WP: Immigration Debate Wakes A 'Sleeping Latino Giant'

[Pirate Smile]

Immigration Debate Wakes A 'Sleeping Latino Giant'

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 6, 2006; Page A01

Drawing on fear of restrictive immigration proposals that have awakened hundreds of thousands of Latinos to political activism, organizers are using popular Spanish-language radio and networks of community organizations to mobilize protests in Washington and scores of other cities Monday.

The demonstrations are planned to expand on a groundswell that attracted about 30,000 largely Hispanic protesters in the District last month, about 100,000 in Chicago and as many as 500,000 in Los Angeles, a surprising display of political muscle from a population that makes up a substantial portion of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants.

Jaime Contreras, president of the National Capital Immigrant Coalition, predicted that Monday's demonstration at the Washington Monument would draw 100,000 people and that nationally the turnout, in more than 60 cities, would number "in the millions."

"The sleeping Latino giant is finally awake," Contreras said. "This will be the largest demonstration by immigrants ever held in this country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502543.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. more

"Over the past two months, Spanish-language radio hosts have emerged as a driving force behind the immigration rallies. Once relatively rare, the number of Spanish-language media outlets across the nation has grown greatly over the past decade.

Pedro Biaggi, host of the morning show on Washington's 99.1 El Zol, is virtually unknown among non-Latinos. But the boyish, irrepressible Puerto Rican has achieved celebrity status among the area's large Central American immigrant audience after only a few months on the Spanish-language FM station.

"I have five hours to do jokes and stupid skits -- and normally that's my job, to help people forget their troubles," Biaggi said. "But this is a case without precedent. Never have we Latinos felt as insecure and persecuted as we do now. I'm Puerto Rican. But I'm brown, too. I am my audience, and I feel totally committed to helping them."'

[IndianaGreen]

3. Republicans hate Latinos

and Lou Dobbs sucks!

[saigon68]

13. George Murphy on Latinos and Hispanics

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




In the 1950s, Murphy entered politics as chairman of the California Republican State Central Committee. In 1964 he was elected to the United States Senate; he defeated Pierre Salinger, who had been appointed several months earlier to serve the remainder of the late Clair Engle's unexpired term. Murphy served from January 1, 1965 to January 3, 1971.\\


Murphy had stated that Mexicans were genetically suited to farm labor; because they were "built lower to the ground," it was supposedly "easier for them to stoop." Oddly, some years earlier, in 1949, Murphy himself had starred next to Mexican actor Ricardo Montalban in the film Border Incident, which cast the exploitation of the braceros in a deservedly negative light.

Murphy's move from the screen to politics paved the way for the successful transitions of actors such as Ronald Reagan and later Arnold Schwarzenegger. Indeed, Reagan's nascent rise was also pondered by an incredulous Lehrer, in the opening lines of the same 1965 song:

Hollywood's always tried to mix

[Selteri]

2. There are some problems with the Latino entering the country

That much is tue... but while we do need som incomming immigrants the illegals and amount have become something that is diminishing the ability of the younger generation to live because they are willing to work for much less than their time and energy is worth because the money they are being offered is still tremendously higher than what they can land a job at in Mexico.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Didn't the US steal California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico?

Didn't whites arrive on this continent without visas and work permits?

[Selteri]

6. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be immigrants, I'm arguing that

the continued economic stability of the country involves first giving jobs to those who want them to do such trivial things as feeding their families before giving a job away cheaply to someone else who isn't an American. Neither should starve, but there is no reason for there to be more people coming in than we can maintain of an employment level. It's called market saturation, it draws down the value of all workers and costs jobs for those who are in the lower echelon that are the most often picked on and ignored of us all.

I will admit, If I had the word but to say everyone in the world who wanted a job would have a good paying job where they could afford to feed, cloth, house, educate and enjoy a comfortable life with due compensation for the complexity of their work and reward those that do the best work, not kiss the most butt.

Good Economics involves allowing immigrants in at a controlled pace so as to improve the country without having such a pace of entering immigrants that they cannot be absorbed into the workforce without displacing those who are already there as has happened systematically as the economy has shifted.

I harbor no ill will against immigrants, they are hard workers and truly more full of the American dream than 95% of Americans I have met. They believe in a hard days work doing a good job for their pay. I also harbor a realistic point of view that should we employ 1 immigrant when an American is willing to take that job but instead must go hungry or work at wages where they cannot survive on in todays economy without having to go without important things like medicine, food, shelter, sleep. Working two jobs will burn someone out very quickly when one job is only going to pay rent and some of the monthly bills, yet Many Americans are being forced to do it because of the wages these corporatocracies are doling out with an eyedropper.

I say that should we bring in Immigrants that instead of bringing in so any that they pull the country down in level that instead we work with them to bring them up into the American theater as fellow stars, not slaves or lower people who's numbers are quickly rising without any observation.

As a optential solution slowing the boarders down and punishing those who employ the illegal workers with jail time so that the pace slows down until the country can get back into an equilibruim. We do need immigrants, but what point is it to bring in so many that we become a second or third world country as a result? I don't care about the higher birth rates, growing into Americans is just fine with me, they simply will fill the openings of that generation first, then their cousins can come in and take up any slack left over at equal wages to the Americans of the same generation, white, black, hispanic, American Indian, Chinese _ANY RACE ANY CREED ANY RELIGION_ The concern must be that we must also plan to give stability to that generation by our actions today, not hand them more problems to solve.

[xchrom]

9. you seem to be under the impression that the migrant illegals

stay here when in fact they -- until we start making it more restrictive to go back and forth.

this country has always ''used'' the labour of mass immigration -- much of it questionably legal.

and the same wage concerns you have about illegals -- you would then have to turn on legal immigrants because they tend to contribute to native born wage stagflation as well. the following are some facts.

including some math regarding how you calculate the earnings of immigrants --- both legal and illegal.

the actual impact of immigrants wages on u.s. born workers wages.

the impact of more restrictiveve laws on the border region.

mexico is family -- we have a unique and loong genealogocal relationship with mexico -- not to mention the long historical one.

our relationship with mexico should be a very open one -- and our laws should concern what any labourer makes as a paycheck.

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html
The Impact of Immigrants on Native Earnings



There are two opposing views about how immigrants affect the labor market opportunities of American natives. One view is that they have a harmful effect because immigrants and natives tend to have similar skills and compete for the same jobs, thus driving down the native wage. The other view is that the services of immigrants and natives are not interchangeable, but rather complement each other. For instance, some immigrant groups may be unskilled but particularly adept at harvesting crops. Immigration then increases native productivity and wages because natives can specialize in tasks for which they are better suited.

The first view is more likely correct. Economists who have rejected this view on the basis of evidence have looked at somewhat superficial data. These economists speculated that if the services of natives and immigrants are interchangeable, natives should earn less in cities where immigrants are in abundant supply, such as Los Angeles or New York, than in cities with few immigrants, such as Nashville or Pittsburgh. Although natives do earn somewhat less in cities that have large immigrant populations, the correlation between the native wage and the presence of immigrants is weak. If one city has 10 percent more immigrants than another, the native wage in the city with the most immigrants is only 0.2 percent lower.

i'm not a libertarian but this piece does some justice to dispelling the myth of ''illegal immigrants and wages.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."

very detailed evidence about ''illegal'' immigration, over all wages continue to rise -- with of course complications in specific sectors.

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP39C/Immigration.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200603170753.asp

Almost all of the things that cause people to complain about illegal immigration are true of much legal immigration as well. If your worry is that illegal immigrants tend to raise government spending, for example, then you ought to be worried about legal immigrants, too. Half of legal immigrants have not gone past high school. Like illegal immigrants, they cost federal and state governments billions of dollars each year.

Or perhaps you’re concerned that illegal immigrants hurt low-income workers by driving low-end wages down. If so, you should be almost as concerned about legal immigration. Illegal immigrants tend to be paid less than legal immigrants, but the difference is small and largely reflects the fact that on average illegal immigrants have slightly less education than legal immigrants.

http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2006/01/are_illegal_imm.html

The real shocker in the study is that 49 percent of the day laborers interviewed said they were regularly hired – not by contractors, companies of any kind, and certainly not “big corporations” – but by American homeowners. I’d just heard Bay Buchanan (sister of Pat) on Lou Dobbs’ show fulminating about the “big corporations” that are hiring all the illegal immigrants, but – surprise!—it’s the guy next door who needs his house painted or his lawn mowed.

http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm

facts, figures and links on the immigration issue.


http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=210

the above link and the following paragraphs underscore the need of fairly free movment between the the u.s. and mexico.
and it also underscore what is a very intimate relationship.

Leg One: Accounting for the current immigrant population.
The domestic security agenda established after September 11 has cast the longstanding and growing unauthorized population in the US in a new light—as a potential hiding place for terrorists. Analysts talk about the challenges of finding the "needle in the haystack" and hotly debate the appropriate and constitutionally sound ways to make that haystack significantly smaller. Ideas have included registration, deportation (focusing initially on criminal immigrants), and increased enforcement measures internally and at the border.
Today's "haystack" is composed of nearly 10 million people who are living, working, and sometimes studying in American communities. A quick calculation shows that, even under the most favorable assumptions, a strategy designed to bring the unauthorized population to publicly acceptable levels that utilized only enforcement and deportation would require tens of billions of dollars, decades of time, and significant damage to the nation's concept of civil and other rights. It would also require equally heroic assumptions about the United States' ability to keep new would-be illegal entrants out.  

Many of the assumptions that are now driving the formation of US immigration policy are directly inspired by migration from Mexico
  Another option, a national registration of unauthorized immigrants, has also gained support among members of Congress. Such a registration program would be combined with a meaningful promise for some sort of regularization that would allow unauthorized immigrants to remain in the country. Under the plan described by President Bush, the permission to stay legally would be contingent upon employment and initially last for three years, with the possibility of renewal.
Such strategies pose considerable challenges. The utility of such an effort depends greatly on the level of participation: a regularization effort that leaves millions of people unregistered still leaves a considerable security problem. For this reason, policymakers should consider whether their regularization proposals offer enough incentives so that most immigrants will register. A regularization program that allows only temporary stays is not likely to prove a sufficient inducement for many immigrants, who may intend to stay permanently, or who fear that registration could be used against them in other ways.
The level of participation in the regularization program will also influence the success of broader efforts to control illegal immigration. When Congress enacted IRCA in 1986, it thought of regularization only as an amnesty, and extended its pardon to those who could demonstrate that they had been in the United States "continuously" since before January 1, 1982. When the law was finally implemented in November, 1986, the previous five years of illegal arrivals did not qualify for regularization. At the same time, however, they had little incentive to leave (see related article).

this is from a religious group involved with ''illegals''.


http://www.rtfcam.org/report/volume_21/No_3/article_4.htm

note the following paragraphs:

Many experts say that, given the current climate of economic need and lack of work in Mexico and Central America, no matter how many people die in the effort to migrate, more will attempt the journey. "Unfortunately, people’s lives are so desperate that they won’t stop coming they’ll just keep trying," said Rick Ufford-Chase of BorderLinks, a Tucson based public awareness group. "It’s simply not possible to carry enough water across the desert." Chase further stated: "We’ve made the act of looking for a better job in the United States a crime that carries the death penalty with it." (AP, 5/25/01)

These policies, in addition to causing deaths, also have the unintended impact of keeping many migrants inside of the United States rather than periodically returning to Mexico or Central America to visit or to live. Traditionally, the migrant flow between the US and Mexico has been a circular one, with individuals frequently moving in and out of the country. Deterrence-based policies have made the journey back so expensive and risky that many formerly seasonal workers no longer see the trip back to Mexico as worth the cost.

[tenshi816]

11. Mexico is family.

I agree with that, but (and you knew there would be a but didn't you? :)) do you think that by making Mexican immigrants somehow more "worthy" than immigrants from other countries (think China and India, for just two examples), it's going to open up a whole new can of worms with those other immigrants demanding the same consideration?

Just throwing this out there. Everyone's focusing on Mexicans but they're by no means the only immigrants to the United States, nor the only ones with a long history in the United States.

[xchrom]

12. do you think the history with chinese immigrants is the same

as the long and complicated one we have with mexico?

i honour all workers -- and have a great deal of esteem for immigrants the world over.

but our relationship with mexico really is familial -- this a nation that we go back with generationally through families as well as militarily and diplomatically.

also remember there is a long, long history of mexican immigrants NOT staying here as long as the border restirictions are relatively open -- they come they work and they go home.


the very problem people bitch about was created when we made crossing more restrictive in the late eighties.

[tenshi816]

14. The Trans-Continental Railroad

would never have been built in the 1800s if it weren't for the massive influx of Chinese workers brought over specifically for that purpose so, yes, it's a long and complicated history. Likewise the Irish and Scandinavians.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against Mexican immigration. I love Mexico. It's a beautiful country with a rich heritage (in fact, it's the reason I decided that I seriously wanted to learn to speak Spanish and last year enrolled at a local college to study the language - I'm not very fluent yet, but I plan to keep studying until I am, however many years it takes). I believe Mexicans have enriched American culture, not diminished it.

However, I believe it's wrong to focus on Mexicans to the exclusion of other immigrants who also have long ties to the United States.

[xchrom]

16. who's talking exclusion.

but you are seriously off if you think that you can compare the two -- much of america is as much or practically so mexico as it is america.

[qazplm]

7. Actually

we bought California, and parts of AZ and NM.

Americans were invited into Texas by the Mexican government. Admittedly, the Texan's then more or less decided after a decade or so that they wanted the land for themselves, but considering that during that time Mexico was actually the more militarily advanced nation, it is hard to characterize it as the strong preying on the weak.

[yardwork]

15. What?! Please educate yourself on 19th century American history

[Bridget Burke]

17. Some Texans were invited into Mexico

Empresarios were granted land by the Mexican government & allowed to bring in settlers. The settlers had enough money to set themselves up & swore to follow the laws. Prince Solms Braunfels (sp?) brought in Germans, Moses Austin brought in Anglos & there was even an Irish colony in what is now San Patricio county. But there were also large numbers of illegal Anglo settlers--mostly impoverished & uneducated. Mexico had abolished slavery, although some of Austin's people brought slaves with them. However, the slave trade was forbidden; that was ONE of the motivations behind the Texas Revolution.

Santa Ana killed the defenders of the Alamo & massacred most of those who surrendered at the old presidio at Goliad. But Sam Houston defeated him at San Jacinto. The Texian army suffered very few casualties in the battle but slaughtered nearly all the Mexican soldiers. Santa Ana was captured & begged for his life. He ordered the other two Mexican armies currently in Texas to go back home.

Securing the borders of the new State of Texas was the major excuse for the Mexican War. But Manifest Destiny was the real reason. Once again, a defeated Santa Ana saved his ass--this time, by selling off half of Mexico.

Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the war under Scott's command, would later describe the conflict as a war of conquest for the expansion of slavery and thus the prelude to the American Civil War: "The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

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

[tenshi816]

8. That's a specious argument,

considering "visas and work permits" didn't exist back then.

You can't compare something that's happening in modern times with events that happened hundreds of years ago. History has to be viewed through the circumstances surrounding the time events occur and not with the eyes of another era. Other than that, I'm all for immigration - but what's going on now needs to be looked at from the perspective of the 21st century, not the 16th, and vice versa. It's something that drives historians crazy.

I also think that any country - not just Mexico, but any other country - that wants legal immigration to the US to be made easier for its citizens should reciprocate in kind and allow the same thing.

Final comment: No matter what bullshit plan the Dumbass or anybody else comes up with, it'll be absolutely useless until corporations start being punished (and I mean really punished by fines in the high millions or threat of closure or similar, not just given a slap on the wrist) for enticing illegal immigrants to work for peanuts. As long as corporations can break the law with impunity, nothing's going to change.

Edit: changed a word

[Erika]

5. Who are the immigrants is the question

Are the Hispanics only going for control of the lands they once ruled? Regardless, Pat Buchanan has it right. If Hispanics refused to show up for week at work, we'd be in trouble. Employers have exploited them for decades.

The Hispanics with their higher birth rates will again overtake this country. Their vote influence grows each year.

Thirty-one percent of all new businesses were Hispanic owned last year.

Who are really the immigrants? Don't shoot the messenger.

[truthisfreedom]

10. the thugs shouldn't have done this during an election cycle. they're hosed

now. they've screwed up their whole plan.