The folks I insultingly referred to as illegal aliens in earlier posts...

[harlinchi]

...will now be called immigrants who entered illegally. The people themselves are not illegal; one of their actions was. I'd suspect that for most, that was the last illegal act they committed, save seeking work.

I did not mean to be insulting. I only wanted to keep focus on that which was against the law in the employing of immigrants who entered illegally. The actual illegal entrance is a small thing, worthy of some slap on the wrist. The hiring of immigrants with no legal status however, is a huge crime and should be treated as such. Punishment up to the point of actual confiscation of property should be imposed on those who hire anyone without legal status.

I think when the green and white immigration vehicle pulls up to a work site, say, a farm on which some picking of crops is occurring, the immigration worker should apprehend every worker he can, check each worker for legal status, then, check each worker without legal status to see if they have a full day's pay in their pockets. For every worker without a day's pay in their pockets, that farm or company should have its fine or penalty, which already should be large, multiplied by some 'slave wage' factor. The folks without status should have a day's pay in their pockets and then be released. The only penalty should be paid by the employer, for seeking to enslave folks who lack legal status.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. There are people who can lose any status through no fault of their own

To simply paint them all with a broad brush, and blithely claim they have broken the law, well, it remains insulting.

[harlinchi]

4. I am not aware of those in that situation. I am ready to be...

...informed, though. Perhaps you might also provide some numbers for the sake of perspective...

I do look for those who know more than I (which ain't much!) to call me on stuff I say.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. Even the INS does not have actual numbers, but suffice it to say

that many thousands a year are stuck in this hellhole.

Take this not unusual scenario.

A US citizen or green card holder, meets, dates, and marries an alien. The alien is allowed into the country and applies for a green card. he or she may even have children born here. He or she may even have a job, go to school, pay taxes, and be a product member of society.

Until

They divorce and out of spite, the US citizen calls or writes INS and withdraws the application.
It matters not one bit just how far in the green card process they are, because it all comes crashing to a stop. That person is now illegal through no fault of their own. Because this happens thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of times each year, you can see how painting this group with a broad brush is both painful and just plain wrong.

[harlinchi]

15. Sounds Kafka-esque! n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. It is, except it hurts real people all the time. I see it every day.

and it sucks the big wahzoo.

[saracat]

7. But they have broken the law if they have entered this country illegally!

And aren't they an insult to the people who have entered legally? My relatives had to wait five years to be allowed to enter this country and only the intervention of a US Senator actually got them that admission. We actually had quotas that were enforced. We still somewhat enforce them for some nationalities.I just don't understand why the law should be enforced for some and not others.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. the law is an ass.

It has been promoted by racists, euro and hispano-phobes. The ultra-religious are the most outraged putting their christianity in sharp relief with their alleged faith.

Fear rules their religion as much as fear rules this imigration debate. And in both cases, less fear and more intelligent and rational study would serve our country well.

[saracat]

31. But it is the law! What would you have? Open borders?

And really this issue is too centered on one group. Flame away but I don't think the hispanic immigents should receive preferential treatment over all other gruops. I believe in true equality, pragmatic or not. Everyone should be treated absolutely the same way. whether Eastern European, Mexican, or other. Period. And fufill the same requirements.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. yes. for 170 years we had open borders.

There were terrorists, warlords, pirates and worse that existed everywhere even in those days. In fact, that has been the reality since man first built a wall around a citystate and dug a moat.

our open borders made our economy grow, helped our pathetic education system, allowed society to be free and full, added to our cultural diversity and strength.

Closing our borders has weakened us, has made us xenophobic and has made us act like scared wittle wabbits.

Tell me why open borders is a bad idea for a democracy.

[endarkenment]

38. but but but THEY are different

Stop it. We can't have legal open borders between the US and Mexico, why then all the Mexicans who want to come here to work would do so legally instead of the way that all the Mexicans who want to come here to work now do, and then the xenophobes would have nothing to yell about, plus they would have to learn how to yell in spanish.

legalize guest worker status. make it easy to get a work permit. enforce the existing labor laws for minimum wages work safety etc. stop playing the xenophobia card. this is DU not FR.

[saracat]

39. Explain to me why the Mexicans should be treated differntly than the Irish

the Polish, the Asians, the Egyptians, the Canadians and anyone else? And also explain to me how many people who are touting Canada can be in favor of open borders? Canada has a quota system that they enforce. And they also limit certain professions.I suppose that would be wrong in some eyes as well?

[skids]

2. Yeah, I think language is important here.

I suggested this phrase a while ago: "illegally immigrated persons."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=762534&mesg_id=762534

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I am descended from illegal immigrants

As far as I know, the Wampanoags never authorized the immigration of Europeans from England to their lands. But instead of fighting them, Chief Massasoit decided to show them peace; Squanto, who himself had been enslaved by Eurpeans, taught them survival skills while staying with the family of my direct ancestor, Stephen Hopkins. I sort of wonder how history would have changed if the Massasoit had treated these first "illegal immigrants" the way the government proposes to treat "illegal immigrants" now.

[msongs]

5. the wampanoags were illegal immigrants themselves...

and I bet the plants and animals were sorry to see them arrive :-)

then again, the bacteria were probably sorry to see the multicell organisms arrive as well.

and the minerals and elements were probably sorry to see the bacteria develop.

ah well, there goes the neighborhood back when the earth was formed...6000 years ago.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/impeachbush.htm

[harlinchi]

8. Hey! My great-uncle (by marriage) was, prior to his death, the oldest...

...Wampanoag. His name was Devine and he was from Mah-thuhs Vin-yud. I have more Miq'Mac than any other group in me.

I'd imagine that the first mineral strike (gold, silver, etc.) in the new territories would have shown the persistence and evil determination of the newcomers.

[Jim__]

Are you arguing for strict enforcement of the immigration laws?

Certainly Chief Massasoit's lax enforcement policy did not bode well for his people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. Just the opposite

Unless someone is a criminal or incapable of working or having someone support them, I think immigration should remain open.

[Jim__]

34. Why do you think it would turn out differently than it did for the

Wampanoags?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "open immigration." I think we definitely need to regulate the number of people that can immigrate. A part of our "immigration policy" should be to help Mexico develop its own economy so that its people would not want to come to the US for work.

I'm not against immigration, but, I do think that large numbers of unskilled immigrants has a very bad effect upon unskilled workers that are already here. We need to protect the livelihoods of those people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. The way to protect the livlihoods of American workers

is to rigidly enforce labor laws, including paying minimum wage and proper taxes and keeping a safe workplace by employers. That's what the real problem is, imho.

[outraged19]

40. Rigidly enforcing labor laws would help....

but that's only one part of the solution in regards to the harm being caused by carrying the burden of the mass population increase we have, are carrying, and continue to experience through illegal immigration. Amnesty programs add incentive. The proposed blue card adds incentive and doesn't address the rapid population explosion problems it creates but rather aggravates two fold. There is no excuse for any multimillion dollar industry even agriculture not to provide a living wage to workers who live here. Earned immigration doesn't solve any population problems but rather it aggravates them.

Any entity that doesn't represent American interests shouldn't be protected in undermining our means of survival. Most of us don't live off of investment income. Most of us work for a living. Corporations are where we invest our savings for retirement. Why should I care if an American corporation lives or dies? Back in the 60's that made sense. They provided provided the wages for American workers survival and political clout. They provided pensions for American futures. They assisted in health care benefits of Americans. They provided job security for Americans in that with their presence an American had a job here. THEY TOOK ALL OF THAT AWAY! Their futures are not that of American citizens futures. Therefore they should not be protected. Actually we should let them die. They threaten to move our jobs offshore or outsource them if they're here. They find repeated excuses from over-qualified to under-qualified not to hire Americans. They tell us that they're either gonna be "forced to outsource" or "forced to move offshore" if we don't let have the visas they want, neither of which even allows Americans job security or a future. So essentially they're telling Americans to their faces that we have you by the balls & there's nothing you can do about it. That is a declaration of a bloodless economic war upon the American people. I don't care if every American hotel, construction company, or agriculture business fails tomorrow. No illegal aliens should be allowed to stay & work here under any circumstances. I highly doubt if these industries would have to cease to function if they couldn't hire them. There never was any real shortage of American workers except for contrived ones by the industry. I paid for years to pay off my daughter's surgery out of pocket because of lack of health insurance. Illegal aliens get free health care. Even under current systems in place to tax them more, they still do not pay any where near the taxes that Americans on average pay. That they pay into social security was against Americans advice & not our problem. That was their concious decision. Our schools are overcrowded because these people came here illegally. They have been illegally using our water, our energy, and all our infrastructure at great cost to the American citizens. I don't want to hear that we have to supply the money to rebuild Iraq and spread democracy but there's no money to remove people from our nation whose presence harms the ability of the nation to sustain. I don't think a single penny should go to any other nation from our government budget if there's no money to meet the needs off the American people FIRST. There is NOTHING more important our government should be budgeting for above the needs of the American people.

[twiterpatted]

6. I'm a U.S citizen, you may now refer to me as person born in America with

all the rights offered with citizenship.

The phrase Illegal Alien has a negative connotation because entering a country without permission or documentation is ILLEGAL. It is criminal. It is wrong.

This touchy feely, politically correct crap is not progressive. It's weak and childish and is the reason so many Americans who should identify with us, don't.

If I were to speak to an Illegal Alien personally, I would refer to him as sir or by name, yet when I speak of immigrants who violate the law and are in this country without permission or documentation in context of immigration policy, there is nothing wrong with the accurate term, illegal alien.

[harlinchi]

9. I felt that until recently.

I now feel that the act was illegal not the person. Is a white collar criminal an illegal citizen or is he citizen who has committed a crime? Of course he might be both but by which way do we refer to him?

[twiterpatted]

12. If the white collar criminal immigrated to Mexico, he would be a

fugitive.

The term illegal alien refers to the status of an individual, not a description of (who) he is.

I believe the immigration issue in this country is Tragic and that by dressing up the language we diminish the tragedy.

[Igel]

30. And it is precisely for that reason when you paraphrase

'illegal immigrant' you don't make it 'an illegal person who has immigrated', but 'a person who has immigrated illegally.'

It's irritating when people have such a formal, rule-based approach to what's presumably their own language that they figure that given two possible interpretations, the one lesser justification must be the right.

The set of users as a whole, through their use of a word, determine the word's meaning. Words shift meaning, so if not for the fact that legal language tends to be archaic, 'alien' wouldn't be the term of choice for a foreign national on US soil. But accepting a forced change in meaning because it suits somebody's agenda makes one complicit in an Orwellian word game.

[RufusEarl]

14. I agree, illegal immigration is a crime.

The fact that this country has had laws on the books dealing with all sorts of immigration, for many years makes me wonder why all of a sudden we require new immigration laws.

I think our party has miss judged the voters on this issue, as you said the politically correct crap is not progressive. Democrats are pandering to a block of voters, and i believe it's going to backfire. My prediction will be that while our party may pick up the hispanic vote they will lose most of the independent vote, most voters want our immigration laws enforced it's just that simple.

[endarkenment]

13. "a huge crime "?

So for example everyone with assorted domestic help in el norte, where the Mexican population that lives on both sides of the nominal border between Mexico and the USA, and has migrated more or less freely across that nominal border for the last 200 years or so, and has long established economic relations on both sides of the nominal border, everyone who employs, knowingly or otherwise those without the correct papers, ought to have their homes confiscated?

Really?

[harlinchi]

16. To me, there is no such thing as a 'nominal border'.

There is a border or there is not. And perhaps I should have said 'up to the point' of confiscation. Oh yeah! I did!

Punishing the workers themselves is like fighting the war on drugs by arresting Black crack addicts. It involves a great deal of activity with little effect. In both immigration and drugs, find and follow the money; it usually will lead to those perpetrating the crime.

Punishing the employers of immigrants without legal status would have a greater effect, IMHO.

[endarkenment]

20. So your new interpretation of "up to the point"

is now "up to the point but not including?". OK. So what exactly ought the punishment be for the california resident who is caught with an undocumented nanny? No property confiscation. Is your bank account your property?

It is a nominal border because while quite legal (ignoring our confiscation of el norte) it is largely ignored by the mexican residents of the region, which population predates the border, and it is largely ignored by both governments unless it happens to serve the political agendas of some political party on one side or the other.

[harlinchi]

23. It's not a new interpretation.

It existed in the original post. I mentioned it in response to your
So for example everyone with assorted domestic help in el norte, ...knowingly or otherwise those without the correct papers, ought to have their homes confiscated? comment. A reasonable read of my original remark would have left most reasonable people with the idea that penalties up to confiscation would include those of lesser severity.

BTW, I do think confiscation should be possible with severe offenders.

[endarkenment]

27. so which is it?

"I do think confiscation should be possible with severe offenders"

or

"penalties up to confiscation would include those of lesser severity"

"Up to x" is ambiguous which is why it is qualified with 'and including' or 'but not including' when one wishes to be precise. You have amended your argument to be 'up to but not including except for some folks who are categorized as severe offenders'. OK. Fair enough. I still disagree but at least you are now being clear on what you mean, with the exception of who the heck knows what a 'severe offender' is?

So, for example, the truck picks up the agricultural day laborer, the farm asks for papers which are produced, and everyone gets to work and everyone gets paid. And then the farmer gets busted becuase half the day hires presented bogus papers. Take the farm? Or not severe?

[twiterpatted]

17. congratulation's, you found the exception that proves the rule.

[endarkenment]

19. Exception?

So I'll just guess that 50%+ of the employment of the undocumented is within the description I provided.

Y'all keep citing these purported slave labor sweat shops (which by the way are actually mostly in vietnam, china, indonesia, etc. and quite legal) where brutal capitalist overlords are getting rich off of the exploitation of undocumented workers. And there is some of that and it should be stopped. But au contraire mon amis, you are pushing the exception here, not me.

[twiterpatted]

22. I do not believe that 50%+ of the illegal aliens in this country

work as house slaves in border towns with what you call "nominal borders".

What on earth is a nominal border?

[harlinchi]

24. My point exactly! There are borders or there are not! n/t

[twiterpatted]

25. Oh!, the joy of arguing with a blurred distinction as a verbal weapon.

[endarkenment]

26. House slaves?

Sorry friend but you have descended to verbal dishonesty.

A nominal border is one which exists in law and on paper but is largely ignored in reality. It is the fact that the border is nominal that has you xenophobes so up in arms.

[twiterpatted]

41. xenophobes, If your are going to call names, I prefer you to use words

I can spell. Thank you Very Much. ,

Please name three populated areas in this country with a "nominal border" as you just defined it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. here in the midwest, we have no less than a million

Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, Costa Rican, Mexican, Salvadorian, Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian. Latvian, Ukranian, Bulgarian, Belarussian, Chinese, Korean, and more.

Because there is no hand picked produce to speak of here, the jobs available for them include
construction
car repair
child care,
lawn care
trash hauling
elder care
janitorial services
kitchen work for restaurants
bussing for same

[New Government]

29. If I Walked to Canada

If I walked across the border to Canada illegaly, I would be called an, "Illegal Alien." That's the term, people.

By the way, if I went to Canada illegally and marched with an American flag demanding "immigrant rights" and access to their free health care system, how long do you think I would last? Let's just say my "undocumented" status would be nothing more than a quick "visit."

[saracat]

32. Amen.

[endarkenment]

33. Back in the 60's

Canada quietly opened its arms to political refugees from the united states. Many lived in Canada for years with no papers.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. Legacy of slavery: the U.S. southern border

Most people aren't aware of this, but the current border (whether nominal, real, liminal or what have you) between the U.S. and Mexico came about as the result of the Mexican-American war of 1846-48. Most historians of the epoch agree that the war was fought primarily to advance slaverholders' interest in expanding slavery's reach.

So when you advocate "strict border enforcement" of the Southern borders, be aware that, among other things, you're embracing a legacy of the peculiar institution.

[twiterpatted]

42. You have got to be kidding me. This is how you back up your

argument, by calling those who oppose you, unwitting slave supporters.

So far today I have been called a xenophobe and a racist slave supporter.

I always know that I have won an argument when my opponent resorts to name calling.