nice solid neighborhood with those big concrete and stone solid front porches, sometimes duplexes, but quite middle-class.

A short while  later, I discovered an article in one of the small community newspapers; and, after I read it, I phoned the writer who was the priest at St. Patricks.  Succinctly, the problem was this, there was not enough housing stock in the part of town which was down past the big supermarket, somewhere before you get to the big drugstore on the way out of town (for that eight minute drive to Avondale), whereas in his part of town around the church in that solid neighborhood, the neighbors had taken to boycotting the church, not attending, not contributing to the church,etc. because, other than in some parts of the state that are essentially more urban, where Mexicans and other Latins and Hispanics have become Evangelical church members, those who have been migrant workers who settled into the mushroom production and hoped to find something permanent in town as well were still Roman Catholic. This may have not created any discomfort to other religious congregations in and around Kennett, which has a very organized cultural life which provides many benefits for members of the community, but the priest was beside himself with how to resolve the problem before it became another "closed" church waiting to be unconsecrated. Since there was little housing available to the Mexican workers, other than any nook and cranny of apartments and/or rooms within the business district downtown, I think this indicates more than anything why the shift from being the continuing "Mushroom capital of the US (or, the World) as centrally located as it was  and become instead a more spread out enterprise along Route 1 and beyond.

Okay, ladies, now tell me, what is the correct pronunciation of: Toughkenoman ?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 05:15:17 PM
Chakotay,

"eliminate "birthright citizenship" for children born here to illegal aliens"?

That would be a first, I can't think of another nation off hand but maybe some of the others here can educate me about this question, because it seems absurd to me to deny that a person was born any particular place and thus qualifies for citizenship in the land of his birth. Of course, in the US, we also register them as qualified to receive Social Security, by issuing them their Social Security number; perhaps, some would see that as a dominant reason to deny some other people birthright citizenship?

How would any of the world's countries keep track of their birthrate, the origins of people moving through on a visa or not having a visa or apparently a resident employed within the country's borders or elsewhere for that matter. You have to have some basic form of information identifying your origins.  I may not like that the world carry identification papers for everything, but without some record whatsoever, other than the Kafkaesque clerical bureaucracy, things would begin to not function reasonably well.

How would the world health organization(W.H.O.) keep track of diseases and whether they were close to elimination or far removed from being adequately handled?

I know this sort of question came up while the Nixon administration was still in full swing, when I and friends, and new acquaintances as school mates, were asked one evening in the Community school (community colleges were then the basic form of education in the PRC)by our Chinese teacher in both senses of the word, since she taught Mandarin and was from Taiwan as her birth-place, to fill out some forms that the school administration  here in middle America needed to plan their curriculum and programming.  We were asked our race.

I think this was the real start of multicultural identification hitting the news, the census,as it already caught the mind-set of a younger generation as to how to identify themselves.   When we oldsters, parents of school kids, in grade schools or junior-high, or high schools such as the one that we sat in at the moment, read these instructions, we started to laugh, at least to giggle, looking at each other's reactions, or to snicker and snort, as the case may be. The Chinese teacher did not know what to make of it.  We had to explain somehow,"what is so funny?", while simultaneously being well aware how superior the Chinese have traditionally felt about the multitudinous minorities in China besides their own Han cultural supremacy.  Gradually, we just tried our best to explain that we didn't see the distinctions of race in our country as particularly valid anymore since we were overall quite a melange by now, and persisting in prefering racial identifications had only lent to continuing problems that we'd previously had in this country.  "Oh,", she responded. "But,you see, I will get in trouble with the school, if I return the forms improperly filled out, and then I won't have this job, and there will be no more Chinese language classes."  Six of one, half a dozen of the other, the same problem.

Although many of us knew perfectly well that racial classifications among Western or Europeans had been the contribution of a man with a theory and German origins named Mueller who liked the rational idea he had come up with, I was more mystified when a decade later and having returned to the East Coast, there was apparently a worsification of good  cross-cultural communications in the "Greater Metropolitan Areas" and the quaint colonial past of the Ivy university campus.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 02, 2007, 06:31:52 PM
On propaganda vs. argument: consider the following exchange

chk,

I also think that we need to eliminate "birthright citizenship" for children born here to illegal aliens, but I wouldn't make it retroactive. Whether through an interpretation by the US Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment, I'd pick a date and say that from this date forward, children born to people in this country illegally would have the citizenship of their parents. They would not be US citizens.

Thus we see the radical lengths the nativists in our midst are willing to go to impose their exclusionary beliefs on the country.

[/b]

Here we see two common forms of propaganda. First, the arguer uses an insulting term--nativist--meant to frame the debate, and then states that the other person's beliefs represent those of a minority who have no right to impose such beliefs on the American people, and that his efforts amount to forcing them down the throat of a protesting American public. I'll examine each logical fallacy in term.

"Nativist" stems from the 1840s, and means "the policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants." Beyond that, it means "the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation." And beyond that, it has come to be used as a derogatory term conferred by proponents of illegal immigration on opponents of illegal immigration.

But most importantly it's an attempt to change the subject--from immigration to the supposed motives of one's adversay.

Here's where my motives are relevant to an argument: when I'm asking you to take my word for something. To trust me. Otherwise it's a dirty trick. It puts people on their back foot to be accused of being a Bad Person. Usually this kind of personal attack gets your opponent to start defending his personal integrity, thus letting the person fighting dirty to get away with his feint.

That's patently the case here. Chakotay's argument in no way depended on his personal integrity or motives. He could be a serial killer on death row for murdering Mexicans; he could be a saintlike soul beloved in his community. Neither would many ANY difference to whether his arguments or his facts held water.

So to my fellow arguers on both sides, watch out for ad hominem attacks like this. They're an ugly distraction from the serious business of discussing national policy.

The second propaganda ploy was this arguer's attempt to frame the debate--to make it look like he's defending the majority's position against an undemocratic minority represented by Chakotay.

This again is irrelevant. Chakotay's argument did not depend on how many people agreed with him. It depending on whether the principles he espoused were correct. Moreover, it is a hop, skip and a helluva jump to go from opposition to birthright citizenship to the sort of blanket hostility to all things foreign that characterized the nativist movement.

It's a logical fallacy, similar to me saying you're a Nazi because you favor freeway construction. (Hitler had the German autobahn built--the precursors to freeways everywhere--to facilitate military movement around Germany.) You can't make a logical jump like that unless you can build a bridge between the specific thing Chakotay proposed and the knee-jerk rejection of all things foreign that characterizes nativism.

But in addition, his views DO represent that of a majority of Americans, as Pew Research Center, New York Times/CBS polls and the like have proven. Conversely, the arguer's viewpoint represents a small minority of Americans, augmented by about three quarters of Latinos (based on exit poll statistics regarding several anti-illegal immigrant initiatives here in California) and many Catholics--especially more traditionalist Catholics.

And as for "imposing" these beliefs on America--this is straight Goodspeak (as defined in Brave New World). A majority of Americans--a vast majority--object strenuously to the efforts by the Democratic and Republican party leaderships to "reform" our immigration laws. Those "reforms" are being advanced by a set of unlikely bedfellows: leftists, corporatists, the Catholic Church, Latino activist organizations, and the Mexican government. Both parties' leaderships are flouting the wishes of the vast majority of Republicans and a large minority of Democrats, in order to satisfy the demands of these special interest groups.

All this is especially misplaced as regards Chakotay, who has always conducted himself with dignity and resonableness in this forum and in the New York Times forum that preceeded it. In the former forum there were genuine nativists who were obviously uncomfortable with all things foreign. People arguing all sides of immigration issues should show more respect for anyone who behaves as decently as Chakotay has.

Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to demonize him. That's what Bush does. It's what Lincoln didn't. The world could use more Lincolns and fewer Bushes. I think most on this forum should agree with that--regardless of where they stand on immigration.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 02, 2007, 07:24:47 PM
ehkzu,

First, the arguer uses an insulting term--nativist--meant to frame the debate, and then states that the other person's beliefs represent those of a minority who have no right to impose such beliefs on the American people, and that his efforts amount to forcing them down the throat of a protesting American public.

Sorry, Jack, but your "argument" has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

To begin, the chakperson called me an "amnestyite", a title a wear proudly, because it accurately describes my belief.  I favor open borders through the Western Hemisphere.

Since the chakman favors eliminating immigration entirely into the United States, I fail to see why either he or you object to the term "nativist", as that term represents his/your beliefs as accurately as "amnestyite" describes mine.

If that is what one advocates, why not be proud of it instead of considering it an insult?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:10:27 PM
Cap

I am hoping you enjoyed your traditional American mall feast.  One day there may be a booth for BBQ goat.  And 200 to 1, it’ll be better for Americans than what MacD is serving up.  Heck, maybe MacD will expand their menu.

Since reading that CSM article, I am presently looking for a decent Mexican-American butcher.  At the farmer’s market today, the price of decent free-range is going through the roof.  And who needs a government stamp of approval if one knows about the animal themselves?

If I were in Weezo’s neck of the woods, a drive over to North Carolina wouldn’t be out of the question.

If I were in certain urban centers, the best vegetables at the best prices are in Chinatown or some other "enclaves" as some of our friends like to call them.

If I were in Texas, raising goats sounds profitable and healthy, if one isn’t afraid of the beef monopolists or the nativist neighbors.

(After all, look what they did to Oprah after one comment.)

Man can not live on Silicon Valley alone.  As Silicon Valley told us themselves, when, like the South, they fell.

Prose thoughts...


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 02, 2007, 08:18:42 PM
Maddie,

I read with interest your post on the signs in an old neighborhood to "support your neighborhood association", but is that "association" the local church, or some other organization.

I do not find it surprising that people who were originally Catholic are joining another church. I, too, grew up Catholic, and as the years go by, and I learn the new practices in my "old" church, I am so glad that I moved out years ago. That pastor should look at the new practices in the church for understanding why the church is no longer needed in that neighborhood. The newest rules required to have one's baby baptised have me in awed shock! I guess the church is overburdened by all those lawsuits for misbehavior by the clergy and has to raise money any way they can.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:26:52 PM
Cap/postscript

If I were in Texas, raising goats sounds profitable and healthy, if one isn’t afraid of the beef monopolists or the nativist neighbors.

(After all, look what they did to Oprah after one comment.)

Man can not live on Silicon Valley alone.  As Silicon Valley told us themselves, when, like the South, they fell.

Of course, one could sell Texas goat meat online as "Welsh" and ship it off with some Costa Rican coffee.

No one would know the difference, if there was one, would they?

Packaging is an interesting thing in business.  But to be a good consumer, one has to learn to read between the lines.

Some lense filters people wear just do themselves in, and like lambs to the slaughter, they don't see it.

Sometimes a lot of education can hurt people's ability to think straight.  So, I wouldn't second-guess that man crossing the border who never made it past 5th grade.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 02, 2007, 08:27:44 PM
Inca,

There is a problem with driving some 120 miles each way to NC to buy meat. It is the cost of gas to make the round trip (not to mention that I couldn't drive that long or far). As a nation, we need to be about the business of reducing our gas consumption, not finding more reasons to guzzle more.

And, what protection do you have that the meat that is not inspected is superior to that which is? Seeing the animal on the hoof would require some knowledge of animal nusbandry to know a good piece of meat from one which isn't. In the case of the Amishmen, you are probably safe in assuming that if they are eating the meat, it will be healthy. But I don't think I would extend that expectation to just any ole farmer. There were just too many jokes told back in Pa Dutch country about how the clever farmer could so easily pull the wool over the eyes of the city slicker. The Pa Dutch may still refer to outsiders as the "English", and they can be fair game for whatever.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:28:56 PM
Cap/postscript 2

And while art therapists, IME, are generally kind people, I don't think America can live on that either.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:31:51 PM
And, what protection do you have that the meat that is not inspected is superior to that which is?

Considering what I've read about mass farming practices around pigs, give me a local free range animal any day of the week.

As for the mileage, and your trip to North Carolina, lighten up.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 02, 2007, 08:40:39 PM
Inca,

Me, lighten up? I'm the one who buys the stuff at the local food lion without question. I think it is you who needs to lighten up. But, if you've got lots of money to burn and wish to do so in your choice of food and where you get it, by all means go ahead.

Just remember that back in the "good old days" of "free ranging" animals, before their were innoculations for diseases, etc., that it simply was not safe to eat the meat of pigs during the warm months. I remember as a young bride who took the family to the doctor after serving them a pork roast in late spring, the doctor sternly told me to never buy pork if it wasn't cold enough to wear a heavy coat in Virginia.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:44:47 PM
Weezo

Work on your reading comprehension, lady.  I refered to government stamps regarding free range organic.

BTW, if I held shares in that mafioso outfit called Smithfield, I'd be selling right about now.

Not telling the consumer or the worker that they really didn't have any choice about it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 08:47:33 PM
Nothing like a Xmas ham at the cost of some folks fingers.

Chow down hubby.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 02, 2007, 09:02:43 PM
Here's a letter to the editor, published today, responding to a Los Angeles Times column by Esteban Lopez, in which, for the zillionth time, a major newspaper couches its plea for granting illegals amnesty in the form of a touching, heartwarming story about a wonderful, hardworking, honest (pretty much) family from Mexico. The letter writer politely points out the logical fallacy in all such special pleadings:

June 2, 2007

Re "Family crossed the border to success," Column, May 27

Whereas I appreciate Steve Lopez's efforts to tell humanizing stories about illegal immigrants, I believe many people would agree that — outside of ignoring our immigration laws — most illegal immigrants are probably decent people. Yet, just because border jumpers are nice people does not offer justification for discarding our sovereign right and need to regulate our borders. Otherwise, you might as well also tell the human stories of the millions of refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless persons from Iraq, along with Africa, Asia, South America and Europe, who, if it weren't for those oceans, would want to join the Salas family here and also seek success. In fact, if The Times really thinks humanizing stories are important to the immigration debate, why not also tell the stories of crime victims of illegal immigrants?

GARY THORNTON

Montebello


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 02, 2007, 09:07:21 PM
Inca,

Indeed you probably were referring to an organic stamp rather than the typical USDA Inspected stamp I am familiar with. A failure to communicate.

How many other products do you eschew because of the injuries to workers? How about all the highway workers who lose their lives every year? Do you slow down for construction zones? Do you think, as you cross a high bridge, how many workers lost their lives so you don't have to swim across that river? Job related injuries happen. And yes, during the current administration, the government has become quite lax in enforcing workplace safety. I am hoping with a decent Democrat in the highest office these matters can be turned around again. And, yes, I am aware the Workmen's Comp isn't what it should be. That's why decent employers also provide disability insurance for their workers - whether required by a union or because it's just good business.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 09:27:44 PM
Indeed you probably were referring to an organic stamp rather than the typical USDA Inspected stamp I am familiar with. A failure to communicate.

Fair enough;  a gracious act, m'lady, I tip me hat.

How many other products do you eschew because of the injuries to workers?

If workers organize a boycott asking for consumers' support, and their argument seems just, and in my best interests too, and I am able to support it, I do eschew that product.

And, I certainly eschew products, boycotted or not, that look very bad for my health, involve human rights violations, great cruelty to animals, or great environmental damage and harm to human beings' health in the production process.

Do you slow down for construction zones?

Yes, always.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 09:40:41 PM
Sometimes I think about the job injuries that went into American bridge construction, bodies in some of these structures, the Great Wall of China too.  Sometimes I think of stories a friend of mine, with integrity, and in construction inspection told me long ago ....

In our society, we are often made complicit through no choice of our own.

But we have more choices IMO than we realize.

How many children have been hurt in the production of Hershey chocolate that gets handed out in American public schools at Halloween time?

There may be only one route to get to the school, and therefore boycotting a road doesn't make much sense as an avenue of protest.

However, principals and teachers and parents in that case could certainly do more.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 09:51:52 PM
I am hoping with a decent Democrat in the highest office these matters can be turned around again.

I'm not sure the Democrats are the best insofar as integrity around highway construction is concerned.

That's not a thumbs up for Republicans either.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 09:55:09 PM
Do you think, as you cross a high bridge, how many workers lost their lives so you don't have to swim across that river?

This is a problematic argument, teacher.  Do you see why?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 02, 2007, 10:04:13 PM
As you know, I too am strongly opposed to that totalitarian big brother invasion of privacy called the biometric ID.

These measures are also seen in various opposing states as increasing the risk of identity theft.


Words like "totalitarian" pack a wallop. But precisely because of that they should be used sparingly. "Totalitarian" means "of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy" with synonyms like "authoritarian, dictatorial, despotic." Worst case it's "of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation, especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)."

Sounds to me like the shoe fits.

It is also described as massively bureaucratic and costly.  That, like building another wall, people find other ladders, the ID theft risk increased precisely because it is so centralized.

I'd rather spend the money on educating Americans, including our newcomers, and universal health care. 

Rather than handing the government another free ride into my privacy.

Legalization will redress any ID theft issues related to immigrants needing papers in order to work.  That portion of ID theft, to my understanding, being but a small portion of a much larger problem not even related to immigration.

countries with compulsory ID cards:

Compulsory IDs are not biometric IDs. 

But I don't like them either, having once lived once abroad in a country that had them.  Being an American, I didn't appreciate the notion that the police could stop me at will on the street, for whatever tickled their fancy, and demand that I produce ... my compulsory ID.




All this nesting of quotes is starting to look like one of those nested Russian dolls. Oh well. Anyway, here goes.

Re: "sounds like the shoe fits." Bad as Bush/DeLay/the rest of the GOP scoundrel-ocracy is, a police state they're not, and it's hyperbole to call their administration as such. We're friends with a couple in which the guy is a computer scientist from the former East Germany and his wife is from the Union of South Africa, of Indian descent. Both grew up in police states with ubiquitous secret police and no bars to arbitrary arrest and confinement. Ask them whether this is that and they're laugh at you. I'm NOT justifying the GOP's efforts to lean in that direction. But they're a lot ways from today's police states (N. Korea, Zimbabwe, China, Iran, and Cuba for starts, with Venezuela and Russia not far behind).

A national biometric ID would be costly and bureaucratic, to be sure. The question is, what are our alternatives?

Actually, a poll analysis just released by the New York Times helps explain why Democrats and Republicans are at such loggerheads over such issues. The poll analysis concluded that for members of each party, the priority stack of crucial issues is almost completely different (except for Iraq). Things Republicans think are "man the barricades!" emergencies are nothingburgers for Demos and vice versa. Illegal immigration as well as ID theft are just two examples of this. This explains why you'd find the ongoing expense of a national ID unacceptable, while the average Republican and independent would find it unfortunate but necessary. We're trying to solve a problem you think isn't a problem. No wonder you wonder at our efforts.

I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, mind you. Not here at least. Just that it helps explain why it's so hard for us to have a conversation about these issues. We can't imagine the mental universe the other side lives in.

I'll take a small stab here. Once upon a time the ability of a handful of people to do serious damage to a whole country was nearly infinitesimal. Even if Guy Fawkes had blown up Parliament it wouldn't have changed Brit history. Some Americans did more by giving smallpoxified blankets to Indians--and that's the best historical analogy I can think of. But in, say, 1776, a man with a firearm couldn't have sunk a warship. Today a zealot with an RPG can. Those smallpox blankets could decimate a village of dozens, even hundreds. But a zealot with a briefcase full of aerolized anthrax and a Cessna 152 could lay waste to a modern city, and another with a dirty bomb in an Econoline van could render Manhattan uninhabitable for a generation. And it's not like these guys would hesitate for one second to do such heinous acts.

In some ways this is a paranoid's dream come true. I'm not happy with the fact that all this feeds into the rich fantasy life of suvivalist nut cases like the Atlanta Olympics bomber. Unfortunately it is true, though, and I don't think there's any way we can appease the Islamofascist movement. They need us as an enemy, and like Osama once said, accurately, we love life, while they love death. Fareed Zakaria has said BTW that the biggest hotbed of Islamofascism isn't in Iraq--it's in our "ally" Pakistan." We aren't remotely prepared to deal with that.

All this puts biometric ID in a vastly different light than before 9/11. And the Madrid train bombing, and the Brit subway bombing, and the Toko subway poison gassing, and the Chechin mass murder of a schoolful of children...the list goes on and on.

I believe it's a failure of imagination not to be able to believe something worse than 9/11 could happen here--worse by an order of magnitude. I don't want us to turn into a police state, and by opposing something like biometric ID I think you make that future police state more likely, actually. Because if the bad guys take out a US city I think we'll get martial law "for the duration." And you'l think the privacy-invasion of biometric ID was chickenfeed compared to what we'll be living under.

As for centralized secuirity measures being more susceptible to getting hacked--well, that's a two way street. Governor Richardson says if you build an 11 foot fence they'll use 12 foot ladders. That's a cute bumper sticker slogan but I don't see many people getting over the Israeli's fence. And they've have suicide bombing incidents diminish radically everywhere they've put their fence up. It doesn't have to be perfect to be worth doing. As for the centralized system--we already have a bunch of centralized commercial ID systems that make for attractive criminal targets. Think about ATMs, credit card billing systems, stuff like that. There's crime involving them, all right, but it's tough to do. And in all the years I've used ATMs here and abroad not once did anyone else get my money and not once did I not get exactly the amount I'd requested.

This is why I said history is important but not definitive. Some things actually change. And a biometric ID is one of them. It ups the ante on ID theft--massively. The bad guys will try, but it'll be tough, and we'll be looking for them constantly.

Bottom line, all biometric ID needs to be is better than the alternative. Liberals think this is all nonsense, and that we should pour our resources into healthcare and education. Let me point out that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad for the health of those cities' inhabitants. And you can't educate a pile of ashes.

As for legailzation of illegals solving ID theft problems, and ID theft being a separate issue with only a small part connected to illegal immigration:

Well, sure, legalizing any crime eliminates the costs of combatting that crimw. I actually agree with this line of thought when it comes to adults using illegal drugs. But as a general principle it sucks. How about legalizing rape? That costs a bundle to prosecute. DNA tests are expensive, after all. And the rapists don't think they've done anything wrong.

Now of course you don't agree with that; neither do I. Which means you don't really believe we should legalize crimes. Rather, you're implicitly arguing that crossing into a country without that country's permissions isn't a crime, or at least isn't if the person is just coming here for work and not to commit felonies or acts of war.

But the only way for that not to be a crime is if you think nations have no right to exist as separate nations--or at least that "the people's" rights supercede those of nations. This is--and I'm not using the word to inflame the debate--anarchism. The black flag. It's the state of affairs in failed states, and what always happens in such places is that hard men with guns take over, and life under their rule makes the most onerous burdens of living even in a police state look like heaven by comparison.

I'm writing this in a comfortable home with the doors unlocked. In a little while my spouse and I will walk over to church to print out the Sunday program. When we're there I'll probably use the bathroom, and we'll certainly turn on the lights. At not time will we be worried about our physical safety. In exchange for these things we pay our taxes and submit to the state having a monopoly on physical force (I realize it doesn't in the inner cities, but we don't live there). Our taxes are spent in many ways that help us and some that hurt us. I wish they were spent well 100% but that's never going to happen. Doesn't mean we shouldn't always try to improve things, of course. And overall I think we're getting a great bargain. Don't you?

Lastly, yes, ID theft overlaps illegal immigration. YOu can have both together or either without the other. And illegals' ID theft is rarely done to rob Americans--though it imposes on many American victims as badly as if they had been robbed. Just as the drunk driver didn't mean to hurt you--or that horse's behind with active TB didn't mean to infect anyone sitting beside him on the various airplanes he flew in--the amount of hurt you receive from someone is an independent variable with that someone's desire to hurt you. Sometimes you're hurt most by someone who thinks he's helping you, actually.

But steps taken to prevent ID theft will help control illegal immigration in addition to helping curb the Russian and Nigerian etc. gangs who do the ID theft to empty your bank account.

I realize I'm aking people to accept less freedom, less privacy. That's always a hard sell. My main argument is that we accept strictures in wartime that we woldn't accept in peace, and the only reason we don't think this is wartime is that the enemy isn't a country and the weapons are often bitstreams instead of bullets. It's a new world...yay.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 02:48:51 AM
Re: "sounds like the shoe fits." Bad as Bush/DeLay/the rest of the GOP scoundrel-ocracy is, a police state they're not, and it's hyperbole to call their administration as such. We're friends with a couple in which the guy is a computer scientist from the former East Germany and his wife is from the Union of South Africa, of Indian descent. Both grew up in police states with ubiquitous secret police and no bars to arbitrary arrest and confinement. Ask them whether this is that and they're laugh at you. I'm NOT justifying the GOP's efforts to lean in that direction. But they're a lot ways from today's police states (N. Korea, Zimbabwe, China, Iran, and Cuba for starts, with Venezuela and Russia not far behind).

This poses comparisons that are IMO irrelevant to the issue addressed.  “The shoe fits” is according to your definition earlier of “totalitarian,” as a descriptor of a specific measure, i.e. a biometric, compulsory ID.  Not whether or not we *are* a “police state,” or a totalitarian nation, which was not part of that initial definition, and not whether or not we are equating the U.S. to any of the nations you mention.

The fact that we are not Iran, does not make a biometric compulsory ID o.k.  The fact that a person doesn't beat another person to a pulp, doesn't make it o.k. to punch them a few times instead.

Besides, how do you think some nations get to such extreme places?  Looking back from the present, it sometimes appears as if it happened overnight.  Against the massive backdrop of history.  But often, it happens one right at a time.  Why do you think we have that poem about how the German government came for one group at time, and a man said nothing? 

Yep, one public paranoia campaign after the next.  Mexicans swarming the borders, "illegals" (which sounds like Martians) filling our fails, terrorists itching to get in and blow us all to smithereens.  To justify taking away people’s rights.  And to put more power in the hands of various branches of government (such as the executive) and such that this power can be abused.

I'm not saying that there aren't some legitimate concerns in there.  But the fact that we aren't Iran doesn't mean that we couldn't be.  Or do you think Americans are that different as human beings from Iranians, from Germans, from Mexicans, from Israelis, from Palestinians?

Immigration is being used to chip away at everyone’s rights.  In the name of fear.   As for the Bush administration itself, and apart from the initial semantics on whether or not the BID is totalitarian, well …. What do you think outsourcing torture or the Patriot Act is?  Constitutional?  The Bush administration has done much more than what you call "leaning."

A national biometric ID would be costly and bureaucratic, to be sure. The question is, what are our alternatives?

Alternatives to what?  The question presumes there is a problem to begin with.

Much of the ID theft controversy, to my understanding, concerns credit card fraud, mostly commited by Americans against other Americans.

I doubt a national biometric ID will do anything about that.

Nor will it do anything about terrorism (as you discuss further on).  However, a massive change in our foreign policy would go far towards that effort.  For example, we could get out of Iraq now, and put our money into kicking the foreign oil alchoholism one gargantuan day at a time.

Now I know you'd agree with that.  Especially if you're a biker.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 03:06:06 AM
Ekhzu

Why Mexico, I believe you've asked.  Well, why not Mexico?  They're right next door to us, they want us, and I can't think of a more intelligent move than to be best friends with those closest to us geographically.

Besides, I am still dreaming about a lovely train trip through the Mexican countryside, swept clean of bandits, sipping a cafe au lait as I watch the scenery float past, making a lunch time stop at a small village and visiting the local church to see the artwork therein.

Sound nice?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 03:11:38 AM
Now Iraq, on the other hand, they hate us.  They want us to begone. 

I say let them have their nation, drown in their battles with each over the oil, if they must, do their own work killing each other if they have to, or pull it together and thrive as one to three separate peoples.

Frankly, I'm very sick of it.  Never thought we should have gone in the first place.  Never believed it was moral or just.  And the Sadam execution was a circus.

I agree with the military commander's opinion recently posted on one of these boards (forget which) who stated that a little notice that we'll be leaving can go a long way.

There's a man who's thinking.

Bet he has a lot to say about fighting terrorism too.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 04:17:27 AM
We never should have gone in, but we did.  So I say, it's time to take a good hard look at what needs to be done.

War is hell, and sometimes that includes ending it.

IMO we should be merciless in our attitude towards the Iraqis about the fact that it's their nation.

We completely agree.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 03, 2007, 05:27:24 AM
It's not a matter of "denying" that a person was born in the US, but whether that person should receive US citizenship if his/her parents are here illegally. The 14th amendment was never written with the intention of giving US citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Illegal immigration at the time this amendment was written (after the Civil War) was not the problem that it is today. The authors wrote this amendment so the children of former slaves would have US citizenship. It did not apply, for example, to American Indians, who did not become US citizens until 1924. (How's that for irony?) It doesn't apply today to the children born to foreign diplomats, even if the baby is born in a US hospital.

IMO, this should not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Giving their "anchor babies" citizenship is rewarding illegal behavior and their scofflaw attitude. The question is not whether US citizens should receive Social Security numbers at birth, but whether people who are breaking the law just by being here should be rewarded for their lawbreaking by having their children handed US citizenship. I would say "no".


Chakotay,

"eliminate "birthright citizenship" for children born here to illegal aliens"?

That would be a first, I can't think of another nation off hand but maybe some of the others here can educate me about this question, because it seems absurd to me to deny that a person was born any particular place and thus qualifies for citizenship in the land of his birth. Of course, in the US, we also register them as qualified to receive Social Security, by issuing them their Social Security number; perhaps, some would see that as a dominant reason to deny some other people birthright citizenship?

]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 03, 2007, 05:35:22 AM
How true. The media bombard us with images of poor, downtrodden, hardworking, sort-of-honest (if you ignore the illegal entry, the use of fake or stolen ID, failure to pay taxes, etc.) illegal aliens, but they offer little in the way of exposition about the downside to illegal immigration: the crime, the diseases, the burden on taxpayers, the societal strain, etc. Wonder why that is? Could it be that the pro-illegals are trying to give us a rose-colored-glasses-view of immigration?

Here's a letter to the editor, published today, responding to a Los Angeles Times column by Esteban Lopez, in which, for the zillionth time, a major newspaper couches its plea for granting illegals amnesty in the form of a touching, heartwarming story about a wonderful, hardworking, honest (pretty much) family from Mexico. The letter writer politely points out the logical fallacy in all such special pleadings:

June 2, 2007

Re "Family crossed the border to success," Column, May 27

Whereas I appreciate Steve Lopez's efforts to tell humanizing stories about illegal immigrants, I believe many people would agree that — outside of ignoring our immigration laws — most illegal immigrants are probably decent people. Yet, just because border jumpers are nice people does not offer justification for discarding our sovereign right and need to regulate our borders. Otherwise, you might as well also tell the human stories of the millions of refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless persons from Iraq, along with Africa, Asia, South America and Europe, who, if it weren't for those oceans, would want to join the Salas family here and also seek success. In fact, if The Times really thinks humanizing stories are important to the immigration debate, why not also tell the stories of crime victims of illegal immigrants?

GARY THORNTON

Montebello


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 03, 2007, 08:06:54 AM
chak,

The 14th amendment was never written with the intention of giving US citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Illegal immigration at the time this amendment was written (after the Civil War) was not the problem that it is today.

Not so fast, please.  Unless you have access to the records of the debate on 14A, there is no way you can make such a sweeping statement.  After all, this was the period of the Great Migration of the Irish.   They were at least as hated as the Latinos are today, and yet their children had birthright citizenship.

The authors wrote this amendment so the children of former slaves would have US citizenship.

Undoubtedly so, but you have no way of proving, without access to the debate records, that this was the ONLYgroup that 14A was ever intended to cover.  In fact, the SCOTUS ruled late in the 19th Century that the US born child of Chinese immigrants living in the USA was entitled to US citizenship as a matter of right, even though its parents were barred from that status.

It did not apply, for example, to American Indians, who did not become US citizens until 1924. (How's that for irony?)

Let's not confuse the issue, shall we.  Up until the Dawes Act of 1924, the various Indian tribes were considered sovereign nations.  It would have made about as much sense for the US government to confer citizenship on an American Indian child as it would to have done the same for a Tibetan one. There are rules of extraterritoriality that apply here.

It doesn't apply today to the children born to foreign diplomats, even if the baby is born in a US hospital.

Of course not.  Those children are not "subject to the Jurisdiction" of US law.  If you want to make that case, then you must accept the fact that undocumented persons living in the USA are beyond the reach of American law and must be allowed to come and go as they please without any US sanctions.

BTW, you made this argument on the old NYT forum.  It made no sense either there or here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 03, 2007, 03:04:54 PM
Immigration: different issue for left & right

When you study foreign languages, sometimes you run into words that sound like English words--only they mean something else. These are called false cognates. "Immigration" is a false cognate when it comes to discussions between left wingers and right wingers.

To left wingers, "immigration" is an aspect of the issue of government-supplied social services. So when they discuss "immigration" they mean "how can we provide these people with the social services they need?"

To right wingers, "immigration" is an aspect of security and rule of law. So when they discuss "immigration" they mean "How can we regain control of who's here, so we can obey the prime directive of any state--to protect its citizens?"

This also means that to left wingers, the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is meaningless, since it has no bearing on whether someone needs social services or not. But to right wingers it's a crucial distinction, for rule of law/security purposes.

I came to this insight courtesy of Washington Post columnist A.J. Dionne, who got the Pew Research Center to re-analyze a recent national political survey in order to highlight differences between Democrats and Republicans. Later he validated his results against other reputable national policy polls and got similar results.

Some highlights:
...........................Democrats Republicans
Iraq is #1 issue .........40%..........29%
--in deciding which presidential candidate to vote for
Healthcare is #1.........13%...........2%
Terrorism/Security........5%.........17%
Education..................12%..........5%
Abortion......................1%..........8%
Immigration.................1%.........12%
Immigration or Abortion..2%.........20%
Domestic issues..........42%.........20%
(economy, healthcare or education)

That is, overall, for Democrats Iraq is the #1 issue, with the economy #2.
For Republicans Iraq is the #1 issue, with terrorism #2 and the economy #2.

So when Republicans and Democrats try to discuss immigration, each is coming to the table with different assumptions. The Republican talks about controlling the borders, halting illegals' ID theft, catching terrorists entering the country along with the economic migrants. But what the Democrat hears is paranoid crazy talk (apparently 9/11 didn't happen) coupled to a despicable lack of concern for human rights and needs.

Then the Democrats talks about amnesty for illegals, along with giving them free medical and educational services, helping each one bring over his or her entire clan, make sure they can vote in their native language so they don't have to bear the burden of learning English, and that any children born in America continue to receive automatic citizenship. What the Republican hears is crazy talk (apparently all playing fields are already level), coupled to a despicable lack of concern for the most fundamental requirements of a nation: rule of law and the safety of its citizens.

No wonder we can't discuss immigration without it all devolving into a shouting match. Our premises differ, and we have to resolve those premises before we can really discuss immigration with each other.

One last item--many issues have become "Republican" or "Democrat" issues, with people pressured to hew to the party line across the board. This is why so many Americans consider themselves "Independent." Their priorities do not line up with the priorities of either party.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 03:21:33 PM
Madupont

Well some folks just like to have their underclasses in the name of moral hysteria and feeling superior.  Where would they be without their dark serfs?  Whatever cost to the nation, including assmilation, which you think they'd care about, since they are forever screaming about how the sky is falling without it.

That's what happened in Australia.  Now they're tied up in the courts at great costs, and nativists get to feel smug because even though some children are just as Australian as others, they will not be treated as equal to their peers for many years to come.

Now they will have generations of Martians.

They deserve what they get.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 03, 2007, 03:55:18 PM
Ekhzu

Why Mexico, I believe you've asked.  Well, why not Mexico?  They're right next door to us, they want us, and I can't think of a more intelligent move than to be best friends with those closest to us geographically.

Besides, I am still dreaming about a lovely train trip through the Mexican countryside, swept clean of bandits, sipping a cafe au lait as I watch the scenery float past, making a lunch time stop at a small village and visiting the local church to see the artwork therein.

Sound nice?

Since you asked, yes it does. Reminds me of the Mexico I lived in back in the '50s, when you could see Popocatepetl and Ixtaccihuatl from the city (no smog to speak of), and a middle class gringo kid like me could go anywhere alone, safely. Of visiting the Indian ruins at Mitla. Riding in the flower boats on Lake Texcoco. Eating camotes (a regional delicacy made from sweet potatoes) in Puebla and visiting the now-museum, once hidden convent there, where penitente nuns tortured themselves for Christ. Of the Mariaches playing on the street corner, followed by my folks buying me a Mariache costume to wear that was pure torture to wear because I'm allergic to wool.

Best of all my tia abuela (sister of my grandmother), Patricia Fent Ross, who lived in Mexico from 1932 until she died in the '60s, and who wrote a wonderful string of books about Mexicand crafts and folkways. My favorite: "In Mexico they Say," a collection of Mexican folk tales, with gorgeous illustrations by Henry C. Pitz. You can get used copies of this and other of her books on Amazon.com. And judging from your entries here, Incadove, I can guarantee 100% that you'd love this book and thank anti-illegal-immigration me for turning you on to it. Which might be ironic...but then, life is as stuffed with ironies as a great burrito is stuffed with beans, queso, salsa verde, sour cream, veggies, and pollo...


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: prairiepop on June 03, 2007, 06:14:42 PM
DON'T FORGET, PILGRIMS---WATCH THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATES TONITE AT 7 PM EDT!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 03, 2007, 07:14:40 PM
Remember the government guy who warned the Publican leadership about Osama bin Ladin before 9/11--repeatedly?

That was Richard A. Clarke, with dual expertise in terrorism & cyberwarfare--and who says biometric ID is a necessity:

"In the absence of a secure border and verifiable biometric identification systems, preventing terrorists from getting in to this country and setting up sleeper cells here is almost impossible. Maybe we will get serious after the next attack. "

--you can read his argument in detail in the full June 1 New York Times op-ed piece at http://tinyurl.com/2dxnp3. Clarke is former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, & author of “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.”


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 03, 2007, 08:06:24 PM

Best of all my tia abuela (sister of my grandmother), Patricia Fent Ross, who lived in Mexico from 1932 until she died in the '60s, and who wrote a wonderful string of books about Mexicand crafts and folkways. My favorite: "In Mexico they Say," a collection of Mexican folk tales, with gorgeous illustrations by Henry C. Pitz. You can get used copies of this and other of her books on Amazon.com. And judging from your entries here, Incadove, I can guarantee 100% that you'd love this book and thank anti-illegal-immigration me for turning you on to it. Which might be ironic...but then, life is as stuffed with ironies as a great burrito is stuffed with beans, queso, salsa verde, sour cream, veggies, and pollo...


I think my mother (who was in teaching) had a number of your great aunt’s books, including a text.  I seem to remember her material around when I was growing up;  we had large quantities of books everywhere. In Mexico They Say rings a very familiar bell, however.  So I may have read it as a child.   

I will look around for it, especially since you say it was a favorite.  I suspect it will bring back memories.

Henry C. Pitz, a wonderful illustrator.

Maybe your tia abuela influenced my present opinions more than I realize!  Ah, life’s ironies indeed.

That burrito sounds delicious;  hold the sour cream though, I'll take non-fat plain yogurt, you must try it if you haven't (though nothing beats the SC).  Yet this is one more example of why all-American is an ever evolving thing.  Notice that San Francisco (as I recall) has better burritos than Mexico does (what I received was compable to the size of a few fingers stuffed with fish only).  And only New York knows what real pizza is, or how to make a bagel, let alone that, yes, lox is salmon too.

Wool allergies here.  I would also find that torture.  Not to play Lucy, but heck, maybe why we are now on opposites sides of that figurative fence. 

Still, heavens to betsy, we have a thing or two in common.

Ok, enough fraternizing with the enemy.  Back to mud slinging. ;-)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 03, 2007, 10:23:20 PM
Ehkzu,

I've put your great aunt's book on my to buy list. I have a section of my web stories for folks tales, with, so far, one entry from a book of Dutch folk tales, one Princess story of my own creation (for my grand nieces), and nothing else. If I can get the book (I like using Amazon for used books), a suitable tale from it may end up being the third entry on my Folk Tales.

Thanks for telling us about the book.

As to your characterization of right wingers are being about law and order, I think you are a bit mistaken. A lot of right wingers seem to pick and choose which laws they will obey. The officials at Enron, and at other corporations which break laws are typically right wingers. The hundreds of people who were counted going through a particular red light in a Richmond suburb were more likely to be right wingers than left judging by the location (which way that area votes, etc.). Those who are caught not paying their taxes tend to be more right wingers than left. White collar crime is more often committed by right wingers/conservatives than those on the left.

On the other hand, left wingers are more likely to strive to change a law they feel is unjust rather than breaking it.

Here in the south, it was the right wingers who set up the Jim Crow laws (albeit they were called Democrats back then), and it was the left wingers who endured much to get those laws changed. Now they are changed. Who still resists the now legal position that all American citizens have human and civil rights? It sure isn't the left-wingers who tell the black family their restrooms are out of order, then hand the key to the white family that comes in after the blacks have gone out!





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 01:59:28 AM
NY Times Editorial
Immigration Sabotage
Published: June 4, 2007



The Senate plans to resume debate today on its proposed immigration overhaul, which has withstood more than a week of bombardment from critics right and left. More than 100 amendments are circling, many designed to make the tortuously drafted compromise meaner, narrower and nastier.

The coalition that struck the deal has so far stood firm against efforts to gut its more generous and sensible provisions. While there is so much to do to improve this flawed bill, the senators also must make sure it doesn’t get worse. That means beating back a particularly noxious amendment from Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Its ostensible purpose is to “close a gaping loophole” that Mr. Cornyn says would allow terrorists, gang members and sex offenders into the country. But his real target is bigger than that. He had no appetite for the bipartisan compromise and now wants to destroy it by attacking one of its pillars: a path to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants.

Mr. Cornyn would do this by significantly expanding the universe of offenses that make someone ineligible for legalization. Some people who used fake identity papers — a huge portion of the undocumented population — would be disqualified. The amendment would also expand the definition of “aggravated felonies,” an already overbroad category of crimes, to include the act of entering or re-entering the country illegally.

Even more perversely, the amendment applies retroactively. So people who crossed illegally years ago — even those whose sentences have been suspended — would be subject to the drastic consequences of being declared “aggravated felons.” They would face mandatory detention and deportation under already negligible protections of due process. Under the system Mr. Cornyn wants, someone who comes forward to immigration authorities in good faith and admits using a fake Social Security card could end up not on a path to earned legalization, but arrested and deported, depending on the whims of zealous prosecutors.

Those aren’t the only parts of the amendment that could have been drafted by Kafka. A provision to keep out anyone who fails to show “good moral character” would give the attorney general broad discretion to bar any and all immigrants. That discretion would not be reviewable, secret evidence would be allowed, and an immigrant could see an application for naturalization denied and never know the reason.

This amendment is so far from the spirit of comprehensive reform that it amounts to legislative sabotage. It deserves to be decisively defeated.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 04, 2007, 11:20:18 AM
chak -

Quote
The 14th amendment was never written with the intention of giving US citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

capO -

Quote
Not so fast, please.  Unless you have access to the records of the debate on 14A, there is no way you can make such a sweeping statement.  After all, this was the period of the Great Migration of the Irish.   They were at least as hated as the Latinos are today, and yet their children had birthright citizenship.
You may wish to go more slowly yourself.  We had open borders until the last century.  There really wasn't such a thing as "illegal immigration" until 1875 when the US began to start barring certain groups - prostitutes and convicts.  So the 14th A couldn't've been intended to benefit children of illegal aliens, because the concept would not have existed.

The 14th A could be viewed in a larger context than the slavery issue, of course, and I think it quite clearly was.  But the specific issue of illegal immigration would not have come up in the debates.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 05:54:39 PM
chak -

Quote
The 14th amendment was never written with the intention of giving US citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

capO -

Quote
Not so fast, please.  Unless you have access to the records of the debate on 14A, there is no way you can make such a sweeping statement.  After all, this was the period of the Great Migration of the Irish.   They were at least as hated as the Latinos are today, and yet their children had birthright citizenship.
You may wish to go more slowly yourself.  We had open borders until the last century.  There really wasn't such a thing as "illegal immigration" until 1875 when the US began to start barring certain groups - prostitutes and convicts.  So the 14th A couldn't've been intended to benefit children of illegal aliens, because the concept would not have existed.

The 14th A could be viewed in a larger context than the slavery issue, of course, and I think it quite clearly was.  But the specific issue of illegal immigration would not have come up in the debates.

I think the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880's was pretty specific. And came after the 14th Amendment.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 04, 2007, 05:56:04 PM
Another possible problem area: Islam is gaining ground in Mexico, although of course, Catholicism is still predominant. Just what we need: a partially Islamicized country with potential for skipping across our borders pretty much at will. Can you imagine if some of the radical Muslims gain influence there? Can you say "Jihad" in Spanish?

Remember the government guy who warned the Publican leadership about Osama bin Ladin before 9/11--repeatedly?

That was Richard A. Clarke, with dual expertise in terrorism & cyberwarfare--and who says biometric ID is a necessity:

"In the absence of a secure border and verifiable biometric identification systems, preventing terrorists from getting in to this country and setting up sleeper cells here is almost impossible. Maybe we will get serious after the next attack. "


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 06:01:19 PM
Chak,

I do believe that if Chicken Little told you the sky was falling, you'd be sitting under an umbrella!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 04, 2007, 06:21:22 PM
Let's hope that this trend toward Islam never becomes a problem, but we'd be deluding ourselves if we try to say "it can't happen". Keep in mind other Westerners who converted to Islam and eventually drifted into the sphere of radical Islam, such as the young man who was captured in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban against American forces. A recent Pew poll found that 15% of young Muslims in America think that suicide bombing can be rationalized at least "sometimes". It isn't a stretch of the imagination to anticipate the possibility that some of the Muslim converts in Mexico could be drawn into this circle. I'm not saying that it will happen; only that it could. We should be extremely wary about those who cross our borders without permission.

Chak,

I do believe that if Chicken Little told you the sky was falling, you'd be sitting under an umbrella!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 07:18:26 PM
Chak,

Are you aware of the number of black males who have converted to Islamism over the past few decades? Not a peep out of them about suicide bombings. I suspect you are merely stirring up possibilities for effect.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 05, 2007, 04:36:15 AM
Various replies:

To Incadove: My tia abuela's book of children's stories is "The Hungry Moon." That's another nice with, also with Pitz illos as I recall. She also wrote her own book-length folk tale, "The Magic Forest" in estilo Mexicano.

Regarding burritos--yes, America has done nice things to a lot of foreign cuisines--we're way past stoopidly "Americanizing" them by taking out the spiciness and whatnot--instead we're doing interesint, innovative things. A new Indian-Chinese fusion restaurant just opened nearby. I plan to try it. And I quit using sour cream at home years ago--nonfat plain yogurt is a great substitute, as on baked potatoes. I dunno if you can get it in your neck of the woods, but Safeway Market's Lucerne brand is tastiest nonfat yougurt I've tried--great mlkfat feel without the milkfat.

And BTW there are relatively safe parts of Mexico to visit today--Cozumel, for example. Islands are generally easier, more like Old Mexico. Ditto a lot of Baja (such as La Paz).

To weezo--you said no word of American black Islamic converts getting involved in suicide bombing. Didn't that bunch of amateurs in Florida get caught in the middle of planning just such a thing? And they were American black converts. As it happens a lot of black conversion to Islam goes on in prison, and in that context is seems plausible to think that some would be radicalized.

As for Mexicans--the grip of the Catholic church in Mexico is huge. I've known Latino familes from Mexico and parts south who converted to the Mormon religion, and many lost their families as a consequence. I think it's more likely to see Latin Catholics converting to evangelical/pentacostal religions. Not so much of a jump, and the liveliness of the services fit Mexican culture more than the relatively sombre Islamic observances.

But what I do see as plausible is jihadis from Saudi Arabia and other parts getting over the border dressed like a Mexican field hand.
If I were an Islamofascist leader I'd be working on a plan like that. In fact I would have executed it already and have sleeper cells set up--possibly not even in touch with American Moslems.

Last note: I'm watching the Democratic contenders debating right now (replayed via DVR) but it's making me grind my teeth. Not because I disagree with them, though I do. But because that disagreement is not being expressed honestly, but again through false choices, emotional appeals, and other propagandistic tricks. I'm not excusing the Republicans of anything in saying this. They wrote the book on deceitful propaganda. I just keep hoping for better. And Clinton is so palpably smart and well-informed. It really hurts to hear her speaking Politispeak.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 05:17:19 AM
Ehkzu,

I suspect that with your outlook, you could write a gripping spy novel or box-office hit movie. I've been around too long and seen too many "scares" come and go, to be led to far by long reaches of distant possibilities.

One of my sisters teaches in a prison, and yes, I know that a lot of conversion to the Black Muslim faith goes on in prison, just as there is a certain amount of conversion to the more evangelical versions of Christianity. Rather than converting the converts to more criminal behavior, their faith seems to hold down on the recidivism. Sadly, I do not have any evidence to prove that. It is just an observation made by others that I pass on for whatever it's worth.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 09:58:59 AM
Another possible problem area: Islam is gaining ground in Mexico, although of course, Catholicism is still predominant. Just what we need: a partially Islamicized country with potential for skipping across our borders pretty much at will. Can you imagine if some of the radical Muslims gain influence there? Can you say "Jihad" in Spanish?


Where did this crap come from chak?

Talk about your ignorant simple-minded sweeping generalizations.

Oh brother!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 10:02:42 AM
But what I do see as plausible is jihadis from Saudi Arabia and other parts getting over the border dressed like a Mexican field hand.
If I were an Islamofascist leader I'd be working on a plan like that. In fact I would have executed it already and have sleeper cells set up--possibly not even in touch with American Moslems.


Why Mexico when you can operate without detection in the USA?

I mean the Saudis and Bushes go way back....


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 10:14:41 AM
"Islamofascist"?

Wasn't the paradigm "commies" not too long ago?

Be careful, you might never expect people using airplanes as missles....



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 10:19:23 AM
Srnich,

The point being that some people always have to have an "enemy" to rail against, even if they have to make it up from their imaginations.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 10:24:58 AM
Were I an "Islamofascist" - whatever that is apart from a bogey man - I'd go to Canada.  Hell, you can stroll across the border anywhere over a stretch of thousands of miles.  Far less risk of getting caught, what with our attention being focused on keeping hispanics out of our low paying menial jobs.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:30:29 PM
We definitely need a wall along the entire American/Canadian Border.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 12:36:47 PM
Whiskey,

I'm not sure how recently you've sashayed to and from Canada, but my sister tells me that she has recently had to get a passport in order to get back home after visiting the in-laws. I remember visiting Canada several times with no more than my driver's license required. Last time I was "in Canada" we went by sailboat from the American part of Lake Erie to the Canadian part. For that border crossing nothing whatsoever was needed. We do not put in anywhere on land, but I seriously doubt there are border guards at every landfall on the lakes.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:38:12 PM
It's true, you need a passport to return from Canada into the US.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 02:30:19 PM
Yet the border with Canada is still very lax and vast compared to Mexico.

The boog-man d'jour can get passports all day.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:36:11 PM
Whiskey,

I'm not sure how recently you've sashayed to and from Canada, but my sister tells me that she has recently had to get a passport in order to get back home after visiting the in-laws. I remember visiting Canada several times with no more than my driver's license required. Last time I was "in Canada" we went by sailboat from the American part of Lake Erie to the Canadian part. For that border crossing nothing whatsoever was needed. We do not put in anywhere on land, but I seriously doubt there are border guards at every landfall on the lakes.
Uh, I wasn't refering to actual patrolled border crossings but the fact that you can stroll from one country to another, back and forth for mile after mile with no one ever actually seeing you.  Heck, until recently there was a library where you could check out books in one country and read tham at a table in another.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 02:51:25 PM
What about the  coastlines?  It seems to me they are as porous as the Canadian border.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:53:43 PM
What about the  coastlines?  It seems to me they are as porous as the Canadian border.
Certainly there are toms of people who have made a lot of money off that fact.

Although the seas are pretty well patrolled, at least where people are likely to get in.  Hard to get a small boat to, say, Hilton Head from anywhere outside of the US without getting noticed.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 02:57:33 PM
I remember a 60 Minutes report from a couple of years ago where they planted a suitcase carrying radio active material on a ship in Turkey, and they followed it all the way up the Hudson River into NYC, and nowhere on its trans-Atlantic journey was it discovered.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 03:02:28 PM
What about a very small boat, say a canoe or rowboat, passing along the coast from Mexico to Texas? Or Baja to California, unless the close in water is very rough. Seems to me if we are going to wall outselves in, it will take a whole lot of concrete destroying seascapes as well as landscapes to do it effectively. I don't know what patrols there are outside the Chesapeake Bay from the ocean, but a fairly small boat could land in lots of places on the Bay and make it inland without being noticed. A large, legitimate boat coming into the Bay for legitimate fishing purposes could easily disgorge small boats, especially at night, that could filter in to various places on the either shore of the bay and all the way up to Harrisburg. It was one of the routes used by slaves on the Underground Railroad. They also left the bay and went up to coast to Philadelphia or NYC from Petersburg.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 04:05:55 PM
It was my impression that passports are needed to return to the US by air.  That's one reason the backlog for the completely unprepared provider now approaches 3 months (and why I'm biting my nails over my daughter & son-in-law's honeymoon scheduled for early Sept.) 
Having had to look into this for personal reasons, if you have a ticket for an overseas flight and your passport is not ready, you can get the paperwork finished in as little as a day.  It is costly and a pain in the ass, but it is possible.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/about/npic/npic_898.html (http://travel.state.gov/passport/about/npic/npic_898.html)  There are also companies that will do the paperwork for you.

So don't worry; the Vodka will flow like the Vistula for your daughter and son in law.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 04:37:31 PM
I'm pretty certain I can row a boat across the Detroit River or sail across Lake St. Clair and enter Canada passport free.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 04:44:38 PM
Laurie,

You are probably right. Patty and Mario go by car to visit his family in Quebec, and she has to have a passport for the return trip. He, of course, has his citizenship for both countries to pull out. Patty has not mentioned needing her passport when they go out on the boat on Lake Erie.

The problem is not getting INTO Canada, but returning INTO the US.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 05:29:13 PM
Possessing a Passport makes good sense as a way for national identification.  Much better than the national driver's license, which my state has decided not to use.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 05, 2007, 06:46:17 PM
YIKES!! They're pourin' across the border from Mexico!

YIKES!! Anyone can jes' stroll across the border from Canada!

YIKES!! Dern sea lanes is unguarded!

We'd all better head for the grave; ain't no one can bother us there!

Smarten up, you Chicken Littles, the riskless life is not worth living!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:52:52 PM
YIKES!! They're pourin' across the border from Mexico!

YIKES!! Anyone can jes' stroll across the border from Canada!

YIKES!! Dern sea lanes is unguarded!

We'd all better head for the grave; ain't no one can bother us there!

Smarten up, you Chicken Littles, the riskless life is not worth living!

That's the point...you can't patrol the US borders.  If foreign terrorists want to get in, they'll get in.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 05, 2007, 10:59:33 PM
wow! page 40 everybody, people in Canada hate us for the ease with which we dispatch our ease of entry, as they have to deal with the border patrol just to go about their business as they had previously done all their lives before George W. was invented. 

I'm sure I told you the story of, not the honey-mooners but yes, they met in Florida, he lived in New York State and she came from England,okay the UK.  After visiting his parents, he decided since they were so near, he would show her Canada, Niagara Falls and all that. Fine going there but not coming back. The authorities told them frankly, He was free to leave, She was too, but not together, they would put her on a plane back to the UK and they actually said it was because she had chosen the US before choosing to come to "British Canada". I met her but with a whole lot of other people on Boxing day at a large party among women friends from all over the former Dominion. Our hostess had the engaged refugee in hand.  The policy opted for at this point was let's give the border officer a hard time from now on, no coffee when he stops in at the cafe, no nothing where ever he stops in.   I don't know how that one turned out but I often forgot my papers and now need a passport if any family matters require my presence.

Please, Lhoffman, don't boat across the river, it would be like going over Niagara in a barrel for the time that you'd waste on the other side sitting with the appropriate border authorities.  Of course, you've been up during the drama festival, so that probably means you carry a passport.  It's just that I'd hate to hear your explanation for why you came by row-boat just so you could show them your passport on the way back.

Despite living there since the 1950s, my sister in law is regularly hassled by one particular border guardianess who  insists on making her late for concert dates, movies, or just going to church.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 11:23:32 PM
Well Madupont, now I'm trying to remember if I've seen boats landing on the Detroit side.  Next time I go out to the beach or the river walk, I'll bring my binoculars and look for small boats in the shipping lanes.  I have noticed landing sites in Canada directly across from the park on Lake St. Clair that I visit.  But are there landings on the Michigan side?  Shipping lanes seem to be cordoned off and I have noticed quite a presence of security in the area.

But I do have passport in hand as we are going to the festival soon.  Will see Lear, Merchant of Venice and Othello. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 10:32:12 AM
Considering the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens (as well as of legal immigrants) are from Mexico, that makes sense. I haven't heard of Canadians in any great numbers trying to sneak across our northern border. They'd have to give up their national health insurance, and good luck being able to find (or afford) anything comparable here!

Yet the border with Canada is still very lax and vast compared to Mexico.

The boog-man d'jour can get passports all day.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 10:35:36 AM
You'd need essentially the same documentation for a passport as for a national ID. I had to provide my birth certificate, driver's license, etc., when I applied for a passport in the 1970s. That's more or less what you'd have to provide to get a national driver's license, so what's the big difference? 

Possessing a Passport makes good sense as a way for national identification.  Much better than the national driver's license, which my state has decided not to use.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 10:38:49 AM
Considering the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens (as well as of legal immigrants) are from Mexico, that makes sense. I haven't heard of Canadians in any great numbers trying to sneak across our northern border. They'd have to give up their national health insurance, and good luck being able to find (or afford) anything comparable here!

Yet the border with Canada is still very lax and vast compared to Mexico.

The boog-man d'jour can get passports all day.


Well, sure, as long as you admit that the immigration issue is an economic or ethnic one and not a 9/11 National Security issue, as some people try to argue it.  Because from a National Security standpoint, illegal intrusion of terrorists from Canada is much easier to accomplish, and no one ever mentions it in the debates.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 10:40:04 AM
For what it is worth, of the six people I know that I am sure are illegal aliens, at least four entered from Canada.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 10:40:48 AM
By that philosophy, we might as well disband the police, the sheriff's office, and the legal system and live without any rules, because if a crook wants to take your stuff, or even kill you, the cops probably won't be able to stop him in time. No, we won't be able to catch every illegal alien, but we can seal the borders tightly enough to keep most of them out, if we are willing to do so. Our so-called government is so deeply into the pockets of big corporations that it is they who are dictating our immigration policy, not the American people. But that's pretty much true of every policy decision anyway.

YIKES!! They're pourin' across the border from Mexico!

YIKES!! Anyone can jes' stroll across the border from Canada!

YIKES!! Dern sea lanes is unguarded!

We'd all better head for the grave; ain't no one can bother us there!

Smarten up, you Chicken Littles, the riskless life is not worth living!

That's the point...you can't patrol the US borders.  If foreign terrorists want to get in, they'll get in.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 10:50:52 AM
To me, the illegal alien invasion is largely an economic issue, with some problems coming from the fact that the vast majority of illegals come from one country (guess which?) and don't care to assimilate. It is less an ethnic problem than one of national borders: too many Mexicans have bought into their government's claptrap about "taking back" the US southwest. It just isn't in our national interest to allow such massive immigration from any one country. We should spread out the ethnic/linguistic mix across a wide spectrum, so that those who do come are encouraged to assimilate into our society instead of trying to establish a piece of their home country here--or trying to "recapture" a part of the US for a foreign country.

IMO, there would be good reason to offer refuge to some of the Iraqi Christians who, no matter how the civil war there plays out, aren't likely to have much of a future in Iraq. (Keep in mind that I'm not religious, so my point here is that, as Christians, they'd probably fit into a predominantly Christian culture like ours better than most Muslims.) 

Considering the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens (as well as of legal immigrants) are from Mexico, that makes sense. I haven't heard of Canadians in any great numbers trying to sneak across our northern border. They'd have to give up their national health insurance, and good luck being able to find (or afford) anything comparable here!

Yet the border with Canada is still very lax and vast compared to Mexico.

The boog-man d'jour can get passports all day.


Well, sure, as long as you admit that the immigration issue is an economic or ethnic one and not a 9/11 National Security issue, as some people try to argue it.  Because from a National Security standpoint, illegal intrusion of terrorists from Canada is much easier to accomplish, and no one ever mentions it in the debates.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 02:33:28 PM
From Lou Dobbs' web site today:

Lou's Top 5 List
Top 5 Dumbest Things in the Immigration Bill

5) Taxpayers will pay for the immigration lawyers for illegal aliens if working in agriculture.

4) Illegal aliens would be given legal status just one day after their application is filed even if a background check is not completed.

3) Gang members are eligible for amnesty if they renounce their gang status.

2) Borders do not have to be secure before the amnesty program begins.

1) $2,600,000,000,000 -- That is the cost the Heritage Foundation estimates to cover the retirement benefits of 12,000,000 illegal aliens if this amnesty bill becomes law.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: lulu on June 06, 2007, 02:38:14 PM
It's interesting that while illegals are coming across the borders to lower wages for Americans, jobs are going to Mexico.  Ever check over the counter drugs and see where they are made?  hallmarks' Shoebox cards are made in Mexico.

the mexican government has it made.

I'm opposed to granting amnesty to illegals.  I'm waiting for people here to call me racist.  If they are made legal, can I park illegally and not be given a fine?  Can I sell drugs and not be arrested?

And I don't give a damn where the illegals come from : Ireland, Mexico, China, Canada, etc.  What would happebn if I slipped across the border to Canada?  Or overstayed my visa in spain and France? 



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 02:57:29 PM
Quote
1) $2,600,000,000,000 -- That is the cost the Heritage Foundation estimates to cover the retirement benefits of 12,000,000 illegal aliens if this amnesty bill becomes law.
Presumably, they will also be paying social security taxes, along wiht all the other taxes they have been avoiding until now.  Why do I suspect the Heritage Foundation didn't take that into account.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: liquidsilver on June 06, 2007, 03:00:32 PM
I'd love to see the cost estimates for deporting them instead


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 04:44:13 PM
By that philosophy, we might as well disband the police, the sheriff's office, and the legal system and live without any rules, because if a crook wants to take your stuff, or even kill you, the cops probably won't be able to stop him in time. No, we won't be able to catch every illegal alien, but we can seal the borders tightly enough to keep most of them out, if we are willing to do so. Our so-called government is so deeply into the pockets of big corporations that it is they who are dictating our immigration policy, not the American people. But that's pretty much true of every policy decision anyway.

YIKES!! They're pourin' across the border from Mexico!

YIKES!! Anyone can jes' stroll across the border from Canada!

YIKES!! Dern sea lanes is unguarded!

We'd all better head for the grave; ain't no one can bother us there!

Smarten up, you Chicken Littles, the riskless life is not worth living!

That's the point...you can't patrol the US borders.  If foreign terrorists want to get in, they'll get in.

So how much is it going to cost to build a fence on all the coasts and borders?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 06, 2007, 05:53:55 PM
No doubt some may play the "racist" card...or the <gulp!> dreaded "xenophobic" card. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose illegal immigration, or even excessive legal immigration, without having to base it on race.

I saw an article in today's paper (local) that the US service industry is expanding. That seems to be our future: all the good manufacturing jobs are going overseas, or to Mexico, while American jobs in many industries are being kept at poverty wage/benefit levels by the easy availability of cheap labor (immigrants).

The inundation of immigrants, both legal and illegal, is pushing our population growth rate through the roof. If our immigration level stays the same or grows, we could increase in population by 100-120 million or more within only 40 years (Census Bureau). And yet in much of the western US, water resources are drying up. Drought is affecting our ability to grow food in some areas. Can anyone really believe that adding another 120 million people will improve either situation? And the nuts in Congress want to keep expanding the numbers of people that can come. Crazy. 

It's interesting that while illegals are coming across the borders to lower wages for Americans, jobs are going to Mexico.  Ever check over the counter drugs and see where they are made?  hallmarks' Shoebox cards are made in Mexico.

the mexican government has it made.

I'm opposed to granting amnesty to illegals.  I'm waiting for people here to call me racist.  If they are made legal, can I park illegally and not be given a fine?  Can I sell drugs and not be arrested?

And I don't give a damn where the illegals come from : Ireland, Mexico, China, Canada, etc.  What would happebn if I slipped across the border to Canada?  Or overstayed my visa in spain and France? 




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:54:22 PM
 For the Monitor
Jun 6, 2007

I
'm mad as heck at our two-faced politicians in Washington! What I'm talking about is the fact that there are 12 million illegal immigrants here in the USA. And what are Congress and the president going to do about it? Grant them immunity, of course!

That is a slap in the face to all the legal immigrants who migrated to this country through Ellis Island. Also to the entire border guards, who are there to protect our borders from would-be illegal immigrants.

Allowing these blatant lawbreakers to become United States citizens just appalls me! We might as well tear down our border fences and do away with the Border Patrol altogether if this is the way our politicians are going to handle things.

And why stop at the border guards? Why not the police or the National Guard? Or the Army or the Marines? Hell, why bother having any laws at all if the government isn't going to enforce them?

STEPHEN MANN

Sounds like our poster here.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 06, 2007, 07:15:30 PM
chak,

Considering the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens (as well as of legal immigrants) are from Mexico, that makes sense.

Thus you reveal once again that immigration is not your issue; BROWN immigration is


I haven't heard of Canadians in any great numbers trying to sneak across our northern border. They'd have to give up their national health insurance, and good luck being able to find (or afford) anything comparable here!

Let's see now.  You despise the USA because of the number of brown immigrants, yet you admire Canada for its health insurance program.
We can only conclude that you are living in the wrong country




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 08:55:22 PM
There are really some very nice white place in Canada.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 07, 2007, 03:09:16 AM
Ekhzu,

My tia abuela's book of children's stories is "The Hungry Moon." That's another nice with, also with Pitz illos as I recall. She also wrote her own book-length folk tale, "The Magic Forest" in estilo Mexicano.

I may soon be revisiting with almost all your great aunt’s books.  Also with an elderly individual, very dear to me, and down in Mexico about the same period you and your family were years ago.

Perhaps we’ll share again on this topic.  If you’re not around, I’ll look for you at your website, if it’s still up.

Incadove0



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2007, 09:11:31 AM
Ekhzu,

My tia abuela's book of children's stories is "The Hungry Moon." That's another nice with, also with Pitz illos as I recall. She also wrote her own book-length folk tale, "The Magic Forest" in estilo Mexicano.

I may soon be revisiting with almost all your great aunt’s books.  Also with an elderly individual, very dear to me, and down in Mexico about the same period you and your family were years ago.

Perhaps we’ll share again on this topic.  If you’re not around, I’ll look for you at your website, if it’s still up.

Incadove0



Make sure you check his credentials, first.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 01:02:33 PM


How was your bike ride to Phoenix?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: lulu on June 07, 2007, 01:54:02 PM
You think employers are paying social security for the illegals.  They are probably paying them under the table which is why they don't want Aermican workers.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 03:15:13 PM
You think employers are paying social security for the illegals.  They are probably paying them under the table which is why they don't want Aermican workers.

It is my understanding that many employers do collect taxes off their illegal immigrant employees not knowing that they are illegal.  The IRS is holding billions of dollars that would be returned as tax refunds if these people were to file tax forms.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 07, 2007, 03:47:19 PM
You think employers are paying social security for the illegals.  They are probably paying them under the table which is why they don't want Aermican workers.

It is my understanding that many employers do collect taxes off their illegal immigrant employees not knowing that they are illegal.  The IRS is holding billions of dollars that would be returned as tax refunds if these people were to file tax forms.

Oh,really....

I could understand if they were in cohoots together since the government is supporting the corporate employer.  They would nab you at IRS as soon as you filed, because what the government has is the money intended for a particular social security number that the illegal used illegally because it was obtained under the table. My next younger sibling worked at IRS for years, now retired of it all, and unless I have lost count he had two Mexican-American wives in a row, then one Chinese from the Philippines,I think, now a Korean for his old age. We refer to him as the "Burt Reynolds of the family".

The way that I see it, they've got American workers but they do not support them toward collective bargaining anymore than they would any other American workers who has a network of connections already made.  So it is not unusual for the American worker to hold fast to his own ethnic and cultural community connections under these circumstances. He or she certainly knows exactly, from their previous work experience, why the discrimination that designates them as illegal.  So essentially, they are currently working without any contribution from the employer to the buildup of their old age benefits for having been a worker in the United States; the same plan that George W. Bush was offering the rest of you, not so very long ago.  Since that didn't work out for him as his contribution to corporate funders, he is simply seeing to it that the price of commodities coming out of Iraq/Iran will definitely cost you so much more that this will even the score as far as he is concerned. So lots of luck everybody,we are all in this together.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2007, 04:28:10 PM


How was your bike ride to Phoenix?

Uh--that was whiskeypriest...I think he's still on that bike. :)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 06:36:25 PM


How was your bike ride to Phoenix?

Uh--that was whiskeypriest...I think he's still on that bike. :)

Yes, you're right.  Sorry about that.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 07, 2007, 08:46:12 PM
I don't despise the US, although I'm really unhappy with some of the sappier congresspeople who want to give our country away. As for "brown" immigrants: that just happens to be the predominant color scheme in Mexico, although I've personally known several who were light-skinned with blue or green eyes. I am far more concerned about the overwhelming numbers and their general unwillingness to assimilate than their color. It is simply a fact that the vast majority of illegal and legal immigrants are from Mexico; their skin color is just an additional fact, but not very important.   

chak,

Considering the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens (as well as of legal immigrants) are from Mexico, that makes sense.

Thus you reveal once again that immigration is not your issue; BROWN immigration is


I haven't heard of Canadians in any great numbers trying to sneak across our northern border. They'd have to give up their national health insurance, and good luck being able to find (or afford) anything comparable here!

Let's see now.  You despise the USA because of the number of brown immigrants, yet you admire Canada for its health insurance program.
We can only conclude that you are living in the wrong country





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 08, 2007, 07:28:00 AM
chak,

I am far more concerned about the overwhelming numbers and their general unwillingness to assimilate than their color. It is simply a fact that the vast majority of illegal and legal immigrants are from Mexico; their skin color is just an additional fact, but not very important.   

When we see your posts weeping equally bitter tears about the number of undocumented Chinese coming through Seattle and Vancouver and he number of undocumented Irish coming through the East Coast, then your statement might just have a shred of credibility.

In the interim, you may just as well resign yourself to the fact that the USA will be a brown nation within 50 years.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 08:14:19 AM
Looks like immigration reform will be continued on another day by another group of politicians.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 08:17:08 AM
Looks like immigration reform will be continued on another day by another group of politicians.
No, looks like immigration reform will be ignored on another day by another group of politicians.  And another, and another, and another....


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 10:50:06 AM
Looks like immigration reform will be continued on another day by another group of politicians.
No, looks like immigration reform will be ignored on another day by another group of politicians.  And another, and another, and another....

You are probably correct.  This problem has been going on for some time without a solution. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 08, 2007, 02:24:47 PM
Maybe if we just killed illegal immigrants, instead of deporting them--you know--just line them up against the wall and shoot them-- it would be less of a problem.

I don't think Germany had big immigration problems during the 1930's, did they?

Just a thought.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 03:09:57 PM
Interesting thought.  Might discourage new immigration.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 03:44:11 PM
 In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.


Title: Re: Racism
Post by: Furphy on June 08, 2007, 10:51:03 PM
Surely none of you is naive enough to believe that racism is a whites-only  problem:

  http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/erobles/041105robles.htm


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 08, 2007, 11:23:38 PM
In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.

The biggest losers if the immigration bill passes are Afro-americans who once again will be asked to go to the back of the bus, also the elderly and those in need of social assistance who will be forced to share limited resources with the second languishers. Nothing racist about America for Americans. Go the legal route. No more cheap labor for Halliburton and sub-union scale maids and nannies for the elite. The racists are the new nobility that want a new class of servants, sub-citizens and who want a third world society with a small middle class and a large division between the haves and the have-nots.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 09, 2007, 03:32:21 AM
In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.

This is the sort of race-baiting that both George Bush and Al Sharpton both love to use instead of real discussion.

But it's not just race-baiting. In formal debate it's the fallacy known as the ad hominem attack. You try to win by changing the subject from the issues at hand to the motives of the opponent. People who resort to ad hominem attacks are either intellectually incapable of addressing the actual issues; or honestly don't realize they've tried to change the subject; or, like Bush and Sharpton, are race-baiting demagogues (Demagogue: "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.")

Ad hominem attacks often work because the victim of the attack is so taken aback by the personal assault that he often scrambles to defend his honor, forgetting that his motives are only relevant to an argument that's based on his integrity.

That is, if I say "believe what I say because of my integrity" you're have a perfect right to look into my integrity. But if I say "believe what I say because of the logic and verifiable facts I use" then my motives are irrelevant. An axe murderer on death row could make a better argument for some proposition than a saintly widow who's never harmed a fly. Remember how Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs" helped Clarice get the bad guy? His motives were beyond evil. Yet his reasoning and factuality were correct.

So it is here. Readers, don't ever, ever again fall for this phony attack--unless you've based your argument on "trust me." Otherwise call the attacker on it, and try to educate him on how to actually discuss something.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 09, 2007, 05:15:09 AM
Well, it would sure discourage the heck out of me, and I'm a citizen.  :o

I'd settle for closing off our southern border and strictly enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens. I do believe that a large percentage of illegals would leave if they couldn't get jobs and if we also cut off the welfare freebies that all too many receive with their anchor babies, even more would do so.

One of the best deterrents would be a constitutional amendment to deny citizenship to babies born here to illegal aliens. No more welfare, no freebies, no "anchor" to help the parents get legal when it grows up. Adios muchahos (y muchachas). Don't forget to send us a postcard when you get back home.

Interesting thought.  Might discourage new immigration.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 09, 2007, 05:24:03 AM
Oh please! I don't know who the author is, but he makes a leap of illogic when he assumes that because the great majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico, if we are opposed to illegal immigration, we must be opposed because
they are from Mexico. I don't care where they come from: it is never a good idea, IMO, to have huge numbers of immigrants (legal or illegal) coming from only one source. In such numbers, we don't have immigration, we have inundation. And the immigrants have a constant supply of people following them from a similar, if not identical, culture and linguistic background and therefore have little reason to learn English and assimilate. IOW, to become Americans!!! Race has little to do with it, except in the minds of the "La Raza" types and their supporters.



In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 09, 2007, 05:29:34 AM
I agree. The NY Times some weeks ago had an article about the fact that African Americans are being forced out of their neighborhoods in Los Angeles by Mexican illegal aliens who hate them. Some have even been murdered.

And if we allow illegal aliens to get amnesty and then plug into our social safety net (what's left of it after Bush gets through with it) that could bankrupt Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. When it's a choice between "us" and "them", I vote for "us".


In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.

The biggest losers if the immigration bill passes are Afro-americans who once again will be asked to go to the back of the bus, also the elderly and those in need of social assistance who will be forced to share limited resources with the second languishers. Nothing racist about America for Americans. Go the legal route. No more cheap labor for Halliburton and sub-union scale maids and nannies for the elite. The racists are the new nobility that want a new class of servants, sub-citizens and who want a third world society with a small middle class and a large division between the haves and the have-nots.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 06:17:59 AM
The "haves" and the "have mores" are the republican base.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 09, 2007, 06:35:23 AM
chak,

And if we allow illegal aliens to get amnesty and then plug into our social safety net (what's left of it after Bush gets through with it) that could bankrupt Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. When it's a choice between "us" and "them", I vote for "us".


How many times do you need to be told, the ravings of the lunatic Tancredo notwithstanding, that the Senate bill in not amnesty?

How many time do you need to be told, the ravings of the lunatic Tancredo notwithstanding, that undocumented persons are not eligible for the USA's "Social safety net"?

How many times to you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that if our new residents were blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, you would not be posting a single thing?

How many times do you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that you are not opposed to immigration per se, but that you are opposed to BROWN immigration?

How many times do you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that the USA will be a brown nation within 50 years, and that your grandchildren and mine will have to accept and deal with it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 09, 2007, 07:12:59 AM
How many times? Cap, old boy, you can type until your wizened little fingers turn purple and fall off, but you won't convince me of things that I know to be untrue.

The Senate bill not an amnesty? Well, it depends on how you define amnesty, doesn't it? AFAIK, amnesty means that we essentially "forgive" these minor-league criminals for entering our territory illegally, using fake ID or worse, stealing a real American's ID, not paying taxes in many cases, having babies at our expense and otherwise using our emergency rooms as primary health care, still at our expense, bringing their kids here for us to educate, etc. Oh they might have to pay a fine, or do some paperwork, but in the long run, it really is amnesty.  Tancredo is right about that.

As for the social safety net (what's left of it), the anchor baby "anchors" its parents in more than just a possible way to get legal in 18 years. The baby, under current interpretation a US citizen, (I don't agree that it should be, but there you are...) immediately becomes eligible for WIC, AFDC (or whatever they are calling it now), HUD housing assistance, Medicaid, and of course all the freebies that are still available, even under Bush! Yeah, it's for the baby, but since babies don't have wallets in their diapers, the parents get to collect and spend it.       

As for the blue-eyed Scandanavians vs. the "browning" of America, I'll let you believe whatever you like since you're using one of ekhzu's "ad hominem" defenses. Since you are determined to believe that it's "all about race", feel free. It will affect your grandchildren, not mine, since I have none.

chak,

And if we allow illegal aliens to get amnesty and then plug into our social safety net (what's left of it after Bush gets through with it) that could bankrupt Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. When it's a choice between "us" and "them", I vote for "us".


How many times do you need to be told, the ravings of the lunatic Tancredo notwithstanding, that the Senate bill in not amnesty?

How many time do you need to be told, the ravings of the lunatic Tancredo notwithstanding, that undocumented persons are not eligible for the USA's "Social safety net"?

How many times to you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that if our new residents were blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, you would not be posting a single thing?

How many times do you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that you are not opposed to immigration per se, but that you are opposed to BROWN immigration?

How many times do you need to be told, your ravings notwithstanding, that the USA will be a brown nation within 50 years, and that your grandchildren and mine will have to accept and deal with it?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 09, 2007, 07:39:28 AM
Chakotay,

If we re-directed the money being wasted on a war in Iraq, to helping the indigent on our own continent, and insured that it was indeed used by the indigent, not to build great palaces for the rulers and elite, we could enable Mexicans to remain in their own country. Also, if we severly punished the employers who provide the low paying jobs to the illegals, we would go a long way towards keeping the so called "inundation" from happening.

For the money now wasted on the war machine, we could have a universal health program that would keep people from using hospitals for primary health care. The pressing problem in health care is the difference in cost to those who are insured, and for whom the insurance company acts as a go-between to negotiate a lower bill, and the cost of paying the whole bill itself.

I recently had a procedure done as an outpatient at a hospital. The cost on the hospital bill was over $5,000. The insurance company negotiated the bill down to around $2,000, and I paid only my $100 copay for the whole thing. If the health industry can make a profit charging only $2000 for a $5000 procedure, why are they allowed to charge the uninsured the $5000?

We could solve a lot of the problem if we had a law that required ALL employers, even those with a single employee, to provide health care, if for no other reason than for the discount. We need to make our health system affordable.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 09:00:36 AM
I was listening to a town hall meeting with Hillary last night and she said what I've been saying all along...take away the low paying jobs and punish the employers who provide them, and we wouldn't have an immigration problem.  It is corporate America that is responsible for this and a government that is in the pocket of corporate America.  The elite republicans and democrats with their nanny lives are responsible.  It is all the rest of us who want fresh produce at cheap prices and on and on.  We are all responsible.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 09, 2007, 09:59:50 AM
Oh please! I don't know who the author is, but he makes a leap of illogic when he assumes that because the great majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico, if we are opposed to illegal immigration, we must be opposed because
they are from Mexico. I don't care where they come from: it is never a good idea, IMO, to have huge numbers of immigrants (legal or illegal) coming from only one source. In such numbers, we don't have immigration, we have inundation. And the immigrants have a constant supply of people following them from a similar, if not identical, culture and linguistic background and therefore have little reason to learn English and assimilate. IOW, to become Americans!!! Race has little to do with it, except in the minds of the "La Raza" types and their supporters.



In the end, racism fuels the immigration debate

By DOUG THOMPSON

The raging debate over immigration serves the unfortunate but all-too-American need to feel superior to other less-than-white groups of humanity.

It brings out racism and places it in the forefront of American political debate.

Oh, we can sugar-coat the debate with rhetoric about the economic impact of so many immigrants working so many low-paying jobs but in the end the core of the debate is good-old American racist-bred fear.
I note that your immediate prior post dressed the immigration problem entirely in terms of Mexicans and Hispanics and not, for instance, all of the Eastern European immigrants cleaning offices and homes in New York.  Sealing off our southern boundries, not our Northern one.  Perhaps that is why people think the debate is at its core a racist one.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 09, 2007, 10:07:56 AM
chak,

Well, it depends on how you define amnesty, doesn't it?

Amnesty to most rational folks would involve saying to all the undocumented, "As of this moment, you are all American citizens."  There is nothing in the bill that remotely resembles that, unfortunately.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 10:21:27 AM
Just an aside on immigration.  There was a time when the US needed workers so badly, at least here in New England, that companies sent recruiters north to Canada and offered all kinds of deals for people to come and fill the positions in the mills.  That's one of the reasons we have such a large of French-Canadian descendants here in New England today.  I wonder how all these people became citizens?  I suppose they must have filled out paperwork and applied.  Many spoke only French, and even today, many of the older people here still speak French and broken English. 

Our new Loew stores all have signage in both English and Spanish, and most banks and such institution customer service lines will ask if you want directions in English or some other language. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 09, 2007, 05:23:17 PM
From the Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2007:

Enforcement before amnesty

By David Frum   /     Los Angeles Times   /  June 9, 2007:

THE SHELVING of the Senate's Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill opens a chance for real reform — reform that respects the wishes and protects the interests of a large majority of the American people.

The next effort to fix the broken system must accomplish four things: Stop new illegal immigrants from entering the country. Induce existing illegals to return home. Reorient immigration policy to favor those who make a net economic contribution to the U.S. over those who do not. And bow to the will of the 70% of Americans who feel that current immigration levels are too high.

Illegal immigration is not some sort of uncontrollable natural phenomenon. It can and should be regulated.

Illegal immigrants come to the United States because the United States doesn't do much to stop them. Yes, there's a Border Patrol, but the patrol can't be on every inch of the border. That's why most Americans want a border wall. Elude the patrol — or overstay your visa, as one-quarter of illegals do — and it's ollee-ollee-oxen free.

Illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to work. If we make it substantially more difficult for them to find work, substantially fewer of them will come, and many of those already here will return home.

It's estimated that about 750,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States every year. If so, that implies that more than 10% of the illegal population arrived within the last 24 months, and about one-third arrived since George W. Bush's inauguration. These people are not deeply rooted in the U.S.

Our first priority should be to create a system that allows employers to instantly and reliably check whether a job applicant is legally entitled to work here. Social Security cards should include photographs. Employers should be able to feed the card into a scanner and confirm that a prospective employee is eligible to work here.

And if an employer hires an illegal immigrant, he or she should be held accountable. Violators of the Clean Water Act can be fined up to $25,000 a day for a first offense; comparable liability would go far in enforcing immigration laws.

Beyond that, police should check the residency status of everybody they have legal cause to stop or question. All arrested illegals should be swiftly deported. States and localities should stop accommodating illegality with hiring halls and driver's licenses issued with no regard for residency status. If we emphasized such enforcement, we probably would not need a border fence.

Eventually, of course, we'd bump up against an irreducible minimum of hard cases: illegal immigrants with strong family ties in the U.S., or with military service to their credit, or who have lived here for a decade or more without otherwise violating the law. At the end of half a decade of enforcement, amnesty for such people might well be appropriate. But enforcement has to come first.

The current U.S. legal immigration system does not serve the needs of the country much better than its tolerance of illegality. A decade ago, the National Academy of Sciences studied the aggregate social costs and benefits of current immigration policy. It estimated that U.S. immigration policy adds about $10 billion a year to the national income — that is, less than one-tenth of 1%, virtually nothing.

Yet for particular states and towns, mass migration is a cause of trauma and upheaval. We all know that the population of those without healthcare insurance is rising — with all manner of attendant woes. But did you know that three-quarters of the increase is driven by immigration? And all of this for virtually zero net economic benefit.

One thing the Kyl-Kennedy bill did right was to redirect U.S. policy away from family reunification and toward merit-based immigration. It went about it wrong, allowing too much time to elapse before the new system went into effect, which would have allowed additional millions of less productive immigrants into the country — and ultimately into Medicare, Medicaid and other costly social programs. Real reform means a policy that "recruits" small numbers of highly skilled immigrants — people who earn enough to buy their own health insurance and who pay more in taxes than they cost in social benefits — which would enrich the welfare of all citizens of the U.S.

I speak as an immigrant myself: Aside from urgent humanitarian refugee cases, U.S. immigration policy should serve the economic interests of the U.S. as a whole, not the individual wishes of particular industries, interest groups or families.

The abandonment of the Kyl-Kennedy bill heeds the wishes of most Americans. It opens the way for a new approach: Enforcement first, amnesty last, and lower numbers of more highly skilled immigrants above all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRUM, a former speechwriter for President Bush, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to National Review. He coauthored "An End to Evil: How to Win the War o



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 05:36:37 PM
When do you think such a bill will be passed in Congress?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 09, 2007, 06:44:47 PM
Hopefully, never!

We don't need more highly skilled workers, we have enough of them coming out of the schools and colleges as it is. Why bring in only people who will take good jobs away from Americans. This is just not well thought-out.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 10, 2007, 12:11:50 AM
Quote
We don't need more highly skilled workers, we have enough of them coming out of the schools and colleges as it is.
Actually, no we don't.  We are not turning out anywhere near enough engineering and science graduates - and many of the ones we do turn out are on student visas.  The more talented people we can get to work here, stay here, and become citizens, the better off we will be.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 10, 2007, 01:22:13 AM
Mr. Utley re:#628

"I don't think Germany had big immigration problems during the 1930's, did they?"

Yes, they did. That more than anything instigated the final push for Lebensraum.  It was referred to as "the Eastern problem"; or, "our Eastern problem"

So, in a way, as you tell by the inference of discrimination,  it was the same in motivation as our own distaste for a population other than like ourselves; and you can also tell by the particulars that we propose their behavior should consist of in order to be allowed to become citizens.  We are talking about assimilate or be refused.  I noticed that in an earlier statement by someone, I'd have to look back over  the exchanges to spot it/

I can only conjecture from what I've read thus far in the discussion   that what stand out is our presumption that  they will want to adapt to our specific standards.  The Germans didn't think the Poles were even capable of it.

Personally, I think that is the furthest thought from their minds. When I am in California, the interactions that I have are quite bizarre; and what I observe is a fundamentally Spanish culture.  I mean nobody can take seriously, when you stop to think about it, anywhere in the vicinity of L.A. that the white anglo-saxon protestant fads and fixations ala LaLa Land are to be taken seriously, it is a joke of overweening self-interest manifest in every little individual upon whom everything is supposed to be centered.  It is one big Larry David Show.

When you take a good honest look at your societal environment, you begin to recognize that most everything there is the  Spanish tradition overlaid upon Los Indios.  The trouble is that Californians are so used to that being as it is, they really don't notice what it signifies.  I see instead that the average immigrant sleeping in cardboard boxes drawn up around the family presumes something else. He isn't thinking of adapting and adjusting and already knows his material needs as the person that he already is.  This is not going to be like any other wave of immigration that the US has ever experienced and made demands upon.

Taking a breather just for a second here, as a side note, the mention of the Chinese into Vancouver,etc. well this was actually true on both coasts of Canada since they have gone all over the world, they knew how to access Canada , and last time I counted they were one-quarter of the earth's population but that was  three decades ago and I haven't felt like learning the truth since.

So our demands of our adjacent neighbours when ever we start  to get alarmed about their over-stepping the line and their noncomformity with our wishes, speaks rather to the question  that you asked about Germany and was there a reason for their behaving as they did? Yes.They had a fantastic superior opinion of themselves which had been insulted and so they decided to assert their authority.  And that is pretty much where we are at now. We have certainly already given ample evidence of that by conducting the particular kind of war that we've got going, and without missing a beat before determining how much we owe on that one and what  it might cost us in aside with us as collateral damage, we can rationalize  by switching the point of emphasis to how  somebody else has to conform to get along with us, This displacement gesture is laughable in the extreme, to consider ourselves admirable for having  thus far lost a war that was extremely un-necessary  in any humane context.

This comment, a quote of David Frum's American Enterprise concepts," a new approach: Enforcement first, amnesty last, and lower numbers of more highly skilled immigrants above all." , was in effect what Germans opted to do in support of their war effort.                         



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 01:38:03 AM
No argument on the wastefulness and stupidity of the Iraq war.

As for helping the indigent of the continent, I don't know what miracle you'd use to get the countries' leaders to spend the money on their people instead of themselves. The whole history of US foreign aid has been one of crooked governments siphoning off aid money for themselves.

I agree on punishing the employers of illegals. Seal the borders and punish employers, and we should be able to keep illegal immigration down to far smaller numbers.

On the hospital bill, since I work part-time for a hospital I can sort of see both sides. Modern machinery and treatments are extremely expensive, and a hospital pretty much has to have them. The hospital sets a price for a given test or procedure, and the insurance companies pretty much force the hospital to give huge discounts to their customers, well below the actual break-even cost to the hospital. They have to try to get the full price from other patients where possible, since there are also many uninsured patients who never pay their bills. That is what is causing many hospitals to fold, or to close their ERs.

I agree on the need for universal health coverage. We could take Medicare and expand it, but many will scream at the rise in taxes that will be needed to pay for it.
Chakotay,

If we re-directed the money being wasted on a war in Iraq, to helping the indigent on our own continent, and insured that it was indeed used by the indigent, not to build great palaces for the rulers and elite, we could enable Mexicans to remain in their own country. Also, if we severly punished the employers who provide the low paying jobs to the illegals, we would go a long way towards keeping the so called "inundation" from happening.

For the money now wasted on the war machine, we could have a universal health program that would keep people from using hospitals for primary health care. The pressing problem in health care is the difference in cost to those who are insured, and for whom the insurance company acts as a go-between to negotiate a lower bill, and the cost of paying the whole bill itself.

I recently had a procedure done as an outpatient at a hospital. The cost on the hospital bill was over $5,000. The insurance company negotiated the bill down to around $2,000, and I paid only my $100 copay for the whole thing. If the health industry can make a profit charging only $2000 for a $5000 procedure, why are they allowed to charge the uninsured the $5000?

We could solve a lot of the problem if we had a law that required ALL employers, even those with a single employee, to provide health care, if for no other reason than for the discount. We need to make our health system affordable.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 10, 2007, 03:04:14 AM
One possible reason for the Democratic Party leadership's...ah...solicitude towards increasingly numerous Latino polity--and why the GOP leadership in Washington is so all-fired anxious not to offend same polity:


Hispanic Voters Gain New Clout With Democrats

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ   New York Times   June 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 9 — Helped by the fight over immigration, Democratic presidential candidates are courting Hispanic voters like never before, prompted by a string of early primaries in states with sizable Hispanic voting blocs.

It has forced candidates to hire outreach consultants, to start Spanish-language Web sites and to campaign vigorously before Hispanic audiences.

The battle for Hispanic voters is a result of the decision by several states with large Hispanic populations to move their presidential primaries to early 2008, including California, Florida and New York. Roughly two-thirds of the nation’s Hispanic residents live in nine of the states holding Democratic primaries or caucuses on or before Feb. 5.

Republican and Democratic strategists, as well as independent analysts, say the influence of Hispanic voters is likely to be amplified next year because of an unusually intense response in many Hispanic communities to immigration policy. Conservative Republicans, with the help of some left-leaning Democrats, teamed up on Thursday to derail an immigration bill in the Senate that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

It is in the new early primary states where Democrats hope the outreach efforts bear fruit. In the last presidential election, Hispanic voters accounted for a significant part of the overall Democratic primary electorate in California (16 percent), New York (11 percent), Arizona (17 percent) and Florida (9 percent), all states that will hold primaries by Feb 5.

Sergio Bendixen, a pollster hired by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to study Hispanic voting trends, said: “The Hispanic vote has never been all that important in the presidential primary process in the United States. But that will change in 2008.”

At this early stage, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, appears best poised to benefit from the heightened Hispanic role in the primary process. She has already captured a prized endorsement, of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, one of the nation’s most prominent Hispanic politicians.

Mrs. Clinton is also well known and liked by many Hispanics, with several national New York Times/CBS News polls from the past few months showing that about 60 percent of registered Hispanic voters who identify themselves as Democrats have a favorable view of her, while a quarter do not.

Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, remains a blank slate to many Hispanic voters, polls show, with 40 percent having no opinion of him. But his aspirational biography could prove a draw as more Hispanic voters get to know him.

Former Senator John Edwards is even less well known among Democratic Hispanic voters. While a third have a positive view of Mr. Edwards and fewer than 10 percent have an unfavorable view of him, 6 in 10 are unable to offer an opinion.

The only Hispanic in the race, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat, is working to build a base and establish a political identity beyond the Southwest.

Many Democrats were as troubled by the Senate immigration bill as were Republicans, but for decidedly different reasons. Mrs. Clinton expressed concerns about the legislation, particularly a provision that makes it harder for legal immigrants in the United States to bring relatives from abroad. Mr. Obama said that he would have supported the bill, but that he too had similar concerns about the provision, according to his aides.

On the Republican side, two of the main candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, opposed the immigration bill, while Senator John McCain played a main role in drafting the legislation, only to face a huge backlash from conservative Republicans raising alarms about what they call a flood of immigrants.

The bill’s setback — a major defeat for President Bush — could complicate Republican efforts to win over the fast-growing Hispanic electorate and help Democrats solidify their hold on these voters, an electoral prize expected to increase in importance in coming decades. Surveys showed that Hispanics were a small part of the Republican primary vote in 2000, with their greatest influence being in California, where they made up 9 percent of the vote.

The debate over immigration has spurred Hispanic leaders and voters to mobilize like few issues in recent memory have. The National Association of Latino Elected Officials has joined with the Hispanic television network Univision on a national campaign to help Hispanic residents fill out citizenship applications and to help those who are already citizens register to vote.

Stephanie Pillersdorf, a spokeswoman for Univision, said the number of Hispanic residents who had applied for citizenship in Los Angeles County alone had gone up 146 percent since the campaign started several months ago.

The scramble for Hispanic support is evident both within the campaigns and out on the trail.

On Friday, Mrs. Clinton spoke to Hispanic leaders in the Bronx, where she accused Republicans of undermining the immigration bill in the Senate. “The bill was mostly killed by people who don’t want any immigration reform and don’t want a path toward legalization,” she said. “There’s a very big anti-immigrant feeling that is influencing the problem right now, particularly on the Republican side.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Obama traveled to Nevada, a heavily Hispanic state that moved its caucus to Jan. 19, and sat down for interviews with Spanish-language television and newspaper reporters.

Mr. Edwards, who hopes his populist appeal will draw support from Hispanics, is dispatching his political director, David Medina, to meet with members of Democratic Hispanic Caucus of Florida. Mr. Richardson alternates between English and Spanish on the campaign trail. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, also often likes to display his fluency in Spanish, including when he announced his candidacy on CNN en Español.

Republicans have been making similar efforts. Mr. McCain has been making appearances before Hispanic audiences around the country, including in Miami, where he recently gave a speech on immigration. He also has access to a deep bench of prominent Hispanic leaders who fill in for him on Spanish-language radio and television programs, including Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, all of Florida. The senator himself has also made appearances on Univision and Telemundo. Mr. Romney, in turn, announced on Friday the creation of a steering committee to help him attract Hispanic voters.

Strategists for several Democratic campaigns say the new calendar has set the stage for Hispanic voters to have much more influence in picking the parties’ presidential nominees than they did when states like Iowa and New Hampshire were essentially alone among the early states in the nominating process.

In fact, in the 2004 race, Senator John Kerry did not assemble a Hispanic outreach and media operation until about five months before the general election.

By contrast, the Clinton campaign has already put in place a driven Hispanic outreach team that, among other things, issues press releases in Spanish on a regular basis and has a stable of Spanish-speaking surrogates to fill in for Mrs. Clinton at events that focus on Hispanics. It has also assigned a prominent role to its campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, a woman of Mexican descent who has been one of Mrs. Clinton’s most trusted advisers and friends since her days as first lady of Arkansas. Mrs. Doyle, who played a crucial role in getting the recent endorsement from Mr. Villaraigosa, has made herself available for interviews with Hispanic organizations of all sorts.

Democrats are optimistic about their prospects of making large gains among Hispanic voters, mindful of the progress they made in the 2006 midterm elections, when only 26 percent of Hispanics voted for Republican Congressional candidates. That was down from 44 percent in 2004, when Mr. Bush was at the top of the ticket, according to nationwide exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky.

While Mr. Bush’s popularity with Hispanics had been a factor in drawing large numbers of them to the Republican Party, many Hispanics appear to be returning to the Democratic fold as conservative efforts gained momentum last year to restrict immigration and build a wall along the Mexican border.

Democrats are doing what they can to encourage that return. Mr. Obama has traveled to Nevada several times to meet with members and leaders of a culinary workers’ union, most of whom are Hispanic women who work in Las Vegas hotels and casinos. The Obama campaign says the union could play a decisive role in generating voter turnout when the state holds its caucus next January.

The campaign is also sending dozens of volunteers this weekend to pass out Spanish-language literature in heavily Hispanic cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston and San Antonio, and is making videos available on its Web site with closed captioning in Spanish.

Mr. Edwards, in turn, is betting that his antipoverty campaign of the last few years, including helping unions organize in industries with large numbers of Hispanic workers, will give him an edge.

Earlier this year, he met with Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the farm workers’ union, and several hundred union members in Fresno, Calif. Mr. Edwards’s campaign has also sent prominent Hispanic supporters to act as surrogates for him on the campaign trial, including Patricia Madrid, the former attorney general of New Mexico, who recently went to Nevada to meet with Hispanic politicians and activists.

If any candidate can appeal to the ethnic pride of Hispanic voters, it is Mr. Richardson, the New Mexico governor, who often points to his Mexican roots (his mother is a native of Mexico) when appearing before Hispanic audiences.

The main problem for Mr. Richardson is that he is a relatively unknown figure among Hispanic voters, as well as the general electorate. To raise his profile among Hispanics, Mr. Richardson has turned to prominent Hispanics, including Gloria Molina, a Los Angeles County supervisor, who introduced him at the rally where he recently announced his candidacy.

David Contarino, Mr. Richardson’s campaign manager, predicted that his candidacy would become a matter of “interest and pride” among Hispanic voters once they learned of his record and roots.

“His name is Bill Richardson; that does not necessarily communicate his background,” Mr. Contarino said dryly.

Patrick Healy contributed reporting from New York.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so we proceed towards government of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests. Latinos, the Chamber of Commerce, public employee unions, agribusiness, racial and ethnic minorities (now majorities in parts of the Southwest, including Los Angeles), big pharma, the Catholic church, the fundies...everyone but the 75% of the country called Joe Lunchbox. Show me a voting bloc or a major campaign funding source and I'll show you where the exquisite sensitivity of both parties' leaderships comes from.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 04:18:20 AM
How would I know what immigrants they have in New York--legal or illegal? I see almost entirely Mexicans in Texas, and by the stats, they are the vast majority of all immigrants, legal or illegal. IMO, you put your resources into fixing what's broken, and our southern border is the one that's broken.

Being concerned about the vast numbers of immigrants coming from one source, one language, one ethnic group, etc. is not racist: it simply accepts the verifiable fact that one group is responsible for most of our immigration. If we are to have immigration, it should be spread out enough so that we don't get an excessively large number from any one country. We need for immigrants to assimilate, not to set up an outpost of their home country within our country!


I note that your immediate prior post dressed the immigration problem entirely in terms of Mexicans and Hispanics and not, for instance, all of the Eastern European immigrants cleaning offices and homes in New York.  Sealing off our southern boundries, not our Northern one.  Perhaps that is why people think the debate is at its core a racist one.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2007, 04:26:12 AM
chak,

We need for immigrants to assimilate, not to set up an outpost of their home country within our country!

Care to give us your definition of "assimilate"?  Be sure to give it in such a way that Greektown in Chicago and Chinatown or Little Korea in San Francisco are included, please.  Guess you don't like the old Ben E. King song There Is a Rose in Spanish Harlemmuch either.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 04:28:47 AM
Frum and I seem to be on the same page. I would begin with sealing off the border and then go to the biometric ID and database, but it sounds like a workable, common-sense plan.

From the Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2007:

Enforcement before amnesty

By David Frum   /     Los Angeles Times   /  June 9, 2007:

THE SHELVING of the Senate's Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill opens a chance for real reform — reform that respects the wishes and protects the interests of a large majority of the American people.

The next effort to fix the broken system must accomplish four things: Stop new illegal immigrants from entering the country. Induce existing illegals to return home. Reorient immigration policy to favor those who make a net economic contribution to the U.S. over those who do not. And bow to the will of the 70% of Americans who feel that current immigration levels are too high.
quote]


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 04:29:42 AM
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely---it makes too much sense and doesn't line anyone's pockets.

When do you think such a bill will be passed in Congress?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 04:32:29 AM
Not really. We have serious shortages in science, math and engineering, as well as nursing and other medical fields. We need scientists, engineers, nurses, etc., what we don't need is more busboys, gardeners, etc. Let the rich mow their own lawns, tend their own flowerbeds, and burp their own babies.

Hopefully, never!

We don't need more highly skilled workers, we have enough of them coming out of the schools and colleges as it is. Why bring in only people who will take good jobs away from Americans. This is just not well thought-out.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2007, 04:32:45 AM
chak,

If we are to have immigration, it should be spread out enough so that we don't get an excessively large number from any one country.

Will you ever come up with a new argument - something we haven't already seen in American history.  First there was the fear of Paddy (see Thomas Nast), then it was the Jews, the Italians, and the "Yellow Peril" of Hearst's wet dreams.

Xenophobes like you have always resented, feared, and hated the newcomer.

Tell you what, let's open the country to unlimited migration from India, Bangladesh, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Haiti under the same terms as migrants from Cuba.  That should settle your concerns about too many folks coming from one country, right?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 04:49:39 AM
The primary quesrion is not whether the immigrant wants to be like us, but whether he/she will be accepted and allowed to stay here. Every nation has the right to set its own immigration policies, and if the would-be immigrant wants to stay here, he/she needs to be willing to "fit in".

That doesn't mean that we all have to be like cookie-cutter people, all stamped out in the same form, but there are certain social obligations that an outsider needs to learn, such as learning English (even if imperfectly), obeying the law, etc. It is perfectly within our rights to say "assimilate or be refused". We don't go looking for these uneducated, unskilled people: they come here. If they want to be accepted and allowed to stay they need to fit into at least minimum levels of adaptation. Lower numbers of more highly skilled immigrants seems a fine idea, IMO. 

So, in a way, as you tell by the inference of discrimination,  it was the same in motivation as our own distaste for a population other than like ourselves; and you can also tell by the particulars that we propose their behavior should consist of in order to be allowed to become citizens.  We are talking about assimilate or be refused.  I noticed that in an earlier statement by someone, I'd have to look back over  the exchanges to spot it/


Personally, I think that is the furthest thought from their minds. When I am in California, the interactions that I have are quite bizarre; and what I observe is a fundamentally Spanish culture.  I mean nobody can take seriously, when you stop to think about it, anywhere in the vicinity of L.A. that the white anglo-saxon protestant fads and fixations ala LaLa Land are to be taken seriously, it is a joke of overweening self-interest manifest in every little individual upon whom everything is supposed to be centered.  It is one big Larry David Show.

This comment, a quote of David Frum's American Enterprise concepts," a new approach: Enforcement first, amnesty last, and lower numbers of more highly skilled immigrants above all." , was in effect what Germans opted to do in support of their war effort.                         




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 05:51:59 AM
I would say that the least we should be able to expect from people who want to come here is: learn English and use it, respect our laws and traditions, respect the people of this country, learn about the American system of government, work, pay taxes, encourage children to take education seriously, and if they have different traditions and customs in the immigrant's home country, he/she should remember that this is the USA and he/she is the newcomer. If the ties to the "auld sod" are too strong to break, maybe immigrating was a mistake.   


chak,

We need for immigrants to assimilate, not to set up an outpost of their home country within our country!

Care to give us your definition of "assimilate"?  Be sure to give it in such a way that Greektown in Chicago and Chinatown or Little Korea in San Francisco are included, please.  Guess you don't like the old Ben E. King song There Is a Rose in Spanish Harlemmuch either.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 06:06:14 AM
Yeah, yeah, I know...but the massive Mexican and other Latin American immigration (legal and illegal) represents a new situation for the US: having such a virtually inexhaustible source of uneducated, unskilled labor right on our border. It was a different country when the large Irish influx began: the US was industrializing and needed large numbers of unskilled factory hands. Same with the others you mention. That is no longer true. We have needs for more skilled immigrants, such as nurses, technologists, engineers, scientists, etc., but not for ditch diggers, busboys, lawn mowers, etc.

Also, there was an ocean between the US and Ireland, China, Italy, and most other countries. It was a major undertaking for them to come here. This is not true of Mexicans and other Latin Americans, which is why we have such massive numbers of immigrants from those countries. The situation just isn't the same, and with a constant influx from the "old country", the latinos simply aren't assimilating as previous groups of immigrants eventually did. Too many people, too quickly, is our basic problem here.   

chak,

If we are to have immigration, it should be spread out enough so that we don't get an excessively large number from any one country.

Will you ever come up with a new argument - something we haven't already seen in American history.  First there was the fear of Paddy (see Thomas Nast), then it was the Jews, the Italians, and the "Yellow Peril" of Hearst's wet dreams.

Xenophobes like you have always resented, feared, and hated the newcomer.

Tell you what, let's open the country to unlimited migration from India, Bangladesh, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Haiti under the same terms as migrants from Cuba.  That should settle your concerns about too many folks coming from one country, right?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 06:20:06 AM
Article from Time magazine that explains why the Senate bill is amnesty, regardless of terminology. The writer is pro-amnesty, but at least he doesn't try to deny that it is amnesty.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630168,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2007, 07:55:03 AM
chak,

I would say that the least we should be able to expect from people who want to come here is: learn English and use it, respect our laws and traditions, respect the people of this country, learn about the American system of government, work, pay taxes, encourage children to take education seriously, and if they have different traditions and customs in the immigrant's home country, he/she should remember that this is the USA and he/she is the newcomer.

Agreed.  Yet, you are the very same person who criticized Hispanic people for voting as a group for what they perceive to be in their best interest.  Seems to me they have played the game by YOUR rules, and you STILL don't like it.  They came to the USA legally, went through the waiting period and the naturalization test,with its questions on American law and history, got themselves registered to vote and DID vote.
When will you be honest with yourself and admit that you just hate newcomers?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 10, 2007, 08:05:03 AM
It is very telling that although the congress could not come to a consensus on how to deal with illegal immigration, they proposed no law to limit the employment of same folks.

Nor did they provide for the education of the illegals and legal immigrants so that they can learn English.

I was talking to my sister who lives in Washington State. She was thoroughly irritated with the immigrants who come to her neck of the woods and end up receiving social services. Her complaint is that they don't speak English. Her community has set up English classes, but the people are, by her assumption, too "dumb" to learn it quickly enough. I asked her how long it should take for a person to learn a new language, and she was dumbfounded. She had no idea. When I reminded her that for Americans in school, it generally takes about two years to learn a language well enough to use it for travel, and that learning to use the language as a total replacement for one's own native language, can take five or more years, she backed down. It is unlikely that we will be able to educate the older people to speak English other than as a stopgap. The emphasis needs to be on teaching the children who come with their parents. Not only do children learn a language fairly quickly, but they can then translate for their parents, who may never learn it as well. That is what immigrants have been doing since the beginning of our country (with the exclusion of the original colonists who were slow at learning the Native languages and never did learn them well, which led to the wars with the Natives).

Chak, how come it was OK for the original immigrants to keep their language (English) in spite of the existance of various Native languages. Why was it that the Natives had to learn the language of the immigrants rather than the other way around. You comfound history when you insist that the ticket to assimilation is to learn the English language.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 10, 2007, 08:17:36 AM
The main problem that happened in Europe after the immigration laws were greatly liberalized was an influx of mujadeen. Like those already here who planned WTC 1 and cheered 9-11. You just know Iran and Al Qaeda will be sending in suicide moles. Shut the border down. If there is a shortage you can allow specific scientists. This is not like the cold war era there is no arms race or space race to get upset about. You can always allow scientists to enter on an individual basis. You are basicly talking about day laborers, gardners, nannies, drug dealers, whores, and suicide bombers. The dems. and republicans want the hispanic vote and are selling the rest of the country out.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2007, 09:48:44 AM
luee,

The dems. and republicans want the hispanic vote and are selling the rest of the country out.

Silly you.  "The Hispanic vote" is of those who have already played the game by the rules xenophobes like you and chak have laid out. They came legally, applied for citizenship, learned English, passed the naturalization test, registered and are now voting.  Sounds like the American way to me.
 Yet you still don't like it.
When will either of you admit that, in the deepest recesses of your selves, you have a fear, hatred, and loathing of the newcomer?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 10, 2007, 10:58:13 AM
The American people have spoken, no amnesty. No non-citizen servant class taking jobs and services away from legal citizens. Halliburton is just going to have to pay union wages. Elected officials are going to have to pay union scale to their gardners and nannies.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 10, 2007, 11:54:24 AM
Okay,luee et al, here's where we get more complex (but,let me throw in an aside before it gets too heavy for the citizens. We already have had a program federally funded, locally administered, with a nice title,"Job training", that teaches immigrants English as we use it for their purposes of job application, along with all the frou-frou of how to dress, this has been in operation  since thirty-five years ago and if it is not operating currently, by now you are big enough to know why and who cut the government down to size to accord with their own ideas of "small government")
{also, congrats! to the poster who pointed out that young children at home familiarize the parents with the language. I once had neighbours with a large family from South America. They were mostly in the adult or young adult age bracket, had jobs, and because the first had a job as a secretary at a university there were the connections for every family-member's English to improve exponentially. The youngest with the perfect English,duh,was close enough to my son's age, that I did not pass up the opportunity for son to learn maximum from within this family --in the same way we had ins-and-outs among Italo-Americans who had made very clear that they were interested in the distinction between who they were and were those people one of us or them?  It got considerably tricky twenty-five years later in Princeton when speaking to the emigrees from South America who were Italians.}

MEANWHILE, 27 years ago in the North Chicago influenced Midwest, our compari(or gumpari) had been naturalizing their own Muslims via European connection, for themselves. Never turn a good soldier down.

Now, I want to introduce you to where it gets really complicated. Take a look at these people, and Hear Their Story.  Then ask yourself, if you remember how this all got started very early in the Bush administration; see if you can recall the details and then extrapolate to how costly this is going to be to us now on an international basis as the result of W having quirky ideas about what  "a State Department" consists of, how they proceeded to send in "the Cleaners" and took the whole system apart, fired the replacement, and where are we now that Ms.Rice is all we've got touring out there  and everybody is more worried about how long Scooter Libby should serve time for revealing the whose-who of agents as covert or overt? for a mole....

http://tinyurl.com/2lxlcq      You'll love it!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 03:37:28 PM
The hypocrisy in Congress is thick enough to slice and serve on rye bread, but what else is new?

IMO, legal immigrants should be required to sign up for English classes almost as soon as they set foot on our soil. The exact arrangements might have to be worked out, as to whether they would be presented by local, state or federal agencies, but learning at least a minimum level of English should not be optional, but mandatory.

I'm well aware of the difficulty of learning new languages, and I wouldn't necessarily expect the parents to become fully fluent in English, but anyone can learn enough to handle the basics of everyday life, as long as the problems don't get too complicated and require too extensive a vocabulary.

The natives who were here when the Europeans came (let's not forget that the Spanish, French and Dutch were coming too, as well as the Russians in Alaska) had the misfortune to be on the losing side. History is always written by the winners, and in their language. The situation now is different, and people who want to come here to join us need to be willing to adapt accordingly. The "ticket to assimilation" is now English.   

It is very telling that although the congress could not come to a consensus on how to deal with illegal immigration, they proposed no law to limit the employment of same folks.

Nor did they provide for the education of the illegals and legal immigrants so that they can learn English.

I was talking to my sister who lives in Washington State. She was thoroughly irritated with the immigrants who come to her neck of the woods and end up receiving social services. Her complaint is that they don't speak English. Her community has set up English classes, but the people are, by her assumption, too "dumb" to learn it quickly enough. I asked her how long it should take for a person to learn a new language, and she was dumbfounded. She had no idea. When I reminded her that for Americans in school, it generally takes about two years to learn a language well enough to use it for travel, and that learning to use the language as a total replacement for one's own native language, can take five or more years, she backed down. It is unlikely that we will be able to educate the older people to speak English other than as a stopgap. The emphasis needs to be on teaching the children who come with their parents. Not only do children learn a language fairly quickly, but they can then translate for their parents, who may never learn it as well. That is what immigrants have been doing since the beginning of our country (with the exclusion of the original colonists who were slow at learning the Native languages and never did learn them well, which led to the wars with the Natives).

Chak, how come it was OK for the original immigrants to keep their language (English) in spite of the existance of various Native languages. Why was it that the Natives had to learn the language of the immigrants rather than the other way around. You comfound history when you insist that the ticket to assimilation is to learn the English language.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 03:45:32 PM
If you are referring to people who immigrated legally, went through their 5 year waiting period and became naturalized citizens, then they can vote like other Americans: however they like. What we want to avoid, IMO, is having too much immigration coming from only one country, one language, one culture. In essence, that becomes more like population transplant from one location to another, not immigration in which the immigrant wants to become an American and assimilate into our society. The massive immigration from Mexico and Latin America is filling our streets with people who want the "goodies" of American life, but don't especially want to assimilate. They aren't the sort of immigrants we need.   

chak,

[Agreed.  Yet, you are the very same person who criticized Hispanic people for voting as a group for what they perceive to be in their best interest.  Seems to me they have played the game by YOUR rules, and you STILL don't like it.  They came to the USA legally, went through the waiting period and the naturalization test,with its questions on American law and history, got themselves registered to vote and DID vote.
When will you be honest with yourself and admit that you just hate newcomers?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 10, 2007, 05:17:35 PM
Quote
The massive immigration from Mexico and Latin America is filling our streets with people who want the "goodies" of American life, but don't especially want to assimilate. They aren't the sort of immigrants we need. 
What makes you think they do not want to assimilate?  Why would you think that they are different from any other mass immigration group? 

You want to ask again why people think there is a veneer of racism on the whole immigration issue?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 10, 2007, 05:35:00 PM
IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country would come legally, not sneak in the "back door". They would probably have some knowledge of English before they came, and I doubt that they would be marching in our streets waving Mexican (or other) flags. They also wouldn't be coming, as at least a percentage do, with the baggage of "reconquista" ideas.

All in all, I just believe that it is a mistake to allow such massive immigration from one country/culture/language, especially one so different from ours. The immigrants who would work best in our economy would be educated, skilled or professional, fluent in English or willing to become so, and willing to play by the rules.

Quote
The massive immigration from Mexico and Latin America is filling our streets with people who want the "goodies" of American life, but don't especially want to assimilate. They aren't the sort of immigrants we need. 
What makes you think they do not want to assimilate?  Why would you think that they are different from any other mass immigration group? 

You want to ask again why people think there is a veneer of racism on the whole immigration issue?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 10, 2007, 06:20:49 PM
IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country would come legally, not sneak in the "back door". They would probably have some knowledge of English before they came, and I doubt that they would be marching in our streets waving Mexican (or other) flags. They also wouldn't be coming, as at least a percentage do, with the baggage of "reconquista" ideas.

All in all, I just believe that it is a mistake to allow such massive immigration from one country/culture/language, especially one so different from ours. The immigrants who would work best in our economy would be educated, skilled or professional, fluent in English or willing to become so, and willing to play by the rules.

Chak,

First of all, all Americans do not "play by the rules". Look at the last election, for example.
Secondly, if you drive around my neck of the woods, you will see lots of flags flying other than the American flag. There is, of course the Confederate flag, flags of various colleges, the state flag, racing flags, and pretty flags of flowers and fruits. There is not rule in this country that only the American flag can be flown. And, yes, in a parade, you will see any number of those flags!

The reason the Mexican "sneak in the back door" as you call it, is because they can. Many other people have to fly to float to get here, which has been as much of a "back door" in the past as the southern border. How many Cubans came here riding on whatever would float to be picked up by our Coast Guard. Did we call them illegal? Did we complain that they came by the "back door".

It's amazing how you complain about insignificant things.

BTW, the farmers who see their crops rotting in the field would disagree with you as to needing "skilled" workers. The jobs just aren't there. The jobs that are crying for workers are the unskilled jobs that don't pay well enough to support an American in the way in which they choose to live. The Mexicans do not have such high expectations.

Today I went to the Walmart. In the grocery section I saw a number of hispanics. I do not know (or care) if they are legal or illegal. They were clean, spending money, and their children were decently dressed, clean, and hair fixed nicely. They looked better than some of the Americans in the store. And, they were spending money! Adding to the economy!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 10, 2007, 11:40:34 PM
Quote
IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country....
In other words, it is a generalization you pulled straight out of your ass, which is what I thought.

The vast, vast majority of immigrants who have come into this country over our history have been unskilled and have had little or no English language skills, and they generally assimilate by the second generation.  There is no reason hispanic immigration should be any different.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 11, 2007, 05:02:22 AM
chak,

IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country would come legally, not sneak in the "back door". They would probably have some knowledge of English before they came, and I doubt that they would be marching in our streets waving Mexican (or other) flags.

 I think I have it now.  No more Irish flags on St. Patrick's Day; no more Italian flags on Columbus Day; no more Greek flags on Greek Independence Day; no more Swedish flags on St. Lucia's Day; no more Norwegian flags in Minnesota or Bay Ridge, Brooklyn on their Heritage Day, or is it simply MEXICAN flags you object to?
BTW, every school teaching English to Non-native English speakers here in the Denver area has a LONG waiting list.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 06:43:04 AM
Bush is going to try and revive the Senate Bill.  Does he have any influence left?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 11, 2007, 10:34:24 AM
People can fly any flags they want to, I suppose, but if they want the American people to be sympathetic to their whines for legalizing illegal aliens, they should rethink flying foreign flags in our faces! Apparently this idea finally penetrated the boneheads of the immigration protestors, since they were telling marchers to leave the Mexican flags at home and fly the US flag in their later marches. Too late. They'd already made their real interests perfectly clear.

As for Cubans, they only get to stay if they make it to US soil before being caught. If the Coast Guard catches them while they are still at sea, back they go! IMO, there should be no difference: all illegal immigrants should be returned to their own countries. That is why we need to secure our borders all the way around, but since the vast majority of illegals come across from Mexico, it only makes sense to put the "man (or woman)power" where the biggest problem is.

IMO, and I admit to being no expert on agriculture, farmers and growers need to research alternative means of harvesting their crops rather than relying on immigrant labor. If we tried to fill the farmers' needs for stoop labor, it would require an unending supply of unskilled labor, because (understandably) the laborers will move on to something less strenuous or at least better paid when the chance arises. We can't base our immigration policy on getting tomatoes picked. Perhaps states could look into allowing minimum-security prisoners to be brought in to do the labor and paying them to do it. Talk about a "captive" labor force.

If you think that there is no shortage of skilled labor, I hope you don't have to be in the hospital when the current older generation of nurses, technologists, etc., begin to retire. There aren't enough new trainees in the "pipeline" to replace them, and according to recent articles, that won't change soon because there aren't enough nursing schools to educate a larger number. Catch-22.     

IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country would come legally, not sneak in the "back door". They would probably have some knowledge of English before they came, and I doubt that they would be marching in our streets waving Mexican (or other) flags. They also wouldn't be coming, as at least a percentage do, with the baggage of "reconquista" ideas.

All in all, I just believe that it is a mistake to allow such massive immigration from one country/culture/language, especially one so different from ours. The immigrants who would work best in our economy would be educated, skilled or professional, fluent in English or willing to become so, and willing to play by the rules.

Chak,

First of all, all Americans do not "play by the rules". Look at the last election, for example.
Secondly, if you drive around my neck of the woods, you will see lots of flags flying other than the American flag. There is, of course the Confederate flag, flags of various colleges, the state flag, racing flags, and pretty flags of flowers and fruits. There is not rule in this country that only the American flag can be flown. And, yes, in a parade, you will see any number of those flags!

The reason the Mexican "sneak in the back door" as you call it, is because they can. Many other people have to fly to float to get here, which has been as much of a "back door" in the past as the southern border. How many Cubans came here riding on whatever would float to be picked up by our Coast Guard. Did we call them illegal? Did we complain that they came by the "back door".

It's amazing how you complain about insignificant things.

BTW, the farmers who see their crops rotting in the field would disagree with you as to needing "skilled" workers. The jobs just aren't there. The jobs that are crying for workers are the unskilled jobs that don't pay well enough to support an American in the way in which they choose to live. The Mexicans do not have such high expectations.

Today I went to the Walmart. In the grocery section I saw a number of hispanics. I do not know (or care) if they are legal or illegal. They were clean, spending money, and their children were decently dressed, clean, and hair fixed nicely. They looked better than some of the Americans in the store. And, they were spending money! Adding to the economy!




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 11, 2007, 10:35:34 AM
He does in Albania and Bulgaria. In Washington? Doubtful.

Bush is going to try and revive the Senate Bill.  Does he have any influence left?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 11, 2007, 10:45:13 AM
Again with the history. I simply see no evidence that hispanics, especially Mexicans, are choosing to assimilate. Too much of that "reconquista" nonsense; too much of a (false) sense of entitlement.

Again, unskilled immigrants were needed in historical times for jobs in factories, but our factory jobs are going to China, Mexico, etc. There is only a limited need for the sort of unskilled labor that is flooding in, and there seems to be a limitless supply of laborers waiting to sneak in. What we are likely to end up with will be a mass of uneducated, unskilled laborers trying to compete for low-paying jobs that will never pay enough for a person to live on: a permanent underclass. This won't be addressed by just saying make the employers pay more; if they paid more, they'd have Americans willing to do the work in most areas.   
 

Quote
IMO, people who wanted to assimilate into this country....
The vast, vast majority of immigrants who have come into this country over our history have been unskilled and have had little or no English language skills, and they generally assimilate by the second generation.  There is no reason hispanic immigration should be any different.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 11:09:11 AM
Quote
Again with the history. I simply see no evidence that hispanics, especially Mexicans, are choosing to assimilate.
Again with the generalizations with nothing to back it up.  How many hispanic immigrants do you know?  The studies I have seen indicate that legal hispanic immigrants assimilate at roughly the same rate as other immigrant groups.  (Undocumented immigrants, regardless of nationality, generally do not assimilate as well, but that has more to do with their marginalized status than their own desire.)  Studies have indicated that massive immigration slows the rate of assimilation, but does not stop it.

It slows the rate, of course, not because the immigrants do not want to assimilate but because they do not have to.  To use anecdote as illustration but not as proof, close friends of my wife, a married couple who both have green cards, moved into the Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn.  I am not sure how familiar you are with Greenpoint, but when I was last there visitng them maybe four years ago, we went into butcher shops / delis (a kielbasa run!) where no one was using English.  According to them, you did not need English to function in an essentially Polish enclave.  The husband, whose job put him in regular contact with english speakers, spoke english quite fluently.  The wife, who worked cleaning buildings for another Pole, did not have that regular contact with english speakers, and spoke very poor english.  However, their children, both of who were born in Poland, spoke English fluently and with little or no accent.

What the studies suggest with hispanic immigration is that first generation hispanics do not assimilate rapidly because they tend to live in enclaves and work jobs where they do not need to speak english.  But their children do.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 12:31:30 PM
Here in northern New England, our Lowe stores have all their signage in English and Spanish.  We are perhaps the whitest state in the country with very few Mexican immigrants, as far as I can see, but still our new Lowe stores are prepared.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Donotremove on June 11, 2007, 12:47:22 PM
In case I'm repeating myself, just scroll on past this.

Time was, when I was a child, Mexicans drifted back and forth over the border as times and circumstances made it necessary to work a while in U.S.  Most went back home, time and again, as the financial need was met.  All of the social sevices (schooling and health care) was obtained in Mexico and no one expected things to be any different. Border crossing was not difficult and Mexicans could have stayed (some, of course, did. Ask Richard Rodriguez's parents).  But if you ask most Mexicans if they are building a house in their home town (in Mexico) they'll tell you either that they are or they are helping their parents build (or expand) a house.

My neighbor across the street is Mexican, as are half the people on my block.  I don't know what his legal status is, I have no right to ask him, but he owns his home.  Yet, he is building a retirement home in Mexico in the town of his birth.  He goes back there for two weeks a year during some of his vacation.  He and his wife fully plan to retire in Mexico.

Perhaps we should consider easing border crossings to reflect how it was in earlier times. I think you'd see a 'leveling off" after a while.  And, we should deny education and social services so the men would stop bringing their families.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 11, 2007, 03:54:42 PM
People can fly any flags they want to, I suppose, but if they want the American people to be sympathetic to their whines for legalizing illegal aliens, they should rethink flying foreign flags in our faces!

Who's "whining"?

You're fighting a losing battle. These folks know more about our freedoms than many Native born.

Most of us believe there must be a legal path to citizenship that is acceptable to both sides of the issue. The details to work out are minor.

The part not being addressed is the corrupt government of Mexico and other Central American countries who's economies WE helped BREAK.

Why do you think they come here???




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 11, 2007, 11:44:09 PM
I don't agree with the conclusions conservative NYTimes columnist David Brooks draws in today's column, but at least he understands the underlying problems with illegal immigration better than most:

June 12, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Next Culture War
By DAVID BROOKS

The conventional view is that an angry band of conservative activists driven by nativism and economic insecurity is killing immigration reform. But this view is wrong in almost every respect.

In the first place, immigration is not now, nor has it ever been a primarily partisan issue. A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that 36 percent of Republicans support the bill, along with 33 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents. That’s hardly a party-line chasm.

In the second place, immigration attitudes have never dovetailed neatly with racist or nativist ones. Hostility to immigration often increases in periods when racist attitudes are on the decline. Moreover, established immigrants are nearly as suspicious of new and illegal immigrants as native-born Americans.

And in the third place, decades of research have failed to show any clean link between economic insecurity and anti-immigrant views. Pollsters ask voters if they feel their own wages are affected by immigrant labor. There is no strong connection between feelings of personal risk and anti-immigration opinions. Some studies find no link at all between income levels and those views.

What’s shaping the immigration debate is something altogether deeper and more interesting. And if you want to understand what it is, start with education. Between 1960 and 1980, the share of Americans enrolled in higher education exploded. The U.S. became the first nation in history with a mass educated class. The members of this class differed from each other in a thousand ways, but they tended to share a cosmopolitan approach to the world. They celebrated cultural diversity and saw ethnocentrism as a sign of backwardness.

Their worldview, which they don’t even understand as a distinct worldview, was well summarized by Richard Rorty, who died this week. The goal of any society, he wrote, was to create “a greater diversity of individuals — larger, fuller, more imaginative and daring individuals.” Social life should widen. New cultures should be explored. And, as Rorty concluded, “Individual life will become unthinkably diverse and social life unthinkably free.”

Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.

This cultural offensive created a silent backlash among people who were not so enamored of rampant individualism, and who were worried that all this diversity would destroy the ancient ties of community and social solidarity. Members of this class came to feel that America’s identity and culture were under threat from people who didn’t understand what made America united and distinct.

The two groups clashed whenever a political issue arose that touched on America’s identity or role in the world: immigration, free trade, making English the official language or intervening for humanitarian reasons in Kosovo or Darfur.

These conflicts were and are primarily cultural clashes, not economic or ideological ones. And if you want to predict which side a person is likely to be on, look at his or her educational level. That’ll be your best clue.

As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, “Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local.” People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation.

What’s made the clashes so poisonous is that many members of the educated class don’t even recognize that they are facing a rival philosophy. Many of them assume that anybody who disagrees with them on immigration and such must be driven by racism, insecurity or some primitive atavism. This smug attitude sends members of the communal, nationalistic side into fits of alienation and prickly defensiveness. It’s what makes many of them, in turn, so unpleasant.

The bottom line is that the immigration debate is part of a newer culture war that has succeeded the familiar and fading culture war. This longer culture war is not within the educated class. It’s not the ’60s versus the ’80s. It’s — to mimic Mark Lilla — between the people who have absorbed both the ’60s and the ’80s, and everyone else.

It’s between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists. It’s between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they’re destroying the best compromise they will get.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 12, 2007, 12:34:21 AM
ehkzu  re:#683


"It’s between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they’re destroying the best compromise they will get."

I think that I'd need this a little more closely defined as to line-up the identification with:
"   between the people who have absorbed both the ’60s and the ’80s, and everyone else.

It’s between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists".

I can guess, I can assume but if we don't have our cultural clash opponents firmly identified than we are deep into David Brooks fave territory where dwell the Booboiserie.  After all he wrote the book, and people considered he was the author of a book of humor. That he was making fun of people we recognize because we might very well be "those people" without a doubt.

Is this to say, in his oft smug way,that what he meant to stay was that "rooted nationalists" are red-staters, whereas open, individualistic cosmopolitans have the blues?

Ps. "cosmopolitans" is a code-word to philosophically identify former, as they are now all dead to a fault, leftist intellectuals born in the early part of the last century. Why David prefers to use that word to define urban, college-educated, residents is anybody's guess but not my cup of tea since I've by now read Brooks long enough to realize he is desperately looking for a home in some politically correct enclave that is on the winning side and will accept him as one of the bonafide intelligentsia.

I think what we really need, soon!, is a "rectification of names"(or words, as the case may be, an old Chinese pastime which was done just to be sure everybody was talking about the same thing, or as we say,  "on the same page".


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 12, 2007, 12:27:35 PM
Re: ehkzu  #683

I'm inclined to agree with Brooks on the difference between the pro and anti sides of immigration. Not all of us fit so neatly into his two definitions, however. I would fit into the "educated" class, I suppose, but my immigration preferences would fit in more with the "common" man side. My ideas are based upon my belief in this country as a nation, and not just a group of people living in the same geographic area. Immigration should be used as a tool for bringing in people who can fill a real need in our society and strongly encouraging them to assimilate and join us as Americans. Those who don't want to do that should stay home.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 12, 2007, 03:28:46 PM
Maybe so, but with a constant influx of people from the old country, even second and third generations may not assimilate as they once did.

This article, by a professor of political science is about 10 years old, but it is still pretty accurate:

http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/Chang-aztlan.html

This article, by a Mexican publisher, also admits that at least some Mexicans choose not to assimilate:

http://esp.mexico.com/lapalabra/unarespuesta/1020/enough-of-crap!

And this article discusses the role of the Mexican government in pushing its poorest people across the border:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/illegal_immigration_mexicos_sh.html

As long as we have such massive immigration from one country, assimilation will be slow and painful, if at all, IMO.


Studies have indicated that massive immigration slows the rate of assimilation, but does not stop it.

It slows the rate, of course, not because the immigrants do not want to assimilate but because they do not have to. 
What the studies suggest with hispanic immigration is that first generation hispanics do not assimilate rapidly because they tend to live in enclaves and work jobs where they do not need to speak english.  But their children do.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 12, 2007, 03:38:42 PM
Why to citizenship? I could accept some version of "guest worker" status, that allowed people to get a "work permit" so they could work legally, and cross the border freely to go home to visit. I see no reason to include a path to US citizenship in this package.

Those who actually want to become citizens should be required to go home and make application through the usual legal methods. Why should we  give preferential treatment to illegal aliens who have broken our laws just by coming here, and then compounded their lawbreaking by using fake IDs or by stealing American identities?

The people who have taken the time and trouble to use the legal process are the ones who should have preference. I see no need to cater to illegal aliens.

Why do they come here? IMO, because they can! I don't think it is because they want to become "Americans", although they do want the money and other goodies of American life. They know that we've sloughed off border enforcement for a long time and don't believe that we will keep up our new-found commitment to the legal process. They may be right, but I hope not. 

Most of us believe there must be a legal path to citizenship that is acceptable to both sides of the issue. The details to work out are minor.

The part not being addressed is the corrupt government of Mexico and other Central American countries who's economies WE helped BREAK.

Why do you think they come here???





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 12, 2007, 03:56:53 PM
chack, there's more to it.

Read this article.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/05/winners_and_losers.html?welcome=true


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 12, 2007, 04:54:00 PM
chak,

Why should we  give preferential treatment to illegal aliens who have broken our laws just by coming here, and then compounded their lawbreaking by using fake IDs or by stealing American identities?


Read the proposals.  Those who have used forged or fake identities are barred from participation and subject to deportation.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 12, 2007, 09:46:51 PM
How can I vote in the immigration poll? I am a little undecided. Does the country need more cheap labor, a sharing of limited social programs, a new second language, more drug dealers, pimps, and Mujadeen?  Or should the borders be secured and the present laws enforced. That is a tough one!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 13, 2007, 07:29:22 AM
Luee,

If you want to participate in the poll, and do not already have an informed opinion, it is time to do some research, if you are so inclined. Spanish would not be a "new" second language. It has been present in the southwest and Florida since we bought those areas from Spain. The news on an agricultural station a few weeks ago is that there is insufficient labor available to farmer to harvest the foods that we expect to stock our supermarkets. There seems to be a need for unskilled labor. As to the fact that some immigrants become pimps or drug dealers (I assume there are also prostitutes for the pimps to manage), it is a suggestion that some of the immigrants come with entreprenarial skills and ambitions, and perhaps need some capital to go into a more socially acceptable business.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 13, 2007, 11:24:04 AM
America is an English speaking country. No problem with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. in the past demanding dual postings. Legal immigrants have to go through a long and expensive process, why should the new illegals get everything waived. Liberalized immigration laws in Europe have proven disasterous. This is the only poll that I have seen that actually favors the Bush-Mc Cain-Kennedy plan. Two of the three leading republican presidential hopefuls are against it.  Just because migrants do seasonal work in agriculture does not mean they should automaticly become citizens.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 13, 2007, 01:44:25 PM
Quote
Luee: Legal immigrants have to go through a long and expensive process, why should the new illegals get everything waived.


With all due respect, your basic premise is false. The “new illegals” do not “get everything waived” and thus is your rhetorical question as to why they should do so ... well ... the term “spurious” does come to mind.

Quote
Luee: Liberalized immigration laws in Europe have proven disasterous.

False comparison.

I know of no either partial or supposed amnesty for illegal aliens having been introduced anywhere in Europe as is currently being proposed for the US. In what respect or respects do you feel that European immigration laws have been liberalized in a manner similar to that as is now being proposed stateside? To the very best of my knowledge, some to many European nations have actually stiffened immigration laws (particularly with respect to refugee status) and thus would I agree with a past poster here most certainly to the extent that you might want to do some research on this, that or the other.

Should I rephrase your latter statement to read something along the lines of “Liberal immigration laws in Europe have proven disastrous”, I find that I am at least able to ask what precisely you think has been disastrous about the immigration situation in Europe and how the whatevers might perhaps relate to the American situation and how are European immigration laws too liberal?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 13, 2007, 02:50:02 PM
Lou Dobbs offers his suggestions on dealing with illegal aliens:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/12/Dobbs.June13/index.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 13, 2007, 02:56:28 PM
The problem with "the need for unskilled labor" by farmers is that the laborers mostly move on to better-paying, or at least, less strenuous, areas of work. This means that to keep the farmers happy, we'd have to have an unending stream of uneducated, unskilled workers constantly moving north! We simply can't base our national immigration policies solely on the needs of the farmers.

It would be better to develop alternative ways to get the work done, such as using inmates from minimum-security prisons and jails. It would offer the inmates a source of modest income and getting out and working all day might leave them too tired to get into trouble. Where possible, farmers should look into using machinery to replace human labor. Machines don't get tired or go looking for a better job!


Luee,

If you want to participate in the poll, and do not already have an informed opinion, it is time to do some research, if you are so inclined. Spanish would not be a "new" second language. It has been present in the southwest and Florida since we bought those areas from Spain. The news on an agricultural station a few weeks ago is that there is insufficient labor available to farmer to harvest the foods that we expect to stock our supermarkets. There seems to be a need for unskilled labor. As to the fact that some immigrants become pimps or drug dealers (I assume there are also prostitutes for the pimps to manage), it is a suggestion that some of the immigrants come with entreprenarial skills and ambitions, and perhaps need some capital to go into a more socially acceptable business.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 13, 2007, 03:00:23 PM
I see no need for a "guest worker" program to include a path to citizenship. We could offer "work permits" that allowed laborers to work legally in the US and to travel back and forth across the border to visit their families. This would be better than having them bring their families for the US taxpayer to provide for.

Those who did want citizenship should be required to go home and go through the legal process. We should not reward illegal aliens by giving them a special path of US citizenship!

America is an English speaking country. No problem with the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. in the past demanding dual postings. Legal immigrants have to go through a long and expensive process, why should the new illegals get everything waived. Liberalized immigration laws in Europe have proven disasterous. This is the only poll that I have seen that actually favors the Bush-Mc Cain-Kennedy plan. Two of the three leading republican presidential hopefuls are against it.  Just because migrants do seasonal work in agriculture does not mean they should automaticly become citizens.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 13, 2007, 03:20:22 PM
We simply can't base our national immigration policies solely on the needs of the farmers.

It would be better to develop alternative ways to get the work done, such as using inmates from minimum-security prisons and jails. It would offer the inmates a source of modest income and getting out and working all day might leave them too tired to get into trouble. Where possible, farmers should look into using machinery to replace human labor. Machines don't get tired or go looking for a better job!

Chat,

We need to tailor our national immigration policy to the needs of our country. If employers, which include farmers, have need for unskilled labor, even for part of the year, and that need has some takers in Mexico, then of course, those facts should frame our national immigration policy.

Please provide particulars on the type of machinery available to pick tomatoes or lettuce, for example. Fruits are generally too fragile to be picked by machinery. Yes, grains can be harvested by machine, and much of the cotton. But, did you know that there are some uses for cotton that require the bolls be picked by hand? The year I taught in a cotton-growing county in southern VA, I had some "cotton pickers" in my class, which was a great source of jokes!!! But, the amount that must be hand-picked is relatively small, and its a nice source of Christmas money, since the cotton was harvested after the first frost, sometime around Halloween.

From your post, I assume you live and have always lived in or near the city and have little or no knowledge of the various farm communities around the country. As you mother used to tell you, "When you don't know what you are talking about, shut your mouth or you'll make a fool of yourself."





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 13, 2007, 03:54:55 PM
Hola patricia_k!

 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: srnich on June 13, 2007, 03:58:33 PM
Just because migrants do seasonal work in agriculture does not mean they should automaticly become citizens.

Migrants do more than that.

BTW, what is Mujadeen?

Linking the immigration issue to Islam and terrorism is dishonest and you know it.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 13, 2007, 04:09:51 PM
chakotay Re:#695

"better to develop alternative ways to get the work done, such as using inmates from minimum-security prisons and jails."

That has been "done". To death.

To reinstitute it would provide no guaranty that you would be exempt from the program.  Times have changed, you see.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 13, 2007, 05:32:09 PM
I simply feel that there are other alternatives than having an unending stream of unskilled labor coming across the border. Even allowing minimum security prisoners to earn commissary money by working would be preferable. I've grown tomatoes and other veggies in home gardens, and picking them is not something that requires a Ph.D.! It is something that prisoners could learn quickly, and perform well enough.

There may be no substitute for hand-picking in some industries, but that is not to say that no machine can be developed to perform this function. All crops were once harvested by hand, after all!

At any rate, before we commit our country to a never-ending stream of unskilled labor, we should consider alternatives.

[Chat,

We need to tailor our national immigration policy to the needs of our country. If employers, which include farmers, have need for unskilled labor, even for part of the year, and that need has some takers in Mexico, then of course, those facts should frame our national immigration policy.

Please provide particulars on the type of machinery available to pick tomatoes or lettuce, for example. Fruits are generally too fragile to be picked by machinery. Yes, grains can be harvested by machine, and much of the cotton. But, did you know that there are some uses for cotton that require the bolls be picked by hand? The year I taught in a cotton-growing county in southern VA, I had some "cotton pickers" in my class, which was a great source of jokes!!! But, the amount that must be hand-picked is relatively small, and its a nice source of Christmas money, since the cotton was harvested after the first frost, sometime around Halloween.

From your post, I assume you live and have always lived in or near the city and have little or no knowledge of the various farm communities around the country. As you mother used to tell you, "When you don't know what you are talking about, shut your mouth or you'll make a fool of yourself."






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 13, 2007, 05:47:52 PM
Chak,

You are putting the cart before the horse. We need the laborers NOW, even if machinery is developed sometime in the future. The immigration policy is also for NOW. It is not set in stone.

Industry has always needed a "never-ending stream of unskilled laborers" since the founding of Jamestown.

Much harvesting equipment, as it is now designed, chops off the whole plant and separates the plant from the food. In the case of crops which produce across the season, or which are on permanant plants, like most fruit, it is difficult to make such machinery. But if you are, yourself, knowledgeable and can design and develop such machinery, then by all means do it. Otherwise, bellyaching because the equipment does not exist, or presuming to pass laws on the hopes that it will, just to let crops rot in the field until it does, it NOT a responsible policy. It is unsupportable.

As has been already said, we have and are using "convict labor" for a variety of jobs. In short, they are already over-booked!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 13, 2007, 06:56:02 PM
I must admit that I get a kick out of watching conservatives engage in their very own homemade internal clash of civilizations as the free marketers vie with the ethnocentric nativist keep-them-damned-furriners-out lot.

(turning the tease on)

To hell with cheap labor for the farmers and to hell with a labor force that is large enough to keep competition for jobs high and wages correspondingly low as the corporate conservatives would prefer. Let’s just offshore our agriculture and other dirty work to China or somewhere else far away and outta sight! If them furriners have to do it, let them do it, but ... eww ... let them do it someplace else, please.

(turning the tease off)

Equally amusing is the sight of liberals caught in supporting the corporate conservatives’ quest for cheap labor on grounds of open-hearted anti-nationalist humanitarian and proletarian internationalist philosophy/concerns.

Where oh where is the party that supports the notion that if it means paying more to get born-in-the-Bruce-Springsteen-USA Americans to pick our lettuce, perhaps we ought to simply be prepared to pay more for our lettuce? Or perhaps we could go back to buying local produce so as to save transportation and energy costs incurred as lettuce from California is trucked to the East Coast -- even when it ain’t snowing on the fields of green in Pennsylvania?

For my part and without going into the details in terms of loopholes of the bipartisan immigration bill in question, I really don’t see any logical or pragmatic reason why the process of immigration cannot be initiated from within the USofA as well as from without as long as some punishment in terms of a fine or the like is imposed for the initial breach involved in illegal entry (such a fine is notably provided for in the bipartisan bill). In fact, there are a number of advantages to inviting those already here to stay first and foremost. They will likely be further along with respect to integration, will probably already have a job of some sort, will surely have a greater understanding of the American values that nativists claim to hold dear and their English language skills will probably be better than those of such as are still abroad. This could be a win/win situation on the pragmatic front.

To any nativists who might inhabit these ex-Elban halls, having cheap labor cross either this or that or any border into our USofA is pretty much the logical extension of the brand of globalization envisaged by the true believers in free marketry. There is precious little difference between having products cross borders that have been produced by cheap (wo)manpower off-shore and having cheap (wo)manpower come on-shore to produce the whatevers here. The monied and money-minded conservatives can be firmly relied upon to be gung ho and enthusiastically proactive when it comes to having products and capital cross borders with little by way of impediments and surely they’d like to see that other column of economic activity that is labor crossing freely as well. Competition will reign and the unions will remain weak. The economics of the issue will ever have you nativists at odds with your corporately conservative brothers and sisters.

And where does the Bush plant its roots? When in doubt, ever there where the corporate conservatives see their profit and power being cultivated and amplified. This is no down home boy, your Georgie. Will ya’ll be supporting another of his kind the next election ‘round?



PS ¡Hola Señor Nicolás!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 13, 2007, 07:26:35 PM
Afterthought:

Laughing briefly here as I consider that the most efficient solution to the problem of the lettuce would be to ban such green leafy things entirely and permit solely foods to be bought and sold the production of which lends itself to automation and that can be expected to have the mostest and the maxest by way of shelf-life.

Who needs fresh fruits and vegetables anyway! Twinkies unite in our shopping carts!

Better for GDP, too.

The more highly processed the food, the greater the contribution to GDP stats and we all know that high GDP stats are a prime guarantor for human well-being ...

... uh ...

... don’t we?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: ehkzu on June 13, 2007, 08:18:17 PM
I attended a citizenship ceremony today, with hundreds of participants. They came from 60--sixty--different countries, speaking dozens of different languages. The proceedings started with an invitation to the about-to-become citizens to register to vote. And in fact voter registration booths were set up outside the auditorium for the two major parties and I believe some of the others as well. The speaker pointed out that you could get ballots in a wide variety of languages in case your English was too rudimentary to understand the ballot propositions and whatnot.

Then a series of speakers got up and gave lengthy speeches in Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Spanish. We sang the national anthem and recited the pledge of allegiance, the about-to-be-citizens on the main floor, and the rest of us up in the balcony. They provided text for both, but some of us already knew the words. The guy next to me was there for a Filipino friend who he said had wanted citizenship primarily so he could vote against Republicans. They played "Proud to be an American" --a Red America anthem I've mainly heard in conjunction with fireworks at 4th of July celebrations on Lake Tahoe.

President Bush gave a little video intro that made the guy sitting next to me squirm. The President seemed sincere, though. The denouement was the group reciting the Oath of Allegiance.

I was there for an Indian friend who as a child in Puna had seen a video of our astronauts landing on the moon and said to himself "I want to live in the country that did that!" On our way out I persuaded him to register. He wanted to register Independent but I explained to him that the major parties had gone to court and defeated the open primary initiative that California voters had passed with a large majority. So here if you aren't a registered Demo or Publican you have no voice in primaries.

This was the first citizenship ceremony I'd attended. I was surprised by the huge variety of source nations; by how moving it was; by how multilingual the proceedings were; by how political involvement was so integrated into it. 

Living near the nation's #2 university, I know plenty of people who consider themselves far too advanced to relate to the unabashed patriotism of this ceremony.

They don't know what they're missing. But the new Americans emerging from that auditorium today do know. I admire them for how they persevered in their dream of becoming American citizens. I just wish every one of them had had someone in the balcony rooting for them like my formerly Indian friend did.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 13, 2007, 08:24:10 PM
ehkzu,

Living near the nation's #2 university, I know plenty of people who consider themselves far too advanced to relate to the unabashed patriotism of this ceremony.

We didn't know you lived in Cambridge.  Then again, we who went to Columbia know HAHHVAHHD as a small New England college known for taking Columbia rejects. <;-)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 13, 2007, 08:46:16 PM
Cap,

You really made a point with me in your comments about those who are "liberal" speaking up for the big corporations by advocating immigration for picking veggies.

While I am aware of the big "corporate" farms in the midwest and probably in the west, I am most familiar with the family farms both here in Virginia and in my homestate of Pennsylvania. I do not know if the Amish farmers in PA use imported labor for their harvest, so I don't really know if it is an issue there. Here in Virginia, a lot of imported labor brings your cigars, cigarettes and tiparillos to you. Tobacco is another crop that is harvested by hand, leaf by single leaf.

Not only would there be no fresh vegetable, in or out of season, but the shelves of canned veggies would go as well, if we didn't have the labor from whatever source, to pick it.

The problem with planting and harvest labor is that it is season intensive. I do not think the wages around here are shamefully low, since I see a lot of the people spending the money on nice things. At least when they are shopping, they do not appear to be marginal earners. The problem is that farming is not a year round activity, at least not in parts of the country with four seasons. Most of the Mexicans I have seen in the schools, take extensive "vacations" to Mexico during the cold weather, and return just as it's time to fertilze the fields for the new season. These may be people who have steady jobs around here for the season. They are driving nicer cars, too. They are working on family farms, not large, corporate farms.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 13, 2007, 11:11:51 PM
Just because migrants do seasonal work in agriculture does not mean they should automaticly become citizens.

Migrants do more than that.

BTW, what is Mujadeen?

Linking the immigration issue to Islam and terrorism is dishonest and you know it.

Not in Europe, it is a major problem. Do you remember WTC1? More recently Fort Dix, the fuelline blow-up plan?Europe has a second generation who refuse to assimmilate and love to blow themselves up. Iran has an army of 40,000 volunteers willing to sacrifice themselves. A single new immigrant with a dirty suitcase can do a lot of damage.

Anyhow is this poll only open to people who are enlightened and a strange coalition of Ayatollahs, anarchists, elitists, and border state politicos and not the large majority who are opposed?  This sounds a lot like the not well recieved privatization of social security plan never heard from again. 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 14, 2007, 06:26:45 AM
Quote
Weezo: Cap, You really made a point with me in your comments about those who are "liberal" speaking up for the big corporations by advocating immigration for picking veggies.

I’m not Cap, but I should like to respectfully point out that we are not talking merely picking veggies here. We are also already talking assembly line chickens, golf course greens, dirty restaurant dishes, unmade hotel beds and even uncleaned toilets in the swankier residential areas of such environs as beltway-bordering Chevy Chase and Fairfax. We are talking the whole pallet of bottom-end jobs already being performed largely by illegal aliens.

In addition, it would be in corporate conservatives’ best interest to see this (wo)manpower spreading out via legalization to encompass yet more low-end industry jobs so as to keep pressure and competition on the labor market high and wages correspondingly low.

It’s a simple economic equation really.

Mobility of labor is a positive good for the corporate conservative in that the corporate conservative ideal of excess labor puts downward pressure on the wage rate and increases profits.

The more workers there are vying for the same jobs, the lower are the wages that industry of all shapes and sizes need to offer to get the job(s) done. The dynamics of supply and demand at work on human beings.

Ideally, wage pressure could be so high that corporate conservatives in the CEO’s offices could bring back production work that is currently being done offshore (with transportation costs on the up due to increasing oil prices) to the States.

For corporate conservatives this is about keeping labor and transportation costs low so as to increase profits that are, in turn, not shared with the American labor force (of either the legal or the illegal variety), all too large a proportion of which is working for an hourly minimum wage that has not seen much by way of real increase in value (as opposed to solely a nominal increase in value) for decades now ... and that often in two to four jobs per family.

A bit of statistical background on the real minimum wage:

Quote
If we adjust for inflation, the real minimum wage, in terms of 2003 buying power, reached its peak in 1968. In that year, the nominal minimum was $1.60 but its real 2003 buying power was $7.18. From 1968 to 2003, the nominal minimum wage increased by $3.55, but in real buying power it has decreased by $2.03 or  28.3 percent. http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2005/december/6.html

After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts


My “corporate” of the previous post of mine referred most certainly not solely and not even particularly to the farming industry.

Anyone who thinks that the Bush is supporting immigration amnesty because he’s suddenly found a heart for our fellow (wo)man and anyone who might be tempted to sit down next to the Georgie’s green things ought to look very carefully to see which corporate pooch has wet on the Bush’s leaves and whether he/she really wants to find him/herself standing up at some later date with, at the very least, yellowed britches.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 14, 2007, 06:27:55 AM
Quote
luee: Europe has a second generation who refuse to assimmilate and love to blow themselves up.

Shall we play spot the zeugma?

Whilst agreeing with your basic sentiment that Europe’s immigrant communities are far from immune to the appeal of radical Islam, I would also point out that assimilation and integration have to be a two-way street. Your description of the situation in Europe is so simplified as to be useless. Your comparison of Europe to a USofA with a melting-pot history of immigration is not entirely persuasive, particularly with respect to what appears to be your target group of Muslims, given that Muslims constitute a fairly miniscule number of immigrants to the US, are scattered and tend to be of a much different wage and educational class than is the case with their counterparts in Europe.

Were one to search for statistical counterparts in the US of Europe’s various individually homogenous Muslim communities (Algerians all to France, Turks all to Germany, etc.), any attempt to achieve at least semi-accuracy with respect to comparability of social strata, broad level of education, sheer numbers, social clumping behaviour and status of identificational assimilation would have one more likely to focus on Mexican immigrants to the US.

As it happens, I’ve yet to see any American or would-be American of Mexican origin proven to have been inclined to blowing himself up -- unless you feel that permitting oneself to be blown up in a humvee whilst serving in the American military in Iraq amounts to wilful self-mutilation?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 14, 2007, 08:42:13 AM
patricia,

As it happens, I’ve yet to see any American or would-be American of Mexican origin proven to have been inclined to blowing himself up -- unless you feel that permitting oneself to be blown up in a humvee whilst serving in the American military in Iraq amounts to wilful self-mutilation?

You do not seem to understand that ANY excuse, no mater how feeble or far-fetched, is beyond the pale of the racist xenophobes to use to block the infusion of new blood into decadent America.
They also refuse to admit to themselves that, were our new arrivals blod-haired, bkue eyed Scandinavians, we would not be having this discussion at all.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 14, 2007, 10:35:18 AM
Political suicide;

Impact on McCain

Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate who is among the bill's most ardent supporters, already is paying a political price. The poll shows that he has fallen far behind the party's frontrunners, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who oppose the legislation. Among Republicans who say immigration is the most important issue in the election, McCain, 70, gets just 1 percent of the vote.

(just part of the present administrations elitist agenda, not that anything can do much more harm to the 34 percent popularity figure. Another delusional lost cause, like privatizing social security, but hey he did lower taxes for the wealthy.)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 14, 2007, 10:41:13 AM
patricia,

As it happens, I’ve yet to see any American or would-be American of Mexican origin proven to have been inclined to blowing himself up -- unless you feel that permitting oneself to be blown up in a humvee whilst serving in the American military in Iraq amounts to wilful self-mutilation?

You do not seem to understand that ANY excuse, no mater how feeble or far-fetched, is beyond the pale of the racist xenophobes to use to block the infusion of new blood into decadent America.
They also refuse to admit to themselves that, were our new arrivals blod-haired, bkue eyed Scandinavians, we would not be having this discussion at all.
As a general rule you can determine the seriousness of anyone's claim that they want to get tough on immigration for National Security reasons by the length of the wall they propose building along our northern border.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 14, 2007, 03:29:50 PM
Checking my mail from the local tv station, I found the following article on what is happening with the immigration bill by Bush. Seems he wants to reach out to the "conservatives", by strengthening the southern border and coming down on the employers. I wonder how many of the employers he's going to crack down on are among the upper crusts either socially or corporately?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/19221467/


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: lulu on June 14, 2007, 03:41:48 PM
I would like to know why anyone who opposes amnesty for illegals is considered a racist and xenophobe? 

What happened to the right to disagree without being called names?  I oppose amnesty.  However, where does it say I oppose immigration?  The operative word here is "illegal."

It seems most people (or all people) who support amnesty don't understand the word "illegal."  Try Webster's.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 14, 2007, 04:11:17 PM
Chakotay,


"I've grown tomatoes and other veggies in home gardens, and picking them is not something that requires a Ph.D.!"

Until you have done it from sun-up to sun-down, plus the abominable living quarters, it doesn't compare to home-gardening in the slightest.

Sorry, forgot your reply number, but it was your message directly following my last post. I have to come back and read through all the very interesting policy posts, following my local shopping.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 14, 2007, 06:28:45 PM
I would like to know why anyone who opposes amnesty for illegals is considered a racist and xenophobe? 

What happened to the right to disagree without being called names?  I oppose amnesty.  However, where does it say I oppose immigration?  The operative word here is "illegal."

It seems most people (or all people) who support amnesty don't understand the word "illegal."  Try Webster's.

Lulu,

You fell into the same trap you accuse others of falling into. While you did not attach a label to those who support amnesty, you did generalize and characterize them in the same way as name calling generalizes and characterizes. I suspect that some who are in favor of amnesty do so for humanitarian reasons, or perhaps because they have friends, perhaps even relatives, who are among those you call "illegal". I think you discounts those who believe that the laws that lead to these workers being called "illegal" are unjust and should be overturned anway, just as the Jim Crow laws were unjust and needed to be overturned.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 14, 2007, 07:11:20 PM
lulu,

I would like to know why anyone who opposes amnesty for illegals is considered a racist and xenophobe?

Simply because you know, whether you want to admit it to yourselves or not, there would not be a peep out of any of you if our new residents were blond haired, blue eyed Scandinavians.

Next softball question?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 07:31:14 PM
They may be utilizing convict labor for some things, but I haven't heard of many who were actually put to work picking fruits and veggies. In Texas, the TDC (prisons) accept manufacturing orders from various agencies, including state agencies, for constructing things like desks, cubicles, computer setups, etc. The prisoners come to work in some areas, dressed in their prison whites, and the supervisors work with them. Of course, only non-violent offenders are used, and they all know that getting into trouble could send them to a much more restrictive prison, so they behave themselves.

I really see no reason for them not to be offered the chance to earn money picking crops. It has to be better than hanging around a cell, and it gets them some commissary money and some exercise. 

Chak,

You are putting the cart before the horse. We need the laborers NOW, even if machinery is developed sometime in the future. The immigration policy is also for NOW. It is not set in stone.

Industry has always needed a "never-ending stream of unskilled laborers" since the founding of Jamestown.


As has been already said, we have and are using "convict labor" for a variety of jobs. In short, they are already over-booked!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 14, 2007, 07:34:45 PM
Offering it is one thing, Chak, but having them accept it in large enough numbers to meet the need and in the place and time where the need is, is quite another. It may be a good idea, but it won't harvest what is in the fields needing to be picked TODAY!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
I am one who would gladly pay more for produce in order to get Americans to do the work. Where I live, we have a farmer's market that provides freshly picked veggies and fruit from local growers. It isn't always as cheap as the supermarket variety, but it is superior in terms of freshness.

One very serious reason not to allow illegal aliens to apply for residence while still here is that we will be saying to future illegal aliens that if they can sneak across our border and hide out long enough, we'll eventually give you amnesty for your crime and even out you on the path to citizenship. We would be rewarding criminal activity. This can only have the effect of bringing millions more illegal aliens in to wait for the next amnesty!


As for Bush, you may be very certain that he is only interested in the welfare of the rich and powerful. The ordinary American isn't on his radar screen.
Where oh where is the party that supports the notion that if it means paying more to get born-in-the-Bruce-Springsteen-USA Americans to pick our lettuce, perhaps we ought to simply be prepared to pay more for our lettuce? ?

For my part and without going into the details in terms of loopholes of the bipartisan immigration bill in question, I really don’t see any logical or pragmatic reason why the process of immigration cannot be initiated from within the USofA as well as from without as long as some punishment in terms of a fine or the like is imposed for the initial breach involved in illegal entry (such a fine is notably provided for in the bipartisan bill). In fact, there are a number of advantages to inviting those already here to stay first and foremost. They will likely be further along with respect to integration, will probably already have a job of some sort, will surely have a greater understanding of the American values that nativists claim to hold dear and their English language skills will probably be better than those of such as are still abroad. This could be a win/win situation on the pragmatic front.


And where does the Bush plant its roots? When in doubt, ever there where the corporate conservatives see their profit and power being cultivated and amplified. This is no down home boy, your Georgie. Will ya’ll be supporting another of his kind the next election ‘round?



PS ¡Hola Señor Nicolás!



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 07:56:08 PM
When we have 12 million illegal aliens from Canada, I will gladly support placing a fence along our northern border. For now, we should put our enforcement where the problem is, not where it isn't.

quote]As a general rule you can determine the seriousness of anyone's claim that they want to get tough on immigration for National Security reasons by the length of the wall they propose building along our northern border.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 07:59:26 PM
IMO, it's a method of limiting debate by accusing your opponent of undesirable characteristics instead of considering his/her argument logically. As ehkzu put it a few days ago, it's an "ad hominem" response.


I would like to know why anyone who opposes amnesty for illegals is considered a racist and xenophobe? 

What happened to the right to disagree without being called names?  I oppose amnesty.  However, where does it say I oppose immigration?  The operative word here is "illegal."

It seems most people (or all people) who support amnesty don't understand the word "illegal."  Try Webster's.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 08:02:57 PM
The Jim Crow laws were aimed at US citizens who were being deprived of their Constitutional rights as American citizens. IMO, there is little or no comparison to the situation with illegal aliens, who, by definition, have no right to be here. 



I think you discounts those who believe that the laws that lead to these workers being called "illegal" are unjust and should be overturned anway, just as the Jim Crow laws were unjust and needed to be overturned.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 14, 2007, 08:28:08 PM
chak,

IMO, it's a method of limiting debate by accusing your opponent of undesirable characteristics instead of considering his/her argument logically.

If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Some time ago, a poster here called me an "amnestyite", expecting I would take umbrage.  Sorry, I wear it as a point of pride.  It seems to me that you and others ought to wear the title "xenophobe" as proudly as I wear my title, for both of them fit.

I want open borders or no borders in the Western Hemisphere; you want to close the borders.  What's the issue with your being described as what you are?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 14, 2007, 08:58:24 PM
When we have 12 million illegal aliens from Canada, I will gladly support placing a fence along our northern border. For now, we should put our enforcement where the problem is, not where it isn't.

Um... it would appear that you have yet to read Whiskeypriest's postings with the prudence they deserve:

As a general rule you can determine the seriousness of anyone's claim that they want to get tough on immigration for National Security reasons [my emphasis] by the length of the wall they propose building along our northern border.

Now, give it another try, if you will.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 09:14:05 PM
Being opposed to the illegal invasion of our country isn't being xenophobic; it is simply being more interested in the welfare of this nation than any other. I have no problem with legal immigrants, although I believe that the total numbers are probably too high. If people want to come legally, learn or already know English, assimilate into American society, etc.: no problem. Otherwise: problem.

chak,

IMO, it's a method of limiting debate by accusing your opponent of undesirable characteristics instead of considering his/her argument logically.

If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Some time ago, a poster here called me an "amnestyite", expecting I would take umbrage.  Sorry, I wear it as a point of pride.  It seems to me that you and others ought to wear the title "xenophobe" as proudly as I wear my title, for both of them fit.

I want open borders or no borders in the Western Hemisphere; you want to close the borders.  What's the issue with your being described as what you are?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 14, 2007, 09:16:03 PM
chak,

Being opposed to the illegal invasion of our country isn't being xenophobic; it is simply being more interested in the welfare of this nation than any other.

QED!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 09:17:39 PM
IMO, the invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens is a matter of national security, although perhaps for somewhat different reasons than some of the people who might come across the northern border. Illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on our society. 

When we have 12 million illegal aliens from Canada, I will gladly support placing a fence along our northern border. For now, we should put our enforcement where the problem is, not where it isn't.

Um... it would appear that you have yet to read Whiskeypriest's postings with the prudence they deserve:

As a general rule you can determine the seriousness of anyone's claim that they want to get tough on immigration for National Security reasons [my emphasis] by the length of the wall they propose building along our northern border.

Now, give it another try, if you will.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 09:21:36 PM
No, it is more like looking out for number one and family. If you have enough resources, say food, to provide for your children and grandchildren, but no more, are you going to let your own family starve while you play Father Bountiful to people outside the family? (If so, I'm glad we're not related.)

chak,

Being opposed to the illegal invasion of our country isn't being xenophobic; it is simply being more interested in the welfare of this nation than any other.

QED!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 14, 2007, 09:33:20 PM
Chak,

If you have enough income to choose to pay more for your food at a Farmer's Market than at a grocery store where the food is provided by immigrant labor (it may also be so at the Farmer's Market - you may be just kidding yourself), please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting you are too poor to help out your NEIGHBORS, the Mexicans. You are contradicting yourself.

If you adhere to any Christian religion, you are certainly familiar with the command to "treat your neighbor as yourself". That does NOT mean saying "mine for me, none for thee".

In the not-too-distant past, there was no border betwee Mexico and the southwestern states. They were all Mexico, and Mexicans could come and go as they pleased. I think if you read the treaty that gave the southwest to the US, you will find that Mexicans retained certain rights in this transfer. For the most part, people in the states outside the southwest are not as opposed to Mexican immigration as those who live in the area that was once totally Mexican. Does that suggest something to you?





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 14, 2007, 09:35:38 PM
chak,

No, it is more like looking out for number one and family.

You STILL don't get that this is the very DEFINITION of xenophobe, do you?
C'mon, man, take pride in what you say you are.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 09:59:08 PM
That was a hypothetical question, not literal. The question would be, if you can only help either your own or outsiders, which do you help, assuming that you have enough to help only one? I vote for taking care of our own people first and foremost. Illegal aliens, IMO, are not included.

I believe I've mentioned that I am not religious, but nowhere does it say let your own child go hungry while you feed your neighbor's child...or your neighbor.

If people who live outside the southwest "aren't as opposed" to Mexican immigration, then why are so many states far outside the southwest clamoring for closed borders and immigration enforcement? Like the town in New Hampshire that wants to punish those who rent to or hire illegal aliens? Among others. Maybe you aren't opposed, but you may not represent the majority in your state.

Maybe what we need is a national referendum on immigration. It all comes down to opinions, and a real vote would give us a sense of what the American people really want, as opposed to what various pundits say we want. It might also encourage a lot of American voters to get off their duffs and vote for a change.

Chak,

If you have enough income to choose to pay more for your food at a Farmer's Market than at a grocery store where the food is provided by immigrant labor (it may also be so at the Farmer's Market - you may be just kidding yourself), please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting you are too poor to help out your NEIGHBORS, the Mexicans. You are contradicting yourself.

If you adhere to any Christian religion, you are certainly familiar with the command to "treat your neighbor as yourself". That does NOT mean saying "mine for me, none for thee".

In the not-too-distant past, there was no border betwee Mexico and the southwestern states. They were all Mexico, and Mexicans could come and go as they pleased. I think if you read the treaty that gave the southwest to the US, you will find that Mexicans retained certain rights in this transfer. For the most part, people in the states outside the southwest are not as opposed to Mexican immigration as those who live in the area that was once totally Mexican. Does that suggest something to you?






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 14, 2007, 10:04:11 PM
Actually, no, it isn't. Xenophobia is defined by the OED as "a deep antipathy to foreigners." Placing one's own family or country above people from a different country isn't xenophobia, but simply placing priority on giving aid to those in your own group. It doesn't require antipathy to foreigners; just enlightened self-interest.   


chak,

No, it is more like looking out for number one and family.

You STILL don't get that this is the very DEFINITION of xenophobe, do you?
C'mon, man, take pride in what you say you are.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 14, 2007, 10:26:36 PM
Chak,

You made it clear that you are in a position to choose where you shop rather than buy at the least expensive source, therefore it is clear that if you help your neighbor, your own child will not go hungry.

If you are not religious, you may still ascribe to the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". If your own children were hungry, you could get no job, and the state one over from you had lots of jobs and food, would you want to find friendly neighbors if you moved there, or hateful people who wanted you to get out because you were a "foreigner"?

There are undoubtedly selfish people in other areas than the southwest, but those from the southwest seem to be making the most noise. As you say, a poll or vote that measures the sentiment of all the people without the pundits and pushers, would be illustrative. So far, I don't see one in the offing.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 14, 2007, 10:51:01 PM
IMO, the invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens is a matter of national security,

Nonsense.  You neither know what an "invasion" is, nor is Mexicans "invading" to pick lettuce a matter of national security.  Infiltration by terrorists, however, is, and that, as Whiskeypriest carefully noted, isn't confined to the southern border.

Quote
Illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on our society. 

More nonsense.  The absence of illegal aliens would place a tremendous strain on Americans: they really had to pick their lettuce themselves.  Alarmism of this kind doesn't become you well.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 15, 2007, 12:20:05 AM
When we have 12 million illegal aliens from Canada, I will gladly support placing a fence along our northern border. For now, we should put our enforcement where the problem is, not where it isn't.

quote]As a general rule you can determine the seriousness of anyone's claim that they want to get tough on immigration for National Security reasons by the length of the wall they propose building along our northern border.
If the issue is economics, you would have a point.  But for National Security...  Not so much.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 15, 2007, 01:59:29 AM
Ekhzu

My visit with your great aunt’s books still hasn’t happened, but perhaps we shall still have an opportunity to share …

From bits and pieces that come back to me, I seem to remember her as quite a groundbreaker, in terms of both some original research and bringing Mexico to American children so well.  It’s long ago … yet I can actually still experience some the feelings from that era in Mexico through what I remember of her literature ..

I do know her material was used in classrooms in some of the first educational efforts towards what we now know as “multicultural.”  In that respect, I’m a bit of a Hindu myself.  A believer in the notion that the best way to kill a philosophy or point of view is write a book about it and immortalize it in stone.

Your great aunt, as I recall through her stories, however, was the real thing.  Quite a person.  I'm sure you must feel fortunate and blessed to have grown up with her influence.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 02:08:43 AM
Bad economics, bad security, illegal, destroying the unions, polarizing society, spreading social services thin, as opposed to to having cheap seasonal labor with an immense subcitizen servant class; a really tough one. Didn't this start with quite a few politicos having illegal nannies?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: samiinh on June 15, 2007, 06:00:50 AM
IMO, the invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens is a matter of national security,

Nonsense.  You neither know what an "invasion" is, nor is Mexicans "invading" to pick lettuce a matter of national security.  Infiltration by terrorists, however, is, and that, as Whiskeypriest carefully noted, isn't confined to the southern border.

Quote
Illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on our society. 

More nonsense.  The absence of illegal aliens would place a tremendous strain on Americans: they really had to pick their lettuce themselves.  Alarmism of this kind doesn't become you well.



If memory services me correctly, several of the 911 hijackers came into the country from Canada.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 08:40:17 AM
Quote
Weezo: Checking my mail from the local tv station, I found the following article on what is happening with the immigration bill by Bush. Seems he wants to reach out to the "conservatives", by strengthening the southern border and coming down on the employers. I wonder how many of the employers he's going to crack down on are among the upper crusts either socially or corporately?

As I understand the bill, there will/would be much less need for employers to hire illegals, given that the current crop of illegals would have been made legal. I’ve seen number estimates of around 11 million illegal aliens currently in the USofA. Whilst far from certain about the accuracy of said estimates and as to precisely what percentage thereof fulfil the requirements for legalization without deportation (the usual estimate is 9 million, the other 2 million would be subject to deportation), the actual number is not likely to be small. At present, employers of illegal aliens are already subject to “crack-downs”. The proposed “amnesty” for illegal/undocumented aliens would thus reduce the likelihood of employers being brought to task.

Win/win for any in the “uppercrust” with a nanny and a maid for certain.

In addition, the bill would see the provision of at least 200,000 (actual number adjustable upwards as employers’ needs require) new “temporary” guest-worker visas per year and would also see an additional guest-worker program for immigrant farm workers set up. Then there are the 400,000 or so employment-based green cards that are to be issued per year and ... well ...

... all in all, the new bill has the potential to see the workforce in the USofA growing by tens of millions over the next decade or so. 

Offshoring put in reverse.

I mean ... like ... once this bill were through, threre wouldn’t be all too many employers left to be “cracked down” upon.

The corporate conservatives’ dream of high competition on the labor market and cheap labor onshore rather than offshore come true, with the help of Ted Kennedy.

You just gotta love this in a cynical way.

Had Teddy tacked onto the bill a real (both in the sense of not solely "nominal" as with respect to "substantial" in comparison to the historical non-development) increase in the minimum wage or some whatever that might strengthen the unions and/or their bargaining position, the sell-out of the individual to the desires of business might have at least been limited ... but then, the corporate conservatives would likely have gone nativist again and withdrawn their “bipartisan” support, as such add-ons would have defeated their purpose.

We liberals/internationalists may well stand to win one battle (and an important one at that) with this bill, but we’d be losing about twenty others even as we stand fighting. We’re selling our support of a Bush corporate conservative proposal far too cheaply.


Edit: Clarification of meaning on the question of minimum wage.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 09:38:56 AM
Quote
Chakotay: No, it is more like looking out for number one and family. If you have enough resources, say food, to provide for your children and grandchildren, but no more, are you going to let your own family starve while you play Father Bountiful to people outside the family? (If so, I'm glad we're not related.)

Now you’ve got me curious.

At the risk of using a very broad brush to paint a picture that is actually full of detail, would you extend this your stated desire to prioritize the needs of Americans over those of non-Americans to the extent that you might be supportive of tariffs on imports the manufacture of which has contributed to the loss of American jobs and/or has contributed to a situation in which many American families cannot survive unless the family has access to anywhere from two to even as many as five jobs?

What substantial difference do you see between exporting the work abroad for the labor force to do on the cheap there and importing the labor force itself to have the work done on the cheap here?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: lulu on June 15, 2007, 10:06:04 AM
There are jobs around.  Many young people don't want to take them because they are not "good enough."

How about a WPA projects putting our people to work rebuilding the country?

How about making work mandatory for those on welfare?

How about giving people living wages with affordable housing?

How about trying to stop this worse than yuppie syndrome affecting this country where everyone thinks they are entitled to make lots of money.

I see young teenagers walking around with bags costing hundreds and even thousands of dollars.  Parents in this country can't and won't say "no."  They won't insist their children work, no matter for what wages and instilling a work ethic in them.

And those parents started with my sisters and their spoiling their kids and now those kids are doing the same with their kids.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 11:38:44 AM
If you want to see an invasion, ask the Border Patrol to usher you to one of the busier crossing places on the border. I have read that hundreds may cross in a single night in just one area. It may not be an armed invasion (except for the drug smugglers) but it is an invasion all the same!

Personally, I would rather try to get along without the illegal aliens and let the lettuce growers find alternative means to get their product to market. I'd gladly pay more for my salad if it meant that illegal aliens were sent home.

IMO, the invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens is a matter of national security,

Nonsense.  You neither know what an "invasion" is, nor is Mexicans "invading" to pick lettuce a matter of national security.  Infiltration by terrorists, however, is, and that, as Whiskeypriest carefully noted, isn't confined to the southern border.

Quote
Illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on our society. 

More nonsense.  The absence of illegal aliens would place a tremendous strain on Americans: they really had to pick their lettuce themselves.  Alarmism of this kind doesn't become you well.




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 11:42:27 AM
You keep choosing to interpret this hypothetical question literally. Suit yourself. For myself, I would choose to place the welfare of my own countrypersons ahead of that of people who have chosen to enter my country illegally.

The debate over immigration is a rancorous one all over the country. If it is more noticeable in the southwest, maybe it's because we have to endure more of it than other areas do....yet. 

Chak,

You made it clear that you are in a position to choose where you shop rather than buy at the least expensive source, therefore it is clear that if you help your neighbor, your own child will not go hungry.

If you are not religious, you may still ascribe to the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". If your own children were hungry, you could get no job, and the state one over from you had lots of jobs and food, would you want to find friendly neighbors if you moved there, or hateful people who wanted you to get out because you were a "foreigner"?

There are undoubtedly selfish people in other areas than the southwest, but those from the southwest seem to be making the most noise. As you say, a poll or vote that measures the sentiment of all the people without the pundits and pushers, would be illustrative. So far, I don't see one in the offing.





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 11:51:08 AM
Yes, I would be willing to put a tariff on products produced offshore by so-called "American" companies. I work two jobs myself, so I can sympathize with American families who are struggling to make ends meet.

From my point of view, the difference between exporting the jobs and importing the workers is that even if the exported jobs are lost to Americans, they would be anyway if workers were imported, and at least we aren't hit with the bill for their families' housing, food, and medical care, and their kids' education. The jobs aren't going to go to Americans in either case, so we might as well save the tax money that would be spent on providing all the social welfare to the immigrant workers' families.

Quote
Chakotay: No, it is more like looking out for number one and family. If you have enough resources, say food, to provide for your children and grandchildren, but no more, are you going to let your own family starve while you play Father Bountiful to people outside the family? (If so, I'm glad we're not related.)

Now you’ve got me curious.

At the risk of using a very broad brush to paint a picture that is actually full of detail, would you extend this your stated desire to prioritize the needs of Americans over those of non-Americans to the extent that you might be supportive of tariffs on imports the manufacture of which has contributed to the loss of American jobs and/or has contributed to a situation in which many American families cannot survive unless the family has access to anywhere from two to even as many as five jobs?

What substantial difference do you see between exporting the work abroad for the labor force to do on the cheap there and importing the labor force itself to have the work done on the cheap here?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 12:12:04 PM
Quote
Chakotay: Yes, I would be willing to put a tariff on products produced offshore by so-called "American" companies. I work two jobs myself, so I can sympathize with American families who are struggling to make ends meet.

Thank you for your response. Your deliberations as expressed above are logically consistent. Pleasant, that.

Quote
From my point of view, the difference between exporting the jobs and importing the workers is that even if the exported jobs are lost to Americans, they would be anyway if workers were imported, and at least we aren't hit with the bill for their families' housing, food, and medical care, and their kids' education. The jobs aren't going to go to Americans in either case, so we might as well save the tax money that would be spent on providing all the social welfare to the immigrant workers' families.

Hmm. This line of thought brings up numerous avenues of inquiry and requires much more background information to prove or disprove than I have readily at my disposal.

I would, however, like to touch upon at least one of the possible avenues by pointing out that one ought to factor in the savings involved in having to transport goods shorter distances (which would show up on consumer prices) were the workers here as opposed to there as well as the contributions to the financing of the public services you mention in the form of taxes as paid by the imported workers?

Please to remember that the bill that is up for consideration would legalize the illegals and thus have more of them paying income taxes than already do.

Quote
The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30 percent increase from the previous year. To obtain one, a person needs to submit to the IRS an application and a document that serves as proof of identity, such as a visa or driver's license. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it's widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/national/main2680010.shtml

Social Security would also benefit greatly from an influx of foreigners, provided Bush et al are not able to bring about the demise of said pension system.

All in all not such a bad idea, provided that wages stand the pressure of the increased labor market competition (which is, I grant the reader, not likely).

What I’m saying with respect to your second set of arguments as defined narrowly is, if immigrants are paying taxes, why should they not benefit from public services to the same extent as are Americans who pay taxes?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 15, 2007, 12:14:01 PM
If you want to see an invasion, ask the Border Patrol to usher you to one of the busier crossing places on the border. I have read that hundreds may cross in a single night in just one area. It may not be an armed invasion (except for the drug smugglers) but it is an invasion all the same!

Invasion: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. (Answers.com)

Armed forces with the intent to conquer would be the expression you choose for what really is poor, desperate people seeking employment, solicited by the opportunities provided by U.S. employers either eager to increase their profits, or by producers no longer able to compete because Americans are too eager to purchase at costs that are beyond (below) ridiculous.  Furthermore, Chakotay, whilst I am hesitant to pin the xenophobe label on you, I can understand that your choice of inflammatory rhetoric may raise in some the impression that you indeed are a xenophobe.  So, why not drop the rhetoric and look at things the economic and sociological way, avoiding terminology that should be reserved for warfare?

Quote
Personally, I would rather try to get along without the illegal aliens and let the lettuce growers find alternative means to get their product to market. I'd gladly pay more for my salad if it meant that illegal aliens were sent home.

From your wording I infer that you have yet to seek opportunities to purchase salad produced and harvested by labourers employed at reasonable income levels?  Are you certain you'd be glad?

Again, it may just be a quarrel over words, but why would you "gladly" pay more only if illegals were to be sent home?  Why wouldn't you "gladly" pay more to provide for a living income for those doing the hard work of providing you with vegetables and the like?




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 12:22:35 PM
Some more stats on illegals and taxes:

Quote
Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these [IRS identification numbers as opposed to social security numbers], contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 12:53:42 PM
One thing to consider in this "equation" is the fact that the main reason for employers to prefer illegals for those jobs is the fact that they will take the jobs for far less than an American can live on. IOW, they aren't going to be making much money, at least by American standards, so they aren't likely to pay much in taxes. In fact, if the illegals were legalized, they would probably be eligible for the earned income credit on their income taxes. They'd probably end up paying no income taxes at all, in many cases.

Thus they would not really be covering the cost of providing social services to their families. As for Social Security, like most low-wage earners, they would receive back a larger percentage of their pre-retirement income than the middle or upper classes, so it would take more money to replace some 60-70% of their income than it would to replace around a third of a higher-income worker. At any rate, it's going to cost our society dearly to have that "cheap" lettuce.

Even those illegals who pay some taxes do not pay enough to cover the costs of providing services to their families because their wages are so low. I have no problem with legal immigrants receiving public services such as education, although I am not in favor of providing welfare to immigrants other than as temporary assistance. I do have a problem with providing services to illegal aliens and would support deportation of as many as possible.   


Quote
From my point of view, the difference between exporting the jobs and importing the workers is that even if the exported jobs are lost to Americans, they would be anyway if workers were imported, and at least we aren't hit with the bill for their families' housing, food, and medical care, and their kids' education. The jobs aren't going to go to Americans in either case, so we might as well save the tax money that would be spent on providing all the social welfare to the immigrant workers' families.

Hmm. This line of thought brings up numerous avenues of inquiry and requires much more background information to prove or disprove than I have readily at my disposal.

I would, however, like to touch upon at least one of the possible avenues by pointing out that one ought to factor in the savings involved in having to transport goods shorter distances (which would show up on consumer prices) were the workers here as opposed to there as well as the contributions to the financing of the public services you mention in the form of taxes as paid by the imported workers?

Please to remember that the bill that is up for consideration would legalize the illegals and thus have more of them paying income taxes than already do.

Quote
The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30 percent increase from the previous year. To obtain one, a person needs to submit to the IRS an application and a document that serves as proof of identity, such as a visa or driver's license. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it's widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/national/main2680010.shtml

Social Security would also benefit greatly from an influx of foreigners, provided Bush et al are not able to bring about the demise of said pension system.

All in all not such a bad idea, provided that wages stand the pressure of the increased labor market competition (which is, I grant the reader, not likely).

What I’m saying with respect to your second set of arguments as defined narrowly is, if immigrants are paying taxes, why should they not benefit from public services to the same extent as are Americans who pay taxes?




Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 01:05:25 PM
Chakotay, as I wrote earlier, I do not have the necessary original stats at my ready disposal to either prove or disprove the point you would be making here. The original stats are likely to be found somewhere online but the project would certainly explode my quota with respect to energy and time to be invested in political forums.

However, others with more time and energy and expertise to invest in such inquiries have done some preliminaries here.

You would appear to have yet to read a latter post of mine in which this was posted as a quote ...

Quote
Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

... and which certainly does not support your argument -- an argument that is thus, at the very least, highly debatable and one that equally certainly constitutes anything but a foregone conclusion.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 01:06:01 PM
I suppose it depends on the point of view. From the "front lines" in the border states, I can tell you that it does indeed look like an invasion. (You don't have to be armed to "invade".) In fact, at least some of the illegals do have conquest on their minds, if they have been pumped full of the "reconquista" baloney. However, regardless of intention, a massive influx of illegal aliens can, IMO, legitimately be referred to as an invasion.

I have no desire to pay illegal aliens enough to "provide a living income". I would much prefer that they be sent home, and Americans or legal immigrants hired to do those jobs. If it causes higher costs, so be it. Those illegals who want to legalize their status should have to go home and go through the legal process for admission. Any form of legalization in this country will signal other would-be illegals that the US is not serious about its national sovereignty and that they can come on and wait for the next amnesty!



Invasion: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. (Answers.com)

Armed forces with the intent to conquer would be the expression you choose for what really is poor, desperate people seeking employment, solicited by the opportunities provided by U.S. employers either eager to increase their profits, or by producers no longer able to compete because Americans are too eager to purchase at costs that are beyond (below) ridiculous.  Furthermore, Chakotay, whilst I am hesitant to pin the xenophobe label on you, I can understand that your choice of inflammatory rhetoric may raise in some the impression that you indeed are a xenophobe.  So, why not drop the rhetoric and look at things the economic and sociological way, avoiding terminology that should be reserved for warfare?

Quote
Personally, I would rather try to get along without the illegal aliens and let the lettuce growers find alternative means to get their product to market. I'd gladly pay more for my salad if it meant that illegal aliens were sent home.

From your wording I infer that you have yet to seek opportunities to purchase salad produced and harvested by labourers employed at reasonable income levels?  Are you certain you'd be glad?

Again, it may just be a quarrel over words, but why would you "gladly" pay more only if illegals were to be sent home?  Why wouldn't you "gladly" pay more to provide for a living income for those doing the hard work of providing you with vegetables and the like?





Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 15, 2007, 01:12:55 PM
I don't know where they get their stats, but you can find stats to support any and every position on the subject if you look long enough. I am rather skeptical of such claims, since most illegals make so little money. I would need more proof than just someone's claim that illegals carry their own weight, when I can look around and see that most low-wage immigrants use social services heavily but don't pay much in taxes. Sales taxes are hard to escape, but other taxes get skirted fairly often, especially by people who work for cash "under the table". 

Chakotay, as I wrote earlier, I do not have the necessary original stats at my ready disposal to either prove or disprove the point you would be making here. The original stats are likely to be found somewhere online but the project would certainly explode my quota with respect to energy and time to be invested in political forums.

However, others with more time and energy and expertise to invest in such inquiries have done some preliminaries here.

You would appear to have yet to read a latter post of mine in which this was posted as a quote ...

Quote
Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

... and which certainly does not support your argument -- an argument that is thus, at the very least, highly debatable and one that equally certainly constitutes anything but a foregone conclusion.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: patricia_k on June 15, 2007, 02:03:53 PM
Quote
Chakotay: I don't know where they get their stats, but you can find stats to support any and every position on the subject if you look long enough. I am rather skeptical of such claims, since most illegals make so little money. I would need more proof than just someone's claim that illegals carry their own weight, when I can look around and see that most low-wage immigrants use social services heavily but don't pay much in taxes. Sales taxes are hard to escape, but other taxes get skirted fairly often, especially by people who work for cash "under the table".

Just to be certain that I’d gotten that one right, I went to the trouble of searching for the original study by the non-partisan National Research Council and actually found a goodly portion of it readable online (that, of course, solely after I’d ordered the thing at all too high a price via Amazon ... mfprhhm).

The relevant bit as found by yours truly (but most admittedly without having read the entirety of the whatevers) as of yet sees us looking at the following broad-brush conclusion:

Quote
Although the authors still favor the longitudinal formulation, they argue that, among the cross-sectional annual budget estimates, the concurrent descendants approach is probably the least biased among the cross-sectional alternatives.

The basic bottom line of the concurrent descendant formulation is that immigrants are a net taxpayer benefit to native-born households. This net benefit takes place exclusively at the federal level and not at the state level. Consequently, residents of some immigrant-intensive states (such as California) experience higher taxes due to immigration.

Lee and Miller also provide an interesting comparison among the three annual budget approaches. They demonstrate that the most frequently used methodology—immigrant households—is the only one that produces a negative immigrant fiscal impact.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309059984&page=7

Given that the net taxpayer benefit is said to be felt solely at the federal level, depending upon where you live, your subjective sense might well indeed be accuracy at work.

Nonetheless and certainly depending upon one’s preference in terms of methodology (the "least biased" versus the "most biased"), it does seem at least highly debatable, when looking across the entirety of the US, that immigrants constitute a net taxpayer burden.

Or at least that was the case at the time of the study concerned and to the best of my knowledge and reading at this point.

Thank you for helping me test my own assumptions by respectfully and politely questioning same.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 15, 2007, 02:17:32 PM
From the "front lines" [...] (You don't have to be armed to "invade".)

Sorry for having bothered you with requests for reasonable and rational debate and terminology.


Quote
I have no desire to pay illegal aliens enough to "provide a living income".

As I feared, you haven't begun to understand the debate.  If those workers earned a living income, there would be more, and probably enough, American takers for the jobs.  I now think you might gladly pay for the deportation of "illegals", not so much for lettuce.

Quote
I don't know where they get their stats, but you can find stats to support any and every position on the subject if you look long enough.

Well, these were stats, but you haven't provided any, as far as I have seen.  Instead you resort to assertions for which you clearly have no evidence.  Coupled with your rhetoric the picture now turns unpleasant.

I would still hope you give it another try, seriously now.  Your central assertion is this:

Quote
Illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on our society.

This assertion was contradicted by what appears to be solid evidence based on at least two studies.

Stats, and from a reputable source, please.  Should be easy enough to do, according to your own assertion.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 02:59:45 PM
Looks like the prez is serious throwing big bucks around for his hopeless failure of a plan;   Mr. Bush yesterday tried to win over critics by throwing his support behind a plan to dedicate $4.4 billion to fund border security projects, which he and Congress have approved but never funded. He said he knows voters are skeptical that the laws will be enforced and said this should curb those fears.

Lame duck with less than two years to go, why not.

 
   

Costs
Click here for publications on this topic

The National Research Council has estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with most government expenditures on immigrants coming from state and local coffers, while most taxes paid by immigrants go to the federal treasury. The net deficit is caused by a low level of tax payments by immigrants, because they are disproportionately low-skilled and thus earn low wages, and a higher rate of consumption of government services, both because of their relative poverty and their higher fertility.

This is especially true of illegal immigration. Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. California has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates. 

Publications:
 
http://www.cis.org/topics/costs.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 03:21:54 PM
 
       

About the Center for Immigration Studies



Who We Are
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States. 

Our Mission
It is the Center's mission to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.


 


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 03:52:00 PM
From an article in the WP

Cost of Senate Immigration Bill Put at $126 Billion

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A01

The Senate's embattled immigration bill would raise government spending by as much as $126 billion over the next decade, as the government begins paying out federal benefits to millions of new legal workers and cracks down on the border, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis concludes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101539.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 04:20:53 PM
Oops that article is a bit dated, costs have gone up as I post.

Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually
From Robert Longley,
Your Guide to U.S. Gov Info / Resources.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
State's "cheap labor" costs average household $1,183 a year 
Dateline: December, 2004

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 15, 2007, 04:27:14 PM
Luee,

Seems to me that the predominant taxes paid by immigrants, legal or illegal, are sales tax and taxes on gasoline and other necessities. At least on the east coast, sales taxes are state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Tax on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol are a combination of federal and state taxes, with perhaps some local taxes thrown in. So how can it be that the immigrants pay more in federal taxes than in state and local taxes? That seems illogical to me.

As for the excessive use of emergency rooms, the localities with that problem could solve it quite easily by setting up low cost medical clinics in appropriate neighborhoods, and make them available 24/7 as the hospitals are. The hospitals can then refer non-emergency patients to the doc-in-a-boxes, instead of the expensive ER service. Seems to me that it is the lack of appropriate options causing the problem rather than the immigrants. I'm sure that uninsured Americans would also make use of neighborhood medical facilities that could be staffed by those working off their med school loans.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 15, 2007, 04:43:53 PM
Oops that article is a bit dated, costs have gone up as I post.

What an incredibly ugly piece of propaganda you have provided:

Quote
"Nineteen ninety-four was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration. Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens," said Stein. "Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

The allegation, of course is, immigrants are bankrupting California's budget (without saying so).  This clearly isn't the case.  Furthermore, the so-called "study"...

Quote
A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.

... sums up costs with not even a hint of balancing the sheet with state revenues generated by immigrants.

This is bullshit, and so is FAIR; for all I see it is a scathing, shrill, propagandistic, xenophobic organisation doing "studies".   Their misuse of the term "fair" is downright appalling, at least to everyone with a modicum of sensibility for the abuse of language.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 15, 2007, 05:26:30 PM
chak,.

I don't know where they get their stats, but you can find stats to support any and every position on the subject if you look long enough.

We are sure that your statement includes your "stat" on the number of undocumented persons living in the USA, right?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 15, 2007, 05:42:41 PM
Luee,

Seems to me that the predominant taxes paid by immigrants, legal or illegal, are sales tax and taxes on gasoline and other necessities. At least on the east coast, sales taxes are state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Tax on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol are a combination of federal and state taxes, with perhaps some local taxes thrown in. So how can it be that the immigrants pay more in federal taxes than in state and local taxes? That seems illogical to me.

As for the excessive use of emergency rooms, the localities with that problem could solve it quite easily by setting up low cost medical clinics in appropriate neighborhoods, and make them available 24/7 as the hospitals are. The hospitals can then refer non-emergency patients to the doc-in-a-boxes, instead of the expensive ER service. Seems to me that it is the lack of appropriate options causing the problem rather than the immigrants. I'm sure that uninsured Americans would also make use of neighborhood medical facilities that could be staffed by those working off their med school loans.


There you go weezo solved all of the problems.  Cheapen down medical care just as the educational system has been cheapened down and social services have been cheapened down. I would rather not cheapen down and lower the standard of living to insure the profits of a lettuce merchant (what is wrong with a temporary work permit). There is a national health scholarship program but there are not enough student doctors to go around and socialized medicine is another issue. Your tax figures make no sense, the State and local governments take the brunt of the expense, 10 billion in California alone.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 15, 2007, 09:36:23 PM
Luee,

Maybe illegal immigrants cost California $10Billion, maybe it doesn't. Your numbers do not seem to come from a credable source, so I tend to discount the amount. Have you also figure out how much the illegal immigrants add to the GSP of California by picking all those veggies that keep our stores stocked when the chill is in the air? Our out-of-season fruits and vegetables come at a whopping high price, and they come to use primarily from California, and a bit from Florida.

Putting doctors in poor neighborhoods is cheapening health care? So sorry, that was the way it was when I was a kid before medicine was put under the corporate shield as an excuse to raise prices. In Virginia, health insurers are required by law to pass on the "discounts" they negotiate with their member doctors and hospitals, to the consumer. By law, the statement from my health insurer, shows the amount of the original bill (what they charge those without insurance), the amount of the discount/waiver/whatever, which reduces the bill to the "Allowed Amount" for the insurance company. Then, from the Allowed Amount, they deduct my co-pay and any deductable, and pay the difference. It is obvious to me that medical providers are overcharging those without insurance. In the case of illegal immigrants using the ER for routine medical care, the medical providers are taking the state for a ride!

So, go ahead with the doc-in-a-box concept and let the illegal immigrants pay only as much as insured people pay for medical care, and end the problem of mis-use of the ER facilities. You seem to be more concerned with solving the problem by throwing out the baby with the bath water, than in solving the real problems which are not even specific to illegal immigrants but apply to all people who are poor and/or without health insurance.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 15, 2007, 11:26:00 PM
The more things change...

`The Chinese Must Go'
BY BERNARD A. WEISBERGER

One splendid morning during a recent West Coast vacation, I was
turning the pages of a San Francisco newspaper over my coffee when I
came upon a headline that clouded my cheerful mood: GERMAN POLL FINDS
SENTIMENT AGAINST FOREIGNERS RUNS DEEP. According to the story below
it, one-quarter of a group of Germans polled in a survey agreed
entirely or partly with the slogan "Germany for the Germans," which
right-wing extremists had been chanting during several weeks of
rampages against foreign refugees. Included in the atrocities were
the rock-throwing attacks on refugee shelters and the torching of
foreigners' homes. "Shades of the 1930s," I thought with the
automatic shudder that any possible neo-Nazi activity sends through
me—in Germany or anywhere else.

Then I thought a bit longer. Something tickled my memory, and it
flashed a new message: "Shades of the 1870s too. And not in Europe
but in San Francisco, California!" I remembered that San Francisco
had been seized, in 1877, by a violent spasm of antiforeign,
specifically anti-Chinese, feeling that broke into murderous riots
against innocents of the "wrong" ancestry. The fever started among
working-class whites, but before it ran its full course, it infected
the governments of both California and the United States, with long-
lasting results.

Please understand that I have no intention of drawing farfetched
comparisons, or of calling Americans of the 1870s neo-Nazis—quite the
contrary. Nor do I aim to exonerate the 1990s neo-Nazis by trite
reminders that they are not the first, last, or only haters to sully
history's pages with brutality. Still, one of the best things about
good history is its power to reduce national arrogance and to promote
reflection and caution. So this story needs telling.

Xenophobia wasn't new in the United States a century and a quarter
ago. A strong nativist movement before the Civil War had been
responsible for discrimination and occasional violence against
foreign-born Catholics. In the 1850s the Protestant crusade went
political in the shape of the American (or "Know-Nothing") party and
scored some short-term gains. But California's nativism in 1877 was
especially sharp after four years of a bitter depression that had
begun in 1873. (Economic pain will do that every time; the 1992 wave
of German antiforeignism is strongest in formerly Communist East
Germany, where unemployment is high and living standards low.)

America in 1877 was hurting all over, but as is often the case, the
situation was special in California, particularly in San Francisco.
It was less than thirty years since the gold rush had filled the city
with brazen fortune seekers. The giddiness of their expectations was
now offset by brutal reality, and most of them were facing the fact
that they would spend their lives in a postboom economy. Gold and
silver production was down, and unemployment now hovered around 20
percent. Where land had been plentiful, the best acreage was being
concentrated into great estates.

Where San Francisco grocers had made fortunes selling infrequent
shiploads of coveted goods, they now faced tough competition in a
national market created by the newly completed transcontinental
railroad line. And that same railroad, once hailed as the salvation
of California, had become a monster monopoly that was charged with
gouging the state's shippers and buying exemption from the law by
bribing and lobbying.

The Big Four who built and owned the Southern Pacific Railroad—Mark
Hopkins, Charles Crocker, Collis P. Huntington, and Leland Stanford—
typified the widening social chasm. Basically storekeepers who had
struck it rich by their timely investment in the rails, they and
other new millionaires built, on San Francisco's Nob Hill,
gingerbread mansions tended by liveried servants. Thus the social
cast of San Francisco included a restless down-at-the-heels
population, a class of power-flaunting neoaristocrats, a supervillain
in the shape of a railroad monopoly—and, finally, a set of scapegoats
in the Chinese.

There were between twelve thousand and twenty-two thousand of them in
the city, all recent immigrants and visibly, achingly different in
their Manchu pigtails and their "bizarre" customs. They had been run
out of the mining camps by discriminatory state laws and vigilante
violence and settled in the cities to cook and wash for the Anglo-
Saxons. Then the Big Four had discovered that they made wonderful
railroad-construction workers—patient, diligent, and, above all,
vulnerable and therefore cheap. Crocker imported thousands of them.
So did other employers through wholesale contracts with Chinese labor
agents. The Chinese composed perhaps only 15 percent of the San
Francisco labor force, but they were blamed and hated by apparently
every unemployed or underemployed white San Franciscan.

On July 23, 1877, the trigger on violence was pulled by news from the
East. Between July 14 and 26 striking rail workers had clashed with
militia in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago, and Martinsburg, West
Virginia. At least seventy people had been murdered in the tumult. A
meeting in support of the strikers was called in an empty downtown
sandlot in San Francisco by sympathizers associated with the ten-year-
old Marxist International Association of Workingmen. The crowd
shouted its approval of anticapitalist resolutions. Then, inevitably,
someone cried, "On to Chinatown," and the mob boiled out to look for
victims. Twenty laundries were burned that night. On the next, there
was an attack on a woolen mill employing many Chinese workers. At
that the city fathers, alarmed about threats to property, formed a
Committee of Safety and called out the militia. On the third night
the rioters attacked the docks of the Pacific Steamship Company and
set fire to a lumberyard. Police charged their ranks; four rioters
were killed and fourteen wounded. That was the end of the collective
violence.

But not of the anti-Chinese revolt. Two months later the crowd found
a leader in a thirty-year-old Irish-born small businessman named
Denis Kearney. Self-made and self-educated, Kearney was the guiding
spirit in creating a new organization, the Workingmen's Party of
California (WPC). Night after night he held forth to sandlot crowds
in speeches full of political brimstone, like his pronouncement
that "the dignity of labor must be sustained, even if we have to kill
every wretch that opposes it." He frightened the city fathers enough
to have him arrested in November, but since his threats were always
vaguely conditional rather than immediate, he was acquitted.
Actually, he mainly urged his audiences to vote for delegates to a
forthcoming state constitutional convention that he hoped would
empower "the people" by tightly regulating corporations and their
lobbyists and subsidies. But his most powerful attention-getter was a
demand for an end to the immigration and hiring of Chinese. "We
intend to try and vote the Chinamen out, to frighten him out, and if
this won't do, to kill him out…. The heathen slaves must leave this
coast." He boiled it down to a sledgehammer four-word cry: "The
Chinese must go!"

The evil that Denis Kearney's anti-Chinese movement did lived after
him. The virus of xenophobia is never really extinguished.
Kearney touched on worker anxieties with his hints of a scheme by the
rich to bring feudalism to the United States through the replacement
of American workingmen with "coolies" who would neither expect nor
receive a living wage or democratic rights.

He enjoyed fleeting political success. The Workingmen's Party of
California won many local and state offices in 1878 and named fifty-
two delegates to the convention, which did include some of their
proposals in the new Constitution of 1879. But the antibusiness
strictures were gradually eviscerated by the courts and by lack of
implementation, and the WPC faded away, though Kearney himself lived
on until 1907. Kearney's legislative influence was brief, but the
evil that he did to the Chinese lived after him.

That was because "The Chinese must go" had more than local impact. It
struck powerful echoes in a time of social Darwinist racism. The
Chinese were almost universally disdained by the "advanced"
Americans. The newspaper baron James Gordon Bennett discouraged their
immigration with the comment that only "on the Caucasian element can
we hope to build up such an empire as the world has never seen."
Other opinion makers, lumping all classes and conditions of Chinese
together, labeled them "ignorant of civilized life" or "listless,
stagnant [and] unprogressive." In the popular image they were
criminals, gamblers, prostitutes, and opium smokers. In Far Western
towns Chinese storekeepers were often beaten and robbed by drunken
miners and cowboys, or at a minimum tormented by teen-age hoodlums.
And in 1885 twenty-eight Chinese were massacred in Rock Springs,
Wyoming.

Therefore, legal exclusion was easily enacted. California in 1880
virtually shut the door on the importation and use of Chinese labor.
The Congress of the United States followed suit with the Exclusion
Act of 1882, barring all Chinese immigration for ten years. Renewed
and renewed, the exclusion policy remained in force until World War
II, when it began to be modified gradually until it was finally
dropped, after eighty-six years, in a 1968 overhaul of immigration
legislation.

It would be possible and pleasant to conclude this column on an
upbeat note. Anti-Asian prejudice in the United States is only a
glimmer of its former self, and the Chinese are even considered
a "model minority," held up for others' emulation. That is certainly
a credit to American pluralism. But the virus of xenophobia is never
really extinguished in any multiethnic body politic. It merely
becomes temporarily inactive. And as for racism —enough said. Human
beings have an inextinguishable capacity to be cruel to one another,
particularly in groups. It takes constant self-reminders of how bad
things can get to keep alive the energy to make them better.






Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 01:10:52 AM
Migrant workers, I have known, first moved from their home states in Mexico into Texas but one of the reasons that they benefit other states through taxes such as the gasoline tax is they do not remain for more than a short season of harvest, but move on by car to the next harvest at a cooler latitude, gradually working their way back on the circuit as hot weather crop harvests come in.

This way of making a living  leaves a lasting impression on their offspring who think nothing of jumping in a vehicle and picking up some other relative and going to visit Ma in a different far distant part of the country. I guess that I met most of those I have known when they were already in an adult self-supportive status, but I made some amazing discoveries. One of the offshoot benefits of this traveling to harvest comestibles is that they see a lot of the country and make comparisons.  Thus I met a family who bought their own property in a northern climate zone, with cool summers, and adapted to the winter (whether or not they decided to travel as years went by, I don't know because I lost touch).  I do know they made occasional trips , seeking an extra driver, to their "home town" in Texas, to retain their family ties there, with a side trip to the Gulf to enjoy the shrimp,etc. The property they bought in the upper Midwest gave them a small farm, their home, and -- they opened a motel for the summer vacation travelers traveling still further north to the Lake resorts. I visited on one occasion and was just blown away  entering the kitchen, through a wash room where you brought in the vegetables and where there was a shower when you came in from the fields. (this was a delightful improvement upon living in a migrant workers camp on somebody's apple and cherry farm,with a bare wooden shack of one room, and you had to bathe in a backwater of a lake that was always cold and do your cooking over a camp-fire).

Oh, yes, back to the kitchen arranged very methodically like an assembly line, since the cook was the mother of six, seven or eight sons, I forget exactly how many by now, as I do not recall meeting more than two or possibly three in the city. From the doorway, on one side of which sacks of masa were kept above floor level, to the other side  where mixed with water and formed into small balls kept covered until the patting and eventual rolling of the tortillas, the next step down the line was the griddle area where they baked, the further stove fires beyond held pots cooking with rice, and also beans. I did not notice where her sauces were made as I was apparently not around when she was preparing these; I suspect that area was behind my back on the opposite side of the long narrow kitchen, while I was amazed at the tortilla preparation and cooking areas. There was the door at the other end of the kitchen where you went through on the right into the dining room. We ate breakfast. Probably Huevos rancheros with rice and beans on the side and the tortillas kept coming wrapped in towels in baskets from the kitchen. It was a lot of hospitality.

There are other friends of the family who chose to buy their property in the city, the main municipal area more to the south of the state, possibly because they enjoyed urban life within a larger community with some of the cultural advantages offered within the Anglo majority group's locality, university, larger shopping centers, movies, summer festivals, political groups, etc.

Once in awhile, I still go through the trouble of making Chiles Rellenos, getting the batter to stick to the peppers stuffed with cheese and fried, then served in a dish of cooked tomato sauce. It is an exasperating dish to make until you are sufficiently practiced. But it has an excellent flavor neither too hot nor too bland.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 01:21:02 AM
Ps. I forgot to say that of course during the boycotts of forming a union led by the activist Cesar Chavez, we the consumers did not buy the product which the growers sent to market in the North.  Some of us grew our own lettuce fabulously well; in fact, we eventually grew one thing after another.  And this will continue to be the case, whenever necessary, refusal to buy whatever is extorted by duress and unfair management ruses.

And like I said, on occasion, before. Anyone who does not appreciate their own easy access to such commodities can do without or figure out what it takes to produce it and fit that into your short-sighted self-important schedule.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 01:26:46 AM
Please understand that I have no intention of drawing farfetched
comparisons, or of calling Americans of the 1870s neo-Nazis—quite the
contrary. Nor do I aim to exonerate the 1990s neo-Nazis by trite
reminders that they are not the first, last, or only haters to sully
history's pages with brutality. Still, one of the best things about
good history is its power to reduce national arrogance and to promote
reflection and caution. So this story needs telling.

[...]

It would be possible and pleasant to conclude this column on an
upbeat note. Anti-Asian prejudice in the United States is only a
glimmer of its former self, and the Chinese are even considered
a "model minority," held up for others' emulation. That is certainly
a credit to American pluralism. But the virus of xenophobia is never
really extinguished in any multiethnic body politic. It merely
becomes temporarily inactive. And as for racism —enough said. Human
beings have an inextinguishable capacity to be cruel to one another,
particularly in groups. It takes constant self-reminders of how bad
things can get to keep alive the energy to make them better.

As it's been said, evil is ever ordinary and banal, sups at our own table and sleeps in our own bed.

The article reminds me of Dorothy Bryant’s wonderful novel, The Confessions of Madame Psyche, about the life of Mei Lei, a Chinese-Irish American girl/woman, who lives in various immigrant/migrant communities in the San Francisco Bay area during the first part of the twentieth century (i.e. following the period of Bernard Weisberger’s article), and contends with (his described legacy of) xenophobia and racism.

I read it some time ago.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 02:49:34 AM
No "The" in the Bryant title.

BTW, here is an interesting on-line letter I found written by Dorothy Bryant addressing some research for that book, and among other things, observations on race and ethnicity in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, and how deportations were responsible for wartime food shortages.

Dear Holt Uncensored:

About "Grapes of Wrath," I agreed with almost all the (contradictory) comments the discussants at Book Passage made. The Biblical allusions are striking--but heavy-handed. Steinbeck is both strongly emotional and over-emotional.  The final scene shows bad writer's judgment; no matter what poetic and social purpose Steinbeck was aiming at, it was one of those over-the-top things that has the opposite effect of what he wanted. I saw it as his attempt to show the indomitable survival determination of the Joads, and the solidarity with all sufferers--but, for all my willingness to accept it, I fear it came over to many people as a sign of the low-down, primitive character of the "Okies," as they were thought of by the poor and working-class Europeans who saw them (I'm old enough to remember) driving in with junky possessions piled high. There was simultaneous pity and sympathy for these people who were poorer than we--but also some fear and aversion. After all, it was the Depression, and everyone was just making it and scared stiff of falling lower.

A few statements showed some misapprehension of the nature of California agriculture. What I learned from my research for my novel, "Confessions of Madame Psyche," was that most of valley agriculture was always plantation agriculture, from the missionaries who worked the Native Americans, to the Spanish land grants, on up to our modern agribusiness. (It was only in the Santa Clara -- now Silicon -- Valley orchards that southern European immigrants like my relatives could acquire their five acres of prunes and by selling their crop, growing almost everything they ate, and working in the canneries all summer and fall, just about get by. All gone now, but you can read about it in "Passing Farms, Enduring Values" by Yvonne Jacobsen, whose family grew cherries in Sunnyvale.)

Steinbeck's main lapse was in presenting a white population in the fields of California. There are photos and books that show Asians, East Indians (men in turbans cutting down wheat), a few Afro-Americans, and, of course, Mexicans, from the start. (The bracero program of the war years was an attempt to bring back the Mexicans after they had been ruthlessly deported during the Depression years. Deportation of Mexicans and internment of Japanese-Americans crippled California agriculture, and was responsible for more wartime food shortages than anything else!) I read somewhere that Steinbeck knew all this diversity very well, but chose to make the middle-American anglo-white Joad family central to his story, and keep the book generally lily-white, because he wanted to create maximum sympathy for the plight of migrant workers, and felt he could not do so with a true picture of the diversity of people in the fields because of racism--a general sense among general American readers of novels (which did not, of course, include the very poor) that the only true Americans were anglos like the Joads (which excluded most of the population of California even back then).

Dorothy Bryant


www.holtuncensored.com/members/column342.html


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 16, 2007, 05:25:11 AM
Obviously, since no one even knows for certain how many illegal aliens there are in the country, exact stats are going to be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. I have seen articles that claimed that immigrants in general provided a slight taxpayer benefit at the federal benefit, but were a net loss at the state and local levels. I do think, however, that this will vary widely from situation to situation. Someone who pays no income or SS tax because he/she works for cash under the table might be unable to completely avoid state and local sales taxes, etc. It's a murky scenario, because of the need for illegals to stay out of the limelight.

The INS has estimated that for every illegal they catch and return, 3 might slip through, but some of those 3 may be the same person trying again...and again...who knows? We know how many they catch and return, but the other side of the equation is unknown. They have arrived at the estimate of 12 million illegal immigrants, but it is essentially a "guesstimate".

Even so, illegal immigrants who bring their families with them do impose some very real costs and burdens on our society. The usual suspects would include the cost of educating their children, including the (perceived) need for expensive "bilingual" or ESL classes; for "anchor babies" there is some degree of welfare provided, which of course goes to the parents since the baby can't go shopping; health care costs are often met through the use of expensive ERs, since the illegals have no health insurance; and just the general burden of having a large and growing mass of people in our midst who too often show no interest in learning English and assimilating. BTW, some of these would also apply to legal immigrants, e.g., the need for bilingual education or ESL and possibly the health care problem.   


[The relevant bit as found by yours truly (but most admittedly without having read the entirety of the whatevers) as of yet sees us looking at the following broad-brush conclusion:

Quote
Although the authors still favor the longitudinal formulation, they argue that, among the cross-sectional annual budget estimates, the concurrent descendants approach is probably the least biased among the cross-sectional alternatives.

The basic bottom line of the concurrent descendant formulation is that immigrants are a net taxpayer benefit to native-born households. This net benefit takes place exclusively at the federal level and not at the state level. Consequently, residents of some immigrant-intensive states (such as California) experience higher taxes due to immigration.

Lee and Miller also provide an interesting comparison among the three annual budget approaches. They demonstrate that the most frequently used methodology—immigrant households—is the only one that produces a negative immigrant fiscal impact.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309059984&page=7

Given that the net taxpayer benefit is said to be felt solely at the federal level, depending upon where you live, your subjective sense might well indeed be accuracy at work.

Nonetheless and certainly depending upon one’s preference in terms of methodology (the "least biased" versus the "most biased"), it does seem at least highly debatable, when looking across the entirety of the US, that immigrants constitute a net taxpayer burden.

Or at least that was the case at the time of the study concerned and to the best of my knowledge and reading at this point.

Thank you for helping me test my own assumptions by respectfully and politely questioning same.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Chakotay on June 16, 2007, 06:24:45 AM
That's pretty standard with insurance companies: they negotiate a discount with the hospitals, doctors, etc., in their "plan". They sometimes pretty much force hospitals and doctors into discounts so deep that they don't break even on the costs, much less make a profit. It isn't so much that hospitals are overcharging the uninsured as they are charging what the traffic will bear. If they are forced to take a loss on the insured patients, they try to make it up elsewhere.



 In Virginia, health insurers are required by law to pass on the "discounts" they negotiate with their member doctors and hospitals, to the consumer. By law, the statement from my health insurer, shows the amount of the original bill (what they charge those without insurance), the amount of the discount/waiver/whatever, which reduces the bill to the "Allowed Amount" for the insurance company. Then, from the Allowed Amount, they deduct my co-pay and any deductable, and pay the difference. It is obvious to me that medical providers are overcharging those without insurance. In the case of illegal immigrants using the ER for routine medical care, the medical providers are taking the state for a ride!


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 16, 2007, 06:56:48 AM
chak,

It isn't so much that hospitals are overcharging the uninsured as they are charging what the traffic will bear. If they are forced to take a loss on the insured patients, they try to make it up elsewhere.

Of course, you omit certain crucial details, such as Hill-Burton.  The hospitals bellied up to the public trough when it came to building their facilities.  Their part of the bargain was that they treat everyone who came in the door, insured or not.

Even so, this is why more and more thinking Americans are favoring government sponsored, single payer health care.  I would far rather pay the ~$5K that I currently pay out of pocket for my Kaiser individual policy in taxes.  Who knows how much of my premium goes to pay the company clones and drones who have nothing whatsoever to do with the delivery of health care?
And, yes, I would gladly pay significantly more if ALL people in the USA, regardless of citizenship status, could be covered.  Unlike you, chak, I understand that I have an obligation to my fellow man.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 16, 2007, 07:23:05 AM
Chak said:
It isn't so much that hospitals are overcharging the uninsured as they are charging what the traffic will bear. If they are forced to take a loss on the insured patients, they try to make it up elsewhere.


In truth, Chak, if they are charging "what the traffic will bear", they are indeed overcharging. That is the definition of charging in excess of what is required to cover costs and make a modest profit. And old-fashioned definition of such practices is "racketeering".

In any event, it sorely increases what the state is paying for health care to the indigent workers in California who are not compensated when they go to a doctor's office, but only when they use a hospital. It is a badly constructed law that limits medical care to only that which is done in a hospital, the most expensive faciltiy to provide the care.

According to news a few weeks ago, some parts of the country are experimenting with medical care dispensed at large pharmacies. This is an example of the doc-in-the-box concept. It also provides jobs to nurse practitioners, who are largely underutilitzed in the current medical care system.



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 08:01:05 AM
Unlike you, chak, I understand that I have an obligation to my fellow man. [/color]

You won’t ever convince Chakotay, though you may shed light on his POV for others.

After speaking with Chak for at least over a year, in extended conversations, my perception is that he is in complete denial about his prejudices, and won’t budge.  Who knows why?

There are posters who, on the surface, appear very rational.  And dialogue is quite rational ----- up to a point.  Then it’s like a computer program in a loop – just runs back through 2-3 different channels – after a while, one sees it coming quite predictably.

But people keep trying, there’s an strange intrigue – kind of like talking to a strict objectivist or LFC ideologue. 

Another poster once shared how, growing up down south, they knew the loveliest little old ladies who could spout the most horrible statements over tea about other human beings.  In between bites of cake. 

It’s really not that different.

Sorry Chak, but that’s my take.  As I've already told you anyway.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 08:03:56 AM
And that is part of what Hannah Arendt was talking about.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: luee on June 16, 2007, 08:47:42 AM
Luee,

Maybe illegal immigrants cost California $10Billion, maybe it doesn't. Your numbers do not seem to come from a credable source, so I tend to discount the amount. Have you also figure out how much the illegal immigrants add to the GSP of California by picking all those veggies that keep our stores stocked when the chill is in the air? Our out-of-season fruits and vegetables come at a whopping high price, and they come to use primarily from California, and a bit from Florida.

Putting doctors in poor neighborhoods is cheapening health care? So sorry, that was the way it was when I was a kid before medicine was put under the corporate shield as an excuse to raise prices. In Virginia, health insurers are required by law to pass on the "discounts" they negotiate with their member doctors and hospitals, to the consumer. By law, the statement from my health insurer, shows the amount of the original bill (what they charge those without insurance), the amount of the discount/waiver/whatever, which reduces the bill to the "Allowed Amount" for the insurance company. Then, from the Allowed Amount, they deduct my co-pay and any deductable, and pay the difference. It is obvious to me that medical providers are overcharging those without insurance. In the case of illegal immigrants using the ER for routine medical care, the medical providers are taking the state for a ride!

So, go ahead with the doc-in-a-box concept and let the illegal immigrants pay only as much as insured people pay for medical care, and end the problem of mis-use of the ER facilities. You seem to be more concerned with solving the problem by throwing out the baby with the bath water, than in solving the real problems which are not even specific to illegal immigrants but apply to all people who are poor and/or without health insurance.


I always use reputable sources and refer to the link. You seem to not have any sources linked. Just a simplistic viewpoint about sharing resources. Like lets just have a bunch of free clinics with a "doc in the box". Well duh, that is socialized medicine and it has been voted down. But even with that you are putting a strain on all resources.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 16, 2007, 09:34:24 AM
Inca,

And that is part of what Hannah Arendt was talking about.

If evil were not so banal it would not be so evil.  Read Greenhagen as well.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 16, 2007, 09:37:03 AM
luee,

Well duh, that is socialized medicine and it has been voted down. But even with that you are putting a strain on all resources.

Yep, that's JUST what it is.  When the American people realize that we each have a responsibility to each other, it will be passed.  After all, it took 20+ years - from Truman to Lyndon Johnson - for Medicare to become a reality.  The same phony arguments were made against IT.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: European on June 16, 2007, 09:37:22 AM
Even so, illegal immigrants who bring their families with them do impose some very real costs and burdens on our society.

Yeah, immigrants come with costs.  Your only solution for that is: get them out.  Sadly, neither do you discuss any benefits generated by immigrants, nor do you seem to be willing to include into your deliberations information that contradicts your stance, nor are you willing, as far as I can see, to look for solutions other than deporting them.

This is a good, concise descriptions of costs and benefits as generated by imigrants:

Quote
The presence of immigrants and their concurrent descendants generated $89 billion in costs to states and localities across the United States. This group paid an estimated $62 billion in taxes, for a net burden of $27 billion. Other taxpayers in the states and localities in which these immigrants resided shouldered this burden through increased taxes.
            
The average immigrant and concurrent descendant had a net fiscal impact at the state and local levels of about -$680, in contrast to a positive net impact of about $200 for the rest of the population. The difference is nearly $900 per person. This difference reflects per capita costs that are 26 percent higher for immigrants than for the rest of the population. Particularly expensive are general public education, bilingual education programs, and noninstitutional Medicaid and other medical welfare costs. But just as important, per capita tax payments for immigrants and their concurrent descendants are 22 percent below those of the rest of the population, reflecting the lower incomes of immigrants and their families.

Table 5-3 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5985&page=194) presents the federal fiscal impact. Here we see a net positive fiscal impact with immigrants and their concurrent descendants paying nearly $51 billion more in taxes than they generate in costs. This served to reduce the tax burden borne by taxpayers throughout the nation, not just in states with immigrants. Particularly important were transfer from immigrants and their descendants of about $28 billion to the rest of the nation through the Social Security system (OASDHI), reflecting the young age distribution of this group. Although there are many elderly members of the second generation, they are far less likely to have surviving immigrant parents than are the younger members of the second generation, and so they are less likely to enter our calculations. Of course, working-age immigrants are going to become old themselves in the future and receive costly benefits that are not reflected in this calculation. That is a general problem with the cross-sectional approach. Longitudinal calculations fully reflect such future costs.
      
In per capita terms, immigrants and their concurrent descendants contributed about $700 more in payroll taxes than they received in OASDHI benefits each year, whereas the balance of the population just broke even. For the remainder of the federal budget, immigrants and their concurrent descendants paid $500 or $600 more in taxes than they cost in benefits, and in total they had a positive federal fiscal impact of about $1,260, exceeding their net cost at the state and local levels. The balance of the population had a very similar positive fiscal impact of $1,340 (when each person's impact is assessed at the margin, with zero costs for public goods and national debt).                        
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5985&page=194 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5985&page=194)

Please note that this calculation does not include the net benefit created by immigrants through their contribution to the U.S. economy, nor are "other" benefits part of the equation as is, for instance, the care provided by an immigrant nanny.

Discussing immigrants in terms of burden only is a shame, and since you have been made aware of the fact that this is not the complete picture, your insistence on "burden" and "costs" is rather unfortunate and certainly not conducive to rational debate.  Even more devastating, in my opinion, is the complete absence of any humane concern for those who have, under difficult circumstances, eked out a living in the U.S., whom you now wish to uproot and deport towards an even more dire future.  Not a word was to be found in your postings (as far as I read back) about the hardships thus imposed, on adults and children alike.

If I am trying to describe your stance, I find it ever harder to do so without resorting to pejorative terms; sorry to say so.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: weezo on June 16, 2007, 10:38:14 AM
Actually, Cap and Luee,

Doc-in-a-box is NOT a socialist concept, but just plain old capitalism in a useful form. There are several in Richmond, and they are quite popular especially with young adults who rarely need to see a doctor and may prefer to be uninsured. A Doctor visit, which, is triaged so that if a Nurse Practitioner is all you need, that's what you get, is at a nominal $20 a pop. Much easier on the wallet than the typical doctor visit at  $100 a visit sliced down by the insurance company to a $25 copay and a $15 payment from the insurance company.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: thecap0 on June 16, 2007, 10:43:59 AM
weezo,

Doc-in-a-box is NOT a socialist concept, but just plain old capitalism in a useful form.

We have them here in Colorado in most Wal-Marts.  I agree that they are capitalistic; that does not keep me from hoping that they soon will be medical centers where the health professionals are paid from the US Treasury through taxes.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 16, 2007, 11:05:32 AM
"Discussing immigrants in terms of burden only is a shame"

True - who wants to mow their own lawn?  Too fukkin lazy.

And where the hell would we be without being able to buy kiwi at a Miami intersection?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 12:03:24 PM
"...some degree of welfare provided, which of course goes to the parents since the baby can't go shopping;"

Chakotay, re:  770

I hate to sound like a character from Charles Dickens, --but we do have a WIN program for that or was that done away with also in another faith based initiative to replace governmental actual administration with account books?



Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 12:03:58 PM
the CapO, re:777 

Read -- Goldhagen


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 12:06:01 PM
European, re:#779

Oddly, I found myself writing on this theme but posting it under: Fiction, in a post to nytempsperdu who noticed a similarity between a work they are reading (The Poisonwood Bible) for discussion quite soon and felt something comparable between missionarizing in Africa and other parts we could name. I named one that is occuring right here unbeknownst to the peon-status contrived by involved politics of globalization to the US middle class.   I simply suggest that the Missionary lead-in leads both to Colonization and economic refugees known as illegals in the US, and it almost always ends in a War( I supplied examples of various places on that achievement by us and others as theCapO suggested, re: speaking of emigre populations in the most derogatory terms obfuscating their positives, until you end up with Goldhagen's Auschwitz, a very popular book in Germany where he toured to the book markets and spoke publicly to well attended literary venues in the early 1990s if not earlier.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 12:37:15 PM
Cap, Madupont,

Daniel Goldhagen of Hitler's Willing Executioners?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 02:02:51 PM
incadove, re:#768 and #769

Thanks for introducing me to Dorothy Bryant. I'm pondering if I've heard her name in the past as a California writer.  As I just mentioned to European, I posted in Fiction where another poster mentioned noticing this tie-in between missionary initiatives which I describe as government fronts (she did notice the plantation system as she's also been reading for American History forum and how the Spanish applied this in the Americas) when in the modern state the lack of collective bargaining and repression causes emigration from one state to another where Depression is insidiously developing, usually because of foreign wars, the demonisation of the emigre population occurs, which then leads to further wars to offset the economic stagnancy on the home front.

Remind me to remark on "wartime food shortages.", in a bit after I reminisce. One of our posters asked recently in Meander about an article in the nytimes.com Books that had a little essay about assigned summer reading back when we were in high-school. I said, I never encountered it but because we had a course required in Library Science, we often used our study halls to hang out in the library (pre-computer, obviously). Besides, opting to read Pearl Buck (whose parents were of course missionaries in China with the eventuality that once they sent her back home to Pennsylvania and Virginia for safe-keeping, she was never able to again return to her beloved China because of future political developments that caused a full generation gap in ordinary diplomacy; which I contend occurred because it is easier to take an anti-communist position than to afford economic assistance when we are a basically self-interested and selfish nation ourselves), I simultaneously read John Steinbeck because, frankly we were in the post-WW2 years still close enough in time to the previous Depression years which had left us this collection of books, both Buck and Steinbeck, as the most readily available to a recently suburbanized addition to an industrial town aspiring to college-prep education.

At the same time, as new adolescents, we still had baby-blanket fluff in our eyes as to "deportations",although I experienced more personal contact with that during the following decade after we in the US  had accepted European refugees;nor did our parents and teachers mention to us that there had been "internment camps" under Roosevelt  ( I later conceived that these had been relocation camps with a peculiar misanthropic sadistic edge of stinginess, possibly because I had the experience of living in Arizona for a short while from sometime in 1938 into 1939 where the husband of my father's sister was a government doctor at San Carlos Reservation. For some reason, my father popped us into the car, not exactly Joad-like; yet he often talked about them, the Joads, as had experienced those conditions earlier in life and became fatherless when his father deserted a large family and left the children to support themselves and their mother by setting tobacco). The relocations must have taken place sometime in early 1942 following the attack in 1941; one of the little known aspects, to those living outside of California and to those who have been born since that time, was that the Japanese left as rudely ordered as those Goldhagen discusses who were sent East in Europe. Limited to what provision they could carry in their luggage, the acquisition of their property was a steal in California and other coastal states. I became familiarized with this aspect of it through a beloved mentor who had been present at the time and involved himself in a property reclamation movement begun by a Japanese woman who was a former neighbor in what was once "Japan-town" of the adjacent Fillmore district and the Haight-Ashbury.  The former area became the most happening African-American ghetto outside of New York and Chicago. When my mentor relocated to Santa Barbara in the Montecito Hills, it had by then become apparent that this particular former area of San Francisco had experienced a vast new urban renewal handout to the realtors. Back at the start of high-school, I was unfamiliar with all that, when I'd wander down to Chinatown when visiting that same aunt and her husband living on one of those steep hills and, of course, I would stop at the still existent Japanese Tea House gardens.

Steinbeck of course wrote of the conditions in California brought on by economic Depression,including Cannery Row, which it would be better to read than to rely on the movie, but he can perhaps be forgiven for making a literary misjudgment when knowing his American audience too well. For as many Joads as left Oklahoma for California, others stuck it out further north in the Midwest by holing in through the Dust Bowl years. I saw the aftermath when accompanying a nursing school friend of my mother's who became a  visiting rural health nurse on her rounds of sand-blown dry farms with unpainted houses sanded by the winds during the 1940s.

Early in the Forties or at least by mid-decade, I used to take a basket to the A. and P. for my mother who trusted me with the rationing cards/books. We were "conditioned " to think of it as "rationing" for the sake of the troops overseas, as it was never referred to as food-shortages because the causes would never have been discussed.  What would be discussed was whether or not Mexicans, riding the rails jumped trains several blooks north of our neighbourhood ,  were an endangerment.  As part of a family that had arrived to farm nearly a century earlier, and upon whom we could rely during any Depression scarcity, there never had been hired hands to work extended-family farms which worked by a coop community system of threshing.

But in the last ten years, I have had continual contact with someone obviously a long way from California who admitted to prefering the local Mid-Atlantic rural area in which to practice his profession, because his family had farmed in California; but, when he mentioned that, as boys, they had really liked the desert, from my own experience, I was not of that opinion.  Certainly neither was my Japanese-American sister-in-law who lived under those conditions(my idea of the sadism involved was to knowingly relocate a people, who are by nature acclimatized to a climate of high humidity, into conditions of maximum dry heat and change their sea-level diet to whatever is available in the "rationing" sans the highly vegetarian diet of their custom. To my observation, it has resulted for them in shorter life-spans, with particular disease etiologies that should be recorded.)

My sister-in-law decided to visit me last Autumn, as we had last seen each other almost a decade ago and went exploring Montecito. When she said that she had also read a lot of Pearl Buck, as a young person. and learned that we had the option of visiting her home that had been so handily located over in Bucks county about equal distance between publishers in Manhattan or Philadelphia, she said, "Let's go! "; I think she probably gained a lot of insight from the experience.

Ps. You are correct about the Goldhagen title. Auschwitz, by author whom I don't recall, came out about the same time or shortly thereafter. I will have to check on that. It was equally fascinating in the detail of research, from the point of view of recycling and enlarging  a small industrial facility which you could then surround with a virtual village settlement of officers who later actively conducted the marches that occurred to empty the camps before the allies approached.

Goldhagen's point had been rather that he didn't see how anyone could have 'unwillingly' not known about the existence of the camps because his stats showed how closely they were actually established to each other so that no one in German society resided anymore than a mile or two between camps. We just hear about the historical Big concentrations.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: incadove0 on June 16, 2007, 10:41:16 PM
Madupont

Thanks to you and Cap for what I assume you both meant as the Goldhagen title.  A family member told me that there was reluctance to see the truth about the camps even in the U.S. during the war.  The news came out in vari