Can someone explain to me why illegal immigration is OK?

[still_one]

[mduffy31]

1. Oh boy

I hope that your ready up for this one. Get your helmet on.

:hide:

[still_one]

17. it is a fair question

a lot of people are here illegally. Many are being exploited with low wages and terrible working condidtions

It is a complex question, and one cannot be brushed off as a racist just for asking it

[papau]

2. Not "OK" - but moving 12 million folks out of the US is not easy and will

cost several hundred billion.

[Saturday]

8. Fine their employers, stop the jobs and

many will go back to Mexico on their own.

[napi21]

10. I still believe if the Feds really cracked down on EMPLOYERS,

the illegals would leave on their own. I aggree, deporting 12 million people is impossible, but if those who hire illegals were JAILED, the opportunities would go away. Without any opportunities to make any money, the incentive to come to the US illegally would disappear.

[still_one]

45. I think that would definitely reduce it

but it will NOT happen, because this is for those employers

[MikeNearMcChord]

81. Canyon County, Idaho wants to see RICO Charges

filed against employers who hire undocumented workers, I personally go for asset forfeitures for the employers, and anyone who hires them even for yard work, hell we do this for drugs. Oh BTW the man who is spearheading this is County Commissioner Robert Vasquez.

[Kali]

172. yeah but...

we may do this for drugs but it sure as hell does not work, why would it for this?

[mike_c]

79. you want an entire class of poor people unable to find work...

...and employers unable to produce their goods? That is what would happen if the gov't targeted employers to such an extent that they sharply curtailed hiring illegal immigrants in some economic sectors, particularly agriculture.

The argument that employers would then have to pay wages that would attract U.S. citizens is equally bogus unless U.S. consumers are willing to accept prices for food and other goods on a par with, say, Japan, where apples cost $2.50 each, cantaloupe are $20-$40 each, and domestic beef starts at about $56 per pound (based on 2004 prices, http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/jprice.htm). Consumers would have to accept protections against foreign producers to protect domestic employers too, because most employers who could move their operations out of the country would have to if they were forced to compete with someone who could offer melons at $1.50 each instead of $25 each.

Simplistic solutions like "deport all the Mexicans" or "go after all the employers" sound appealing until you actually begin to think through the consequences.

[OregonBlue]

86. Your premise is wrong. I grew up in the Hood River Valley

in Oregon which is primarily Fruit ranching. We did not have Mexican workers. We had migrant workers. They were white and yes, they were poor. The fruit got picked and it was no more expensive then, relative to our overall food budget, than it is now.

In Central Oregon now, almost all of the ranch hands, foremen, construction workers, and pickers are Mexican. Most are illegal and few speak English.

You are forgetting that the reason food, expecially produce, in Japan is so expensive has more to do with the lack of land for production and the fact that most of their produce has to be imported. They have neither the land nor the climate to produce things like melons, etc., in any quantity.

If you are pro-ILLEGAL immigration that's one thing, but don't try to tell the rest of us that it makes economic sense. It's not good for American workers!!

[mike_c]

89. you're right-- I left out the alternative...

...an American underclass of working poor in the vein of The Grapes of Wrath, the sort of thing that Caesar Chevez worked so hard to overcome. You're right of course-- we CAN have cheap goods with an all American labor force, we just have to keep those citizen employees in grinding poverty.

What I REALLY support is a living wage law that applies to EVERYONE working in America, regardless of their immigration status. Don't go after employers that hire illegals-- go after employers that pay less than a locally prevailing living wage. And yes, I'm willing to pay $25 for a cantaloupe if that's what it takes to support the workers who produce melons.

[OregonBlue]

102. I agree. Those people were poor because employers did not

have to pay a living wage. If they had, our produce would have been more expensive but I guarantee, it would not be $25 a cantaloupe. I personally know many people who used to pick fruit in the Yakima Valley. They were actually paid quite well and made a decent wage. They were not immigrants, they were young people who do it for summer jobs. Recently, the Yakima fruit ranchers have started switching to Mexican illegals because they work cheaper. Apple/pear prices have not come down, they in fact have gone up. The workers are making less, the ranchers are making more and the jobs that kids used to do for summer work are gone.

I'm sorry but I live in an area that has been impacted heavily by illegal workers. It is not good for our local workers. It's not just laborers either. As I said before, all of the ranch hands, foremen, construction workers, etc., etc., etc., in our area are Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) and are wages have plummeted.

I have spent many many years in Mexico. I love the country and the women and children of that country. I am disgusted by the total corruption of that government. We should be putting pressure on Mexico to change their policies. The upper classes there enjoy amazing wealth while the average Mexican cannot even get by.

So is the answer that we allow all Mexicans who cannot make a living there to come to the U.S. and drive our standard of living lower? Or is it that we pressure Mexico to change their corrupt business practices and provide for their own citizens? Mexico is a very rich country that is being raped and exploited by the wealthy.

[mike_c]

105. I agree re: Mexican gov't corruption...

...but taking it out on poor working people struggling to feed their families is not the answer. Forcing people back across the border into what we KNOW will be a life of poverty and starvation is inhuman, IMO.

[OregonBlue]

111. Allowing them all to stay here and force our citizens into the same

abject poverty is not the answer either. Guest workers are one thing, citizenship and being allowed to remain here indefinitely are not the answer either.

My son is bi-polar. I have had to apply for benefits for him. I was so surprised when I went to my local "welfare" office to discover that 90% of the people there were Mexicans. Many of them have 4, 5, 6 kids. Oregon is drowning in new requests. There is not enough money for basic health and mental health benefits and yet most of the people collecting those benefits here are not American citizens. I cannot get even basic, much less adequate, Mental Health care for my son (who has two children of his own to support) and I cannot afford the outrageous costs of good Mental Health care myself.

I am not a bigot, I do not hate Mexicans, I do hate what the current "immigration non-policy, non-enforcement" is doing to my state.

[treestar]

118. Your first sentence is just out there. How do they force us into

poverty? If anything, they are just taking over the position that migrant farm workers, Irish and previous groups of immigrants, have grown out of (and they are now middle class).

[OregonBlue]

125. I don't know where you live but, where I live people are getting

poorer and poorer every day. There are fewer and fewer jobs and the wages are now AT Oregon's minimum wage, seldom above. Because my area is rural, we have always had wages somewhat lower than the Urban areas but nothing like what we have now.

I had not been to Hood River in several years. I was driving through the valley last fall on a Sunday and ran low on fuel in a little town called Parkdale. None of the stations there were open. I stopped to ask for directions to the closest open station. Good thing I speak some Spanish because, there was not ONE English speaking person on the street. I am not exaggerating.

It is obvious to me that you do not live in an area that is being so heavily impacted by illegal immigration. I would love to be totally open-minded, I would love to allow anyone who wants to come here to work to be allowed to work. But, if that means that my family and my neighbors cannot find work, cannot get adequate services and benefits, I cannot afford to be so magnanimous. There has to be a better answer.

When the U.S. was wide open, when we had a small population in comparison to our land area, that was fine. When the good jobs were not being outsourced and there was more work than Americans could do, unlimited immigration might have been the answer. That is not the case now. We are overpopulated, many many good jobs are going overseas and, at least in my area, we can no longer afford to allow unlimited illegal immigration.

[hanginthere]

132. Comparing Japan an US is like comparing apples and oranges

So to speak.

The whole political system is lopsided because of the political power of farmers. Thus, farm prices are not driven by economics but by politics.

I think that a better example maybe where American farming has in general supplanted raw labor with technology. Of course, no one is going to invest in some uproven expensive hi tech approach when it is cheaper and safer to hire illegals.

What I'm saying is that one of the hidden costs of illegal immigration is that it drives down innovation in the agricultural secter.

[napi21]

149. I don't think that's what would happen at all!

I watched a news program the other day where they were discussing the meat packing industry, and that Tyson (one of the largest) announced that they were closing on Monday because they didn't expect enough of their workers to show up to be able to operate the business.

THEN, they reporter went on to say "In 1980, the average wage at a meat packing plant was $19.00/hr, today, it's $9.00!!!! Just the admission by Tyson that they didn't expect to have enough workers on Mon. to operate tells me they are admiting to having hired mostly illegals!

THAT'S a prime example of what illegals have don't to the wage structure in the US over the last 20 years! Remember, wages are mostly governed by supply (of employees) and demand jobs available and at what wage). When you have a flood of workers willing to work for a fraction of those currently employed, you can't fault the employer for opting for the cheap ones, now can you?

I realize the $9.00/hr is a lot more than these folks had in Mexico, but it's destroying the American middle class.

And for any of these companies to say they couldn't operate paying a fair wage, that's BS! The market will bear only so much in price increases, and the poor old CEO just might have to take a cut in his multimillion $ salary!

[mike_c]

155. that's why I think any real solution must include a living wage...

...requirement that employers CANNOT circumvent, i.e. if you want to operate a business-- any business-- that pays employees for their labor you MUST pay them at least a locally determined living minimum wage. That way all workers could compete for jobs on a level playing field, and employers could not use the more desperate workers to undercut others.

[treestar]

93. Why is it worth all this?

That will cost money too, what is the big difference who takes what job?

Just create guest worker visas.

[seabeyond]

103. in the 80's in calif there was a big push companies could NOT hire

illegal or repercussion was great. they went to great length to make sure they hired legal. the repug today now wants to penalize the illegal and ignore the companies.

i agree if the penalty is on the company for hiring it will reduce the problem of illegals.

[treestar]

120. We really need to add these people to the jails?

For crying out loud. Aren't there more dangerous people out there?

Just change the laws, for crying out loud, so these people will have papers and we will know they are here and they will pay taxes (some of them do, but others must work under the table).

The way it is now, we don't know who is here! And we're so scared of terrorists coming over that border. (Supposedly)

We can't control everything with government. Some things are just part of life on earth.

[papau]

178. true n/t

n/t

[still_one]

26. I agree. It seems that both political parties do NOT want to confront it

you have one extreme who want the illegals to be treated as criminals, and the other extreme who wants to ignore it

What I find most interesting is that I have heard no one say the the employer should be charged for committing hiring the illegals, and not the victims. Perhaps that is because it is much of corporate America is exploiting the illegals

[napi21]

49. There is ONE comentator who says that ALL the time!

Lou Dobbs! He's been preaching that for a LONG TIME now, of how the real criminals here are the employers who hire illegals at exploitive rates, and for their own personal gain!

If I'm not mistaken, I heard Howard Dean saying the same thing!

[still_one]

55. It is the corporations that own America now

so I don't expect to see anything change soon, until the people take back their government if they can

[napi21]

59. Yes, it's the same Corps. that run the Country now, but I BELIEVE

the American people can force a law through Congress if enough of us scream for it!

Of course I desperately want the Dems to take back the majority in Nov., but I believe we can FORCE a change in the laws NOW BECAUSE both sides want to win in sooo badly in Nov. enough screaming would force the candidates to listen.

[still_one]

73. The November election is very simple

Do the people want war, then vote republican, if not vote Democrat

I believe both sides would rather NOT make illegal immigration an election year issue since both sides take corporate money

public financing of elections, and throw out all the lobbyists is the way to go

[loyalsister]

212. We should be careful not to underestimate

At the end of the day this is an issue which demonizes an "other" in order to unite "citizens" against a common enemy to unify the flag waving vote.
It's about both and both parties are exploiting xenophobia and racism. We may find that the most hawkish Democrats in congress are the most supportive of the most Republican-esque measures.
It is yet another step in the direction of fascism.

[Greyhound]

141. Completely specious argument. You are assuming we would have to

"round up and deport" the 10 - 20 million illegals (many of whom are not from south of the border). This is simply wrong, once we remove the motivation (jobs and $$) they will remove themselves.

[papau]

152. True - but no GOP proposed law criminalizies or heavily fines employers

"remove the motivation (jobs and $$)" is not really part of the GOP plan.

If we are lucky, we may get a token fine and slap on the employer hand law from the GOP.

[Greyhound]

190. Exactly my point, and what pisses me off about this whole issue.

Neither party is even talking about the only practical solution. I expect nothing of substance from the re:puke:s, they are, after all, re:puke:s, but when the Democrats join in ignoring it, well... :grr:

[Double T]

3. IT IS NOT OK, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU SPINNNNNN IT!!!!

Mexico needs to get its own act and house in order, MR. FOX.

[RebelOne]

204. I'm with you, It is not OK!!!

We need to seal our borders ASAP.

[Saturday]

4. One of the major reasons I hear is....

"they're just trying to feed their families". My answer to that is we don't let people rob because they are just trying to "feed their families". It's illegal and there are consequenses for doing illegal things.

[still_one]

28. why shouldn't the employer be charged then

the business who tries to sell alcohol or cigarettes to minors is charged

Isn't it a bit of a contradiction not to charge the employer?

[mike_c]

66. bogus reasoning-- "robbing" is a crime-- illegal immigration is not....

Exceeding the posted speed limit is more criminal than illegal immigration, which is a civil matter, i.e. an administrative fault. Why can't the "but-they're-illegal!" crowd get their heads wrapped around this?

[havocmom]

77. ILLEGAL immigration is a crime, thus the 'illegal' part of the label

:eyes:

[mike_c]

83. NO-- illegal immigration is NOT a crime-- you are wrong about this....

I'm sorry, but it simply isn't so. That was the intent of Sensenbrenner’s immigration bill-- to criminalize illegal immigration, but ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS CURRENTLY NOT A CRIME UNDER U.S. LAW. I don't know how to say it any more simply than that. Illegal immigrants are NOT charged with any crime and do NOT enter the criminal courts. Illegal immigration is a civil matter only, on a legal par with failure to pay a small-claims debt, for example.

All this "illegal immigration is a crime!" stuff is nonsense. It simply is not true.

[PsN2Wind]

88. Illegally entering the country might be only a civil violation

However, it is a felony to present false documentation to gain employment. Use of a phony, stolen or made up Social Security number is a felony with a penalty of up to five years imprisonment according to the SSA website.

[mike_c]

90. so what are we objecting to here? entering the U.S. without docs...

...which is not a crime, or paying social security taxes under false pretenses? Anyone who does that, BTW, pays into the American social security system with no hope of ever benefitting from that system themselves.

[PsN2Wind]

108. There are those here comparing illegal entry

to speeding while driving, a misdemeanor. I was just making the point that using false documentation to gain employment ups it to a felony like drunk driving.
Actually I object to their illegal entry. While I strongly believe that the employers should be severely penalized, they didn't go to Mexico and kidnap these people here for forced labor like the slavers of our early history, but rather, said "Hey since they're here, we can hire them cheaper than legal residents".

[treestar]

112. Labels, labels. Speeding is more dangerous than violation

of immigration regulations. States can label offenses misdemeanours or felonies or violations, but each state is different on that.

At common law a felony was something the was punishable with a year or more imprisonment or death.

We just relabel everything a felony in our current society, because we are obsessed with drama and can't deal with anything that doesn't have the maximum possible label attached to it.

Thus using a false social security card is a felony - ridiuclous, felony should only mean murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, things on that order.

It's just prop-up trying to make it sound like a terrible thing to do. Geez, a murderer is the equivalent of one who crossed the border without a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa?

[PsN2Wind]

126. Using a false social security number is robbery

It's stealing a job from a person that could legally obtain it.
I'm sentimental in that I have a greater concern for my fellow citizens than the unemployables from other nations coming here to take their jobs.
Obviously you don't see the dangerous aspects of illegal immigration like those of us in So. Arizona, that are once again paying for the emergency treatment for a couple of dozen illegals that were injured, four killed, when the hauler rolled his vehicle a few miles east of where I live. This is a common occurrence in our part of the country.

[TahitiNut]

133. Under current law, a 1st offense is a misdemeanor and a 2nd is a felony.

It's like trespassing ... which is a misdemeanor under most cases and felonious if repeated and intentional.

See 8 USC 1325 ... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

[mike_c]

140. only under a recent Arizona state bill (SB1157) as far as I'm aware....

And I don't believe the governor has signed it yet.

Under federal law:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook16apr16,1,6553805.column?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

..."unlawful presence" in the United States isn't a crime; it's a civil violation of immigration laws. In practice, when illegal immigrants are found in the U.S., the government almost always deports them through civil proceedings rather than attempting an expensive criminal prosecution for the border crossing, which is often difficult to prove.

There's a glitch in the law, though, that affects immigrants who initially arrive through valid visas rather than a dash across the desert. Remember: Unlawful presence is a civil, not criminal, violation. That means it is not a crime to stay in the U.S. after your visa expires. If people overstay their visa, all the government can do is send them home.

The Arizona law might very well not withstand challange, and enforcing it would entail a major drain on the courts. Regarding that bill:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/04/12/bill_passes_applying_trespassing_law_to_illegal_immigrants/

The bill (SB1157) was sent to Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. She declined Wednesday to say what she'll do with it but her office later released letters from 12 law enforcement groups and officials, including sheriffs in three border counties, urging her to veto the bill.

The bill "represents an enormous unfunded obligation for state, county and local law enforcement," Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada wrote.

on edit: are there additional laws that I'm not aware of?

[TahitiNut]

142. Again, see 8 USC 1325

... at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

I believe the language emphasizing "civil penalties" is meant to distinguish it from military law. After all, we're dealing with an act that might, under some circumstances, be regarded as "invasion" - clearly something that falls under military law and the (interntaional) laws of war.

Interntaional borders are clearly a federal concern. Thus, the primary jurisdiction would be federal. Nonetheless, states have an interest and authority. I doubt some of the more reactive "states rights" laws proposed would survive a constitutionality test. There's more bark than bite in today's rhetoric on this issue.

[mike_c]

147. (a)(1-3) can rarely be proved once a person is already in the U.S....

...unless they went through the immigration process and misrepresented themselves-- that's why "illegal immigration" is nearly always handled as a civil matter under the "unlawful presence" statutes. Note too that (b) provides for civil penalties if the person is apprehended at the time of crossing. This law is meant to prevent immigration fraud rather than to be used against "entrants without inspection."

[havocmom]

144. Gee, all those people getting arrested for it and all

All those court proceedings...

Um, there are civil laws and breaking them are... oh, what is that word? ILLEGAL

[TahitiNut]

153. (grin) Our passions often carry us beyond the terra firma ...

... of the obvious. I can understand how the "What The World Needs Now Is Love, Sweet Love" advocacy can infuse us with Utopian images of erased borders and a rainbow of people hugging and sharing some weed. I can understand it because I share the core values.

At the same time, I also know how such "festivals of humanity sharing love" need to dig latrines and protect their fresh water supplies.

As an Idealist, I can sympathize with those who cast aside the reality of digging latrines and health codes in favor of dancing naked in the sun.

As a Rationalist, I treasure the image and work in that same sun digging trenches and waterways to make the dream possible in some indeterminate future.

For me, the 'trick' isn't choosing between the Idealist-me and the Rationalist-me ... but in amalgamating them. The 'illegal immigration' issue is where that flubber hits the toad.

Unless and until a five-fold program of (1) Correcting Mexico's oppressive neocolonial corporatist econmic system, (2) controlling international borders to assure a minimal degree of national integirty, (3) investigating, prosecuting, and heavily penalizing corporations engaged in the exploitation of undocumented workers, (4) enacting a strong living wage policy for all of our nation's workers, and (5) penalizing, not draconian(!), those who disrespect the laws of the very nation they claim to beefit from ... until then, we're doomed to revisiting this fiasco every 10-20 years and never achieving justice for the most-oppressed in our global neighborhood!

But I've said this before to deaf ears.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/110
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/215

[havocmom]

201. Yeppers

The dreamers still need infrastructre and that means some rules. The pieces have to fit together, sorta ;)

[treestar]

94. Exactly. n/t

[TahitiNut]

146. Up to six months in jail, under current law, sounds more serious than

... speeding "5 mph over" to me. :shrug: :eyes:

Look ... trying to read more into "civil" (as opposed to military) or trying to spin using such terms as 'administrative' (like perjury??) just doesn't lead to objective reasoning. The current federal law provides for "up to six months in jail" for a first offense and far greater on repeat offenses. Distingushing between an illegal immigrant and the Wehrmacht is how France knew it was being invaded and a "civil" penalty wasn't called for, OK?

[mike_c]

166. c'mon, TN-- that's for immigration fraud and can almost NEVER...

...be applied in cases of unlawful presence. To prosecute under 275(a)(1) it is not sufficient for the gov't to say that no record of lawful entry exists-- the prosecution must prove that an unlawful entry actually occurred, i.e. it has to prove the manner and time of entry in order to show that it was unlawful, and that is almost never possible in the case of economic migrants. This immigration law is used to prosecute immigration fraud, not undocumented workers.

[TahitiNut]

168. It's for "improper entry" as the title clearly states.

The burden of proof is clearly more convoluted than a traffic offense, and that's one of the reasons that such cases are handled (1) administratively, (2) specialized immigration courts, and then (3) under appellate procedures.

Nonetheless, the penalties are clear: "... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

Let's be even clearer - since this is the specific law targeted by various proposals in Congress and it's some of those proposals that have fomented tomorrow's "boycott," it's contorted in the extreme to pretend at the same time this law is somehow irrelevant - i.e. that such an act is not 'illegal.'


Attempting to engage in some hyper-contorted argument that there's a material legal difference between 'entry' and 'presence' falls flat on its face when you consider laws regarding burglary and trespass. It's abundantly clear that laws enforcement is not limited to capturing the miscreant with half their body on the outside and half their body on the inside.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tenshi816]

196. Do you not understand the definition

of the word "illegal"? I've stayed out of the debate so far because feelings are running so high on DU these days, but to say something that by definition is illegal isn't doesn't make sense.

In any event, "civil" law refers to disputes between individuals (including businesses). It's illegal to violate clean air, clean water, and hazardous waste laws too, but it happens all the time. Do you also see those instances as "administrative faults", and as such something that should be ignored?

[mike_c]

199. of course I understand the definition of "illegal...."

The problem is that it's being thrown around rather indiscriminantly with regard to undocumented workers.

(oops, link is up thread and it's too late to copy it)

"...unlawful presence" in the United States isn't a crime; it's a civil violation of immigration laws. In practice, when illegal immigrants are found in the U.S., the government almost always deports them through civil proceedings rather than attempting an expensive criminal prosecution for the border crossing, which is often difficult to prove.

Furthermore, as several have emphasized throughout this thread and the others about the immigration issue, the argument that "illegality" is sufficient to justify persecution of undocumented workers is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Not long ago it was illegal for black children to attend school with whites. It was illegal for women to vote, or to have credit in their own names. It was illegal for unmarried people to cohabitate (and I think it still is in some states). It was illegal for Jews to operate businesses or own property in 1930s Germany. It was illegal for black south africans to travel in their own country without a pass from the authorities. It is presently illegal for Palestinians to live on their own land in Israel. It is illegal for women to travel without the permission of a male family member in several conservative muslim countries, or to appear in public without covering themselves. And so on. Is "legality" alone sufficient justification for denying human rights under any circumstances?

"Legality" is not sanctified. Another DUer elsewhere in this thread aptly described "legality" as nothing more than politics that the police enforce.

So yes, I understand a great deal about the meaning of the term "illegal."

On edit-- it's also worth noting that "illegal immigration" is the inflammatory term that politicians-- especially RW politicians-- use to scapegoat undocumented workers. The INS uses the term "unlawful presence" to describe them, and "entrants without inspection." They are almost NEVER charged with crimes when caught-- never tried, never sentenced. Rather, they're given a free ride to the border. Remember that old Cheech and Chong schtick about traveling to the Tijuana wedding?

[flordehinojos]

5. would it have anything to do with giving shelter to human beings who are

being persecuted in their own lands? suffering from starvation?

would it have anything to do with paying back what white settlers did to native americans?

would it have anything to do with looking for oz and the land of plenty?

[WinkyDink]

7. Mexicans are being persecuted? News to me.

[flordehinojos]

12. i wonder how AG ALBERT GONZALEZ might answer the question.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. Non "squirter," unless you have facts to bring to the table.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Time to tell the truth.

Not all immigrants that come to this country automatically have liberal, humane, tolerant opinions of others. In fact, one of the big problems that our local governments encounter is in housing. They have inspectors/investigators who go from apartment housing to the other to see if there is any evidence of prejudice and what they've encountered is that black Americans are more discriminated against than any other race. Even Mexican Americans who are in control of deciding who is allowed in the apartment complex are showing a penchant for it, favoring people who originated from their own provinces back in Mexico. And if we're having trouble breaking prejudices of white Americans, what chance do we have when minority groups start ganging up on one another?

So, any Pollyanna view that this is going to be easy needs to be addressed right now, because this is going to be anything but easy.

[WinkyDink]

70. Chinese and Iraqis aren't marching in droves; it's Latinos.

The National Anthem was just written in Spanish.
But I know many immigrants are from elsewhere.

Nevertheless, about my previous post, if there is evidence of political persecution of Mexicans by the current Mexican govt, I'll gladly change my opinion!

ETA: This is in reply to #29 post.

[The Backlash Cometh]

95. The best argument I've heard about Mexican persecution on Mexicans

in Mexico is that NAFTA backfired.

That, and any place that is as corrupt as the government of Mexico in relation to drugs probably has a lot of bodies buried.

What that comes down to is this: America's policies are creating a lot of the problems. If we control the ports and improve border control, we can probably help decrease the impact of the drug trade. And NAFTA needs to be rehauled.

[oldcoot]

29. Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico

For example, I have read reports about Chinese immigrants trying to immigrate to the United States and being returned home. Although I do not know if these individuals fled China because they were in immediate danger of persecution, but China is definitely repressive.

[tenshi816]

206. Good luck with that.

I brought Chinese immigrants up in another thread recently, only to be told that they didn't have the same "historical" link with the USA that Mexicans did, never mind that the Trans-Continental Railroad wouldn't have been built in the 19th century without the hard work of Chinese immigrants brought over for the express purpose of working on the railroads.

There are immigrants of many nationalities to the United States. Are we now deciding that some immigrants are more important than others?

[mike_c]

100. google "chiapas" for a start....

eom

[Saturday]

13. That's what Bush would have us think about Iraq too. n/t

[flordehinojos]

16. yes and right now it is bush who is persecuting the iraqis in their own

land. he wants their oil.

[still_one]

36. but they are being exploited also

This is more for corporate America to keep their costs down then for humanitarian reasons.

As far as what white settlers did to Native Americans, are you suggesting that the illegal immigration issue is due to that?

[flordehinojos]

110. no. however. white settlers almost did wipe out our Native Americans. They

certainly made them second class citizens, looted and occupied their lands, and rounded them up in "indian territories"--something i see as akin to our current "free speech zones" --stay within the circle and nothing will happen to you; stay in your territory and nothing will happen to you, while the white man roamed free on INDIAN (NATIVE AMERICAN) land.

it seems there is a lot to atone for.

[The Backlash Cometh]

200. Here's the list of second-class citizens in the U.S.A.:

American Indians
People of Hispanic descent
People of African descent
Quakers
Homosexuals
Uppity white women
Environmentalists
Democrats and in particular, Liberals.

Anybody in one of those groups breaks a law and their ass is hauled to jail. But a white male Republican can wipe his ass with our Constitution and nobody wants to call him on it.

So, if you're going to claim that we're being unfair to Mexican illegals, I'd say, tell them to get in line with the rest of us, 'cuz we're all second class citizens in this country. Legal or illegal.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. We have a romantic view of tired, poor, hungry yearning to be free.

And when we had a vast wilderness to populate and Indians to overrun, it was a policy that was acceptable. But now, every corner of this country is spoken for and there are no more rubble reservations to push the Indians back into, so you might say, the bubble has burst on the immigration thing.

[ixion]

9. See Statue of Liberty

thanks.

:-)

[Saturday]

11. The Statue of Liberty....

stands for LEGAL immigration.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Legal to who?

Did the native Americans who were forced to live on reservations consider it legal?

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. So you suggest anarchy? Should we disband the USA?

Is it not now a sovereign country?

[ixion]

30. not anarchy... just the arcane concept of nation

which ultimately goes back to tribe.

I'm a humanist, though, which makes me something of a leper. ;-)

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Unfortunately, we're looking for real solutions to real problems,

and we are a long way from reaching the point where we can do anything based on "because it's the right thing to do." Unfortunately, doing the "right thing" opens up the door to bigger problems. I guess that's what they mean when they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[treestar]

116. What problem? How have you been harmed?

You wanted a job picking lettuce?

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. Just out of curiosity, what side of the argument do you think I'm

arguing?

[NNN0LHI]

32. It was a country formed by committing Genocide. Ain't you proud?

We sure can't let them Mexicans back here after we stole it fair and square by slaughtering millions of people now can we?

:patriot:

Don

[ixion]

39. exactly. if any view is 'romantic' it's our history of 'how the west was

won'.

It was 'won', purely and simply, by killing anything that stood in the way. :-(

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. And the same thing happened in latin America.

In some ways, it was worse because the Church even condoned treating the indians as slaves because they weren't considered much different than pack animals.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Oh, puhlease. WAKE UP!

What do you think the Spaniards did to the indians when they came to the new world? Most Central and South Americans are descendants from the same evil process that you seem to be condemning. And yet, do you think there isn't in those countries a form of snobbery for those who can trace their lines back to Spain?

There does seem to be a little duplicity in your point of view.

[NNN0LHI]

52. Them other people committed Genocide so nah, nah, nah, nah, nah

You know, for some reason that doesn't make me feel any better about our situation at all.

To be quite honest I find it strange anyone would take solace in such things.

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Solace? I call it reality.

I wish I could see things your way, but I know that the Pollyanna way of seeing things doesn't solve the real problems we have to deal with today.

[treestar]

114. Extreme overreaction

No one said that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. It's the only way that you can achieve the near promise of

open borders without civil war. Over-exaggeration is claiming that this country needs to be returned to the Indians. I agree we owe them billions, but realistically, what your side is trying to achieve can only be accomplished with another war.

[Saturday]

23. See The Backlash Cometh's post above.

Pretty much sums it up.

[NNN0LHI]

33. See my answer to BC above

Pretty much sums it up.

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. Unfortunately, we'll need more than philosophy to get us through this one.

[treestar]

97. In the days of Ellis Island, there were almost no restrictions.

People on their high horse about how their ancestors came legally are too laughable.

Try coming today.

[treestar]

101. Delete

other foot. Great job offer in Canada and you're there whether it's legal or not.

Would you really forgo an opportunity out of respect for some other country's immigration regulations?

LOL, I think not.

Not to mention that the average Mexican who comes can barely understand the regulations. They have some vague idea that it's hard to get here (pay the coyote), that they work here, and that they would like to "fix their papers" there just doesn't seem to be a way to do it anymore.

[The Backlash Cometh]

131. Are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

Get your facts straight:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/e_ellis.html

The Ellis Island restrictions were ten times worse than anything we can muster up today.

[The Backlash Cometh]

138. Added: Check out the numbers that went through Ellis Island:

"Between 1892 and 1954, more than twelve million immigrants passed through the U.S. immigration portal at Ellis Island, enshrining it as an icon of America's welcome. That story is well known. But Ellis was also a place of detainment and deportation, an often-heartbreaking counterpoint to the joy and relief of coming to America."

12 million in 62 years versus 12 million in five years.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Very well said.

[henslee]

22. Actually, I am suprised this profit seeking Admin. has not tried charging

immigrants lets say... 5000. per person a year to stay here. I bet thousands would cough up the money.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. How do you know that indirectly one of the Bush cronies aren't making a

profit? You have Cheney and Bush classifying information and Bush ready to give our ports away to foreigners. How do you know there isn't a libertarian style trade going on with illegal immigration or sex trade or drugs that isn't in some way tied to this Administration or their cronies?

[AndyA]

19. "Illegal immigration" says it all. ILLEGAL.

Anyone who wants to live in America and be a citizen must abide by the laws of the land. PERIOD. No exceptions. To sneak in for whatever reason is starting off on the wrong foot.

I don't profess to know the answer to the problem, but to just allow everyone to stay is wrong. I have friends who paid their way, and took their turn, to become an American citizen. They did what they were supposed to do, and they are very upset that exceptions might be made to allow others to circumvent the process.

I saw a news story on TV about a family of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A husband and wife snuck across the border 15 years ago, and have had two children in America since that time. Neither parent could speak a word of English. I find that offensive. If I were going to move to a foreign country, I would expect to learn their language. That would be one of the very first things I did. But these people didn't even care enough to learn how to speak or read English.

As I said, I don't know what the proper action would be at this point. Allowing illegals to stay, however, should not be an option.

If they want to be Americans, that's fine, but they need to start off by abiding by the laws of the land, and not expect that exceptions will be made for them.

[jmaier]

98. I'd warrant that the vast majority of U.S. ex-patriots

have limited, if any fluency, in the local language. Of course, excluding Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand.

Acquiring language proficiency, as an adult, is not a simple task. I perfectly understand why it doesn't happen. Of course, those who do not simply penalize themselves.

[mike_c]

193. fifty years ago you could have said the same thing...

...about black people moving into a white neighborhood in America, or black children going to schools meant for whites. Legality is not sanctified-- it's just "politics enforced by the police," as someone else in this thread has aptly stated. A hundred years ago it was illegal for women to vote. One hundred and fifty years ago people of color not only could not own property in many states, they were property. It was illegal for native Americans to speak their own languages.

These laws were changed, but was enforcing them proper and just until then? Was it enough that it was illegal for women to vote? Was "illegality" alone sufficient justification for denying them fundamental rights?

The argument that illegal immigration is "illegal" and that's all we need to know about that is intellectually bankrupt, IMO. It was illegal for Jews to own property or conduct a business in Germany once. Obeying the law was the essence of being a good german.

[tularetom]

21. It's not OK but it is a fact and it will continue

until the US becomes an undesireable place for people to illegally immigrate to. When all the amurkin jobs have been outsourced no one will want to come here to find a job. So, see? Bush does have a plan to deal with illegal immigration. Send all the jobs somewhere else and let those countries worry about the problem.

[treestar]

96. Right, and those laws can be changed to be more in touch

with reality.

Human migration is a fact of life, always been, always will be and most of us are here because of it.

[MADem]

24. Since he was selected, Mistah "Jawbone OPEC" has left the door open

He cut funding for border security, reduced personnel and assets along the border, failed to do anything even after NINEONEONE WHICH CHANGES EVERYTHING, and now, he's SHOCKED, SHOCKED that there are people who have no jobs at home coming here to earn slave wages...but any wage is better than none, isn't it??

He put a loaf of bread in front of a starving man, turned his back, and now he's surprised that the loaf has been eaten?????

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. WHY HAS NO ONE POINTED OUT THAT BUSH'S ANTI-TERRORISM

POLICY IS A FRAUD? I mean, how could you have so many illegal immigrants slip over the border during his two terms and still claim that Bush was on the ball protecting us against terrorists? Is Bush claiming to vouch for the 12 million that crossed over? Did he interview them? Did he investigate each one of their backgrounds? How is that possible?

[MADem]

41. Because it is FAR EASIER to BLAME POOR PEOPLE!!!

They are less likely to fight back, usually--though once again, Georgie was too clever by half. They aren't going quietly. They see what he is up to: Oooops, ah failed ta pertect the borders....heh, heh....so let's go beat up on them Juan Valdezes an' blame THEM...besides, heh heh, the economy's 'bout ta tank, and all-a the unemployed 'Murcans kin git the jobs that the Messicans use-ta have after we kickem all out, heh heh!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. I'm not sure you're fully focusing on the point I'm making:

Bush had two policies in effect that basically worked at cross purposes. One, he had cut a deal with Vicente Fox to take on Mexico's social overflow problems; and Two, he was strong on anti-terrorism. These two goals worked at cross-purposes. You can't have one, and accomplish the other. In essence, Bush's cronyistic relationship with Fox prevailed. All he did was weaken the border patrols and look the other way as people came in mass.

So why didn't the Democrats jump on this? Had they done it sooner and pointed out that Bush wasn't paying attention to the Mexican border they would have shown that Bush was not protecting us from the likelihood of even nineteen of those 12 million being Al Qaeda.

This was an Achilles Heel for Bush on two fronts. First, because it proves he isn't tough on terrorism, and second, because now we have so many illegal immigrants in this country that they now are becoming a political force. And if anyone thinks that this isn't going to impact on anybody's life in a negative way, well, they're drinking the Fuschia Kool-Aid, not the Red.

[MADem]

62. But the Fox deal PREDATED Nine Wun Wun, ya see

The door had already been cracked open, the guards sent elsewhere. And Monkey was busy planning a WAR, ya see.

The Democrats didn't jump on it because THEY'D have been jumped on like a poor Hindu bastard mistaken for Osama bin Hidin' on 9/12. The meme was "support the nitwit, no matter what." Anyone who criticized ANYTHING, even the selection of soft drinks in the White House soda machine by the Press Room, was excoriated and called unpatriotic.

Of COURSE it is Bush's Achilles Heel, but my point was that it serves no purpose to blame the workers. Blame the Monkey-fuundraising, Monkey-voting small business, and large business, owners who HIRED THESE PEOPLE en masse. Blame the Lexus-driving, tax-break getting, Monkey-voting suburban types who hire Manuela the Nanny, Luz the housekeeper, Maria the cook, Jose the gardener, and Luis the pool cleaner under the table at HALF the cost of doing it fairly. It's so easy to live rich, when ya pay poor!

I cannot get behind blaming victims. These folks would NOT be here, in the loving bosom (hack, wheeze, choke) of the American family were it not for simple economics. Yes, you can "blame" Vicente Fox, but he's only doing what HE CAN GET AWAY WITH. Who doesn't want to toss their troubles over the fence??? Hell, we ship our garbage to undeveloped nations....the ultimate irony may be that the garbage we dumped could turn into an energy asset!

And sure, IT IS A PROBLEM. But the way to solve it ISN'T to put cops in riot gear rounding these folks up. How about tossing a few employers in jail instead? And fining them a couple of thousand dollars, which will be used to send their former employees home in comfort, with a little nest egg so they can get on their feet back home? Now that's some JUSTICE I could get behind....

[The Backlash Cometh]

91. I don't see it as an either/or situation.

There are three problems on the table.

(1) How does protecting our border impact on National Security issues? Is there a valid National Security reason for regulating LEGAL immigration and not condoning illegal immigration?

(2) Should we take on Vicente Fox's social problems and let in massive numbers of Mexicans in as open policy?

(3) If we're serious about stopping illegal immigration, do the millions or so Betsy Campbells who intentionally hire illegal immigrants to do their housework for them have as much to blame as those mean old corporations?

Non-Sequiturs to put them all in the same handbag. Deal with them on an individual basis first and be as consistent as possible.

[MADem]

130. Of course there are

**Border protection IS national security.

**Immigration IS a national security issue.

**NO, we should NOT assume Fox's problems.

**The Betsy Campbells, along with the corporations, need to be jailed, heavily fined, and stripped of their comfortable lives. It needs to HURT THEM to break hiring laws, and hurt them badly. Hang a few of 'em, and the problem goes away--Slobbo McLexus and Susie Dayspa will either have to pay full freight and fair wages, or mow the lawn themselves, care for their own kids, clean their own pool and homes, and cook for themselves as well.

What immigrant in their right mind would stay here if there was no work? Like I said, the scenery isn't anything to write home about in the areas where they are living and working, the weather sucks in many localities, and the natives are damned unfriendly.

These people are water, seeking their own level. And the people HIRING them are the friken aqueduct. Take the employers away, and the problem goes away, too.

People in this country thought the world would end when the Irish, the Italians, the Poles and the Jews arrived. And back then, to get in, all you needed was a letter from a relative SAYING they'd support you until you found work (they didn't actually have to DO it, and many didn't) and you needed to appear healthy when ya got off the boat.

The world didn't end back then, either, but those groups DID wrest power from the Brahmins...some of whom never got over it!

[The Backlash Cometh]

137. Oh, and things are so much better now, aren't they?

I think we live in the days of global warming, and to say that there is no accumulative effects to over-population is simple self-denial.

And I've got news for you. Illegal immigration isn't a problem that is limited to Mexico. Take a look at Massachusetts and you'll find a lot of Irish illegals. I'm sure there are large numbers of illegals from all nationalities. The difference is that they're not marching in the streets.

I think this issue has been pushed to the surface by their sheer numbers and it is an indication that we have reached a tipping point.

[MADem]

169. Uh, DUUUH....I pointed out the Irish problem on a thread a few months back

They're everywhere, and they've assimilated, and they are keeping their heads down. Bertie Aherne was at the WH with shamrocks on St. Paddy's Day, begging the chimp to do something "compassionate" about the lads and lasses, if you recall.

And we've a massive BRAZILIAN problem here as well, AND a Guatemalan problem, AND a Haitian problem, AND a Chinese problem, AND a CAMBODIAN problem...

But no one hangs around a well when the water's dried up, do they? That's MY point. You won't dry up the well until the punishment falls on the people doing the HIRING, not the people looking for a leg up and some dough to keep their families alive.

Targeting one ethnic group for the ire isn't gonna cut it. They are only doing what anyone else would do--go where they can make some money. Just like the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, and the Jews did in years past.

[The Backlash Cometh]

171. You brought up a good point.

The Mexican illegal immigrants may have stirred up the pot, but when the boom falls, it will fall on everyone. There is no way that any laws against illegal immigrants will only be directed to Mexico born illegals.

[Teaser]

27. Well, Illegal Immigrants

wouldn't be here without it. And we're all very glad that you're here.

[enfield collector]

38. a worker that has lost their job because an illegal has undercut them

might disagree with you on that.

[still_one]

42. one thing for certain, it does keep the employers costs low

which implies that if they paid a fair wage, and had good working conditions perhaps Americans would try for those jobs.

[MADem]

47. And who should be faulted for that?

The EMPLOYER, who hires the illegal...not the employees!

Yet all of the weight of justice, and attending outrage and scorn, comes down on the people who would NOT BE HERE were it not for employment??? I mean really, if you come from a sunny climate, with beautiful countryside, a rich, embracing culture, you're gonna go to some of these cold, gray, shitty cities for the SCENERY??? Naaah, they are there because, and ONLY because, some American EMPLOYER will cheerfully break the law, screw his fellow citizens out of gainful work, and hire someone on the cheap so the EMPLOYER can be personally enriched.

I just think that the BLAME with regard to this issue is completely misplaced. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, people gotta eat....and if there were no employers willing to break the law, these people would not risk life and limb to get here. They just wouldn't. Except for economic opportunity, they REALLY aren't that into us!!!!

[enfield collector]

165. I don't blame them for wanting to leave the corrupt hell-hole

that mexico has become, and I know it is the gready employers here who are taking advantage of them that are to blame. however they are negatively impacting legal citizens here and that isn't right.

[MADem]

177. The blame needs to be placed squarely on those CAUSING this situation

The employers.

You can't blame a starving man for grabbing at food placed within his grasp. You can blame employers who cheerfully encourage desperate people to come and work for slave wages, who flout the law, who foster this sort of thing, so that they can enrich themselves on the backs of the poor and desperate.

[NNN0LHI]

57. I have been on strike and have had other LEGAL citizens come scab me out?

They crossed my picket lines to take my job. None were Mexicans either. Its very common. Perhaps you just weren't aware of it?

Don

[shenmue]

31. It's not.

:dunce:

[mrbill]

35. because my little town had a major hailstorm.......

need about 1000 new roofs.

[still_one]

37. I assume you are from Gainsville

I hope no one got hurt

[mrbill]

48. bingo - gainesville, texas

one big mess.

no one reported hurt.

the garbage department is going to need to add some extra help.

an amazing storm, zero visibility.

[still_one]

54. I wish everyone down their the best

from what I read it was an unbelievable storm, 100 mile per hour winds along with hail the size of baseballs

Take care

[Minnesota Libra]

53. Apparently illegal aliens are OK because we expected.......

.....the opposition to follow the rules while our side does as they please. It's called hypocrisy and everyone is guilty of it sooner or later.

[Mr_Spock]

58. Is this a "miss the point" post with too brief a question?

I vote "yes"

[still_one]

61. I want to know the arguments why some people believe

illegal immigration is ok?

Some believe for humanitarian reasons, some believe it keeps the cost of our food and other services down. Is that justification alone for illegal immigration, and if so, then why don't we change the laws?

I am pretty much convienced that most politicians on either side of the issue would prefer not to address it.

[mdmc]

60. ok as in not terrorism

people come to the USA to make their lives better. They work and improve their communities. They obey the law. They are the epitome of America and the American dream.

[still_one]

67. I agree with your premise

but why not go through the legal process?

Employers exploit the illegals, Americans want the cheaper prices, and everyone is happy, right?

Look at abramhoff and delay in the mariana islands. They forced legislation so the products produced there would have a Made In USA label on them, even though they did NOT have to abide by US law, exploited the workers with sweat shop conditions, and much worse

[mdmc]

75. there is no legal process to follow

it would take two decades to follow the "legal" route. Why not "just do it" as an illegal.

Think of it as pot smoking terms. People should not smoke pot illegally. They can go to Amsterdam and smoke. This would be legal. But it would cramp a stoner's style (it would be hard to smoke everyday if you had to travel to Amsterdam to do it).

There is a legal process for smoking herb here on earth, it just is not feasible to do so.
There is a legal process for immigration, it just is not feasible for latinos.

Hope this helps. Peace and low stress

[still_one]

181. Actually your premise is not that far off

There would have been no progress on civil rights if people didn't resort to civil disobedience

The key is that it doesn't get violent, and that is very hard to control with strong feelings on both sides

[mdmc]

214. Thank God it was not violent

peace!

[mdmc]

99. made in the usa

[mdmc]

163. your answer is here

[mdmc]

175. ...

:cry:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

63. It's not-but those being punished are the wrong ones

The ONLY reason illegals come to this country is because they are able to earn money here. The real criminals are those people who hire illegals, in enterprises both legal and illegal. You will never stop the flow of illegals here as long as they can get more money here than they can at home.

[still_one]

68. You explanation makes the most sense to me

[wildflowergardener]

64. I don't think it is

I don't think illegal immigration is OK.

It's not fair to the people who do come in legally.

I'm a landscape architect, and I know at least one small landscaper who does alot of work for us that is upset because he does not hire illegal immigrants, does a great job, pays his employees fairly, and he has to compete with people who hire illegal immigrants and can do a job for less because they are hiring illegal immigrants - and loses jobs to them. How can small business who follows the rules, hope to compete with someone hiring illegal immigrants? They need to enforce laws against businesses who hire them so the small business who wants to compete legally has a chance to.

Also, how can we keep track of possible terrorists coming into the country, if so many can come in illegally. I guess the answer is, we can't.

Also, I assume they do not pay income taxes, which is not fair to the rest of us who do. I could be wrong here - but I think I've heard that - I guess if you did, you'd get caught so I don't know how you could.

I don't know the solution, and luckily I don't have to make the decisions, but if they are allowed to stay I think they at least need to be paying taxes and be paid the same wages as legal immigrants - that way there won't be as much incentive to hire illegals because you won't be able to get them cheaper. But first I think there need to be enough jobs for people here legally before you start allowing them to go to people here illegally.

I don't know if this is a popular opinion here or not (I've not been following the issue enough to know what the democrats opinion is on this) but this is my opinion.

Meg

[still_one]

69. I have heard that Ceaser Chavez was not happy

about illegals. He was working to establish a fair wages for farm workers in California, and illegals brought those wages down

[alarimer]

72. Those who hire illegals should go to jail

That would dry up the jobs and force all the others to hire legal workers. Every business would be on the same playing field. And those who hire illegals would learn their lesson by losing their business. End of story. The punishment has to be harsh because it is business that is driving illegal immigration. Throw a few rich assholes who hire illegal nannies in jail too.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Think of it as free trade for labor.

If capital can be borderless, free to move anywhere it needs in order to maximize profits, why not labor?

[still_one]

71. That is an interesting view

and our standard of living will definitely go down

[Warren Stupidity]

198. It already is going down.

But eventually there will be equilibrium. The way the current system works, that equilibrium is pretty much guaranteed to be the worst possible deal for the working people of the planet. Workers are penned up in their quaint obsolete nation states as chattel labor for the elites, who are free to roam the planet with their piles of loot looking for the best opportunities to exploit us. Why is that? Why is capital free to roam, but labor trapped, locked up, regulated at every turn?

I say we, the working people of this planet, need to recognize our common goals, our universal desire for a safe and comfortable life in a sustainable economic system. As the old saying goes, workers of the world unite. Until we recognize that we have more in common with the Indian high tech worker in bangalore, with the chines factory worker in the rotten industrial districts of China, with the mexican american laborer, than we do with Bill Gates and Halliburton and The Carlyle Group and the Saud family, until we start acting together to push wages and benefits up across the planet, to demand sustainable environmentally sound economic infrastructures, to demand a fair deal foe every person on the planet, we are doomed to be pawns in the endless game the elites play, pitting us one against the other, with all of us losing as they just get richer and richer and richer.

[Seabiscuit]

74. Sounds like the latest right-wing "talking point".

Ask a facetious question which raises a non-issue to divert one's focus from the real issues.

[still_one]

185. really, you do not think this is an issue

There will be a strike tomorrow. I believe you will see an effect business because of it.

It is also a moral issue from all sides. THIS IS NOT A FACETIOUS QUESTION, people's lives from all sides are involved

It is one of many REAL ISSUES

[Seabiscuit]

210. Nope. No one is saying "illegal immigration is OK"

The issues are: "what are we prepared to do about illegal immigration" and "what are we going to do with the 12-20 million illegal immigrants already in this country".

The question you asked is the kind of question the neocons always ask on Faux News, etc., falsely implying that anyone who doesn't want to turn the 12-20 illegal immigrants already in this country into felons (and do the same to anyone who "helps" them in any way) thinks "illegal immigration is OK". It sets up a strawman just to knock him down so they can ram home their neocon agenda.

I'm surprised you can't see that.

The message of the protests on May 1 is *NOT* that "illegal immigration is OK." Its message is that bills like Sensenbrenner's are an outrage. Sure, current illegal immigrants have violated current immigration laws.
But that doesn't make them felons. Criminalizing them in the fashion Sensenbrenner's bill would, is like giving the death penalty to a jaywalker. The message is also that the Kennedy bill the Repukes killed in the Senate before the recess made sense.

[still_one]

211. Sensenbrenner is a racist pig

The solution they gave in the past was amnesty, which is not necessarily fair to those who have gone through normal channels

I do see your point how it is a loaded question, but in all honesty that was NOT my intention, and will not make that mistake again where a question looks like a setup. Point received, and well taken, Thanks

[Seabiscuit]

213. OK. Thank you for the gracious reply.

[NNN0LHI]

187. I think you may be on to something n/t

[Deja Q]

76. The workers pay social security tax but cannot make a claim to it later on

At least, until recently, the government loved this.

Free money.

So, what happened to incite such change? Why be all huffy and "rule of law" when to quietly ignore the problem would do them better?

[havocmom]

80. When I was growing up, we had the bracero program

And their SS benefits were to be held in a special account for those workers. Can't recall if the US or Mexico held the account. But they are now wanting to get their $$ and NOT having much luck. And we don't seem to be hearing about that pertinent fact much do we?

Yep, they are exploited several times over. I am all for rounding up illegal EMPLOYERS as they are real bastards exploiting poverty and desperation... all the way to the bank

[Deja Q]

87. You mean, go after the cause of the problem and not the symptom?

You can't be serious! That's not wholesome West style thinking, now is it? :rofl:

[havocmom]

143. Yeah, how silly of me. What was I thinking?

That logic addiction of mine gets the better of me too often.

[gratuitous]

78. Short answer: It's not. Happy?

Because here's part of the longer answer:

Thanks to the rapacious neo-liberal capitalistic practices of big money and large corporations, people in their own countries are being forced out of their homes and trades that they've occupied for centuries. I'll give you just two for instances:

Mexico used to have a thriving sugar industry. No fewer than 60 producers, employing many, many folks. Then Coca-Cola and Pepsi decided that sugaring their non-nutritional drinks was just too darned expensive, especially when the United States government so heavily subsidized the production of high fructose corn syrup. So Coke and Pepsi began undercutting Mexico's sugar industry, selling high fructose corn syrup as a food additive sweetener. Mexico now has zero (that's right, none) sugar companies. Where do you suppose the sugar workers went? What were they supposed to do?

Next, and this one's also from Mexico, the Mexican government, under big pressure from Nestle, granted a license to a Vietnamese coffee firm to import coffee. At first blush, it looked like a truly coals-to-Newcastle move, as Mexico has never imported so much as a coffee bean, let alone grant a foreign grower a license to import coffee. The domestic price that coffee brokers were willing to pay slumped from two pesos a kilo to a peso thirty, then 80 centavos a kilo.

Did the Vietnamese company bring in any coffee? It did not. But the threat of cheaper Vietnamese coffee spooked the Mexican brokers, who were unwilling to offer their countrymen a decent price for coffee because of the chance that cheaper Vietnamese coffee might flood the Mexican market. Unable to make a living anymore growing coffee, what are the growers supposed to do? And the pickers who harvest the crop. And the drivers who bring it to the roasters. And the roasters and the blenders who make the market-ready product? Where do they go? What do they do?

Now, multiply these rapacious practices by the thousands, by other large corporations in concert with corrupt governmental officials who are lining their own pockets with kickbacks from the profits, and what possible alternative does a poor, uneducated peasant from the Mexican countryside have?

In addition to these problems, there are the problems of corrupt foreign officials, apartheid-type policies (for oppression in Mexico, I suggest you start by interviewing the indigenas in Chiapas), death squads, civil insurrection, and the whole panoply of problems that have been going on in these countries for decades. It would require leadership from our country, cooperation with other nations, giving large corporations like Coca-Cola and Nestle the raspberry, and a willingness on the part of the American public to pay a few more shekels for its lettuce or its coffee. All of which are in remarkably short supply.

But until we're willing to address some of these difficulties, people will continue to leave their homes and their families and risk their lives to come to the United States so they can scratch out a living. They can't do it where they live now, and it's partly our fault for our addiction to cheap goods from foreign manufacturers, our support of short-sighted xenophobic political leaders, and our desire for easy unidimensional answers to difficult questions that integrate several dimensions of our modern lives.

That about cover it?

[mike_c]

150. best response in this thread IMO....

Bravo! :applause:

[NNN0LHI]

189. Everyone needs to read that post n/t

[B Calm]

82. Cheap labor cons like working people over a barrel and desperate

to work for cheaper wages. Call them illegals or republican guest workers, it all comes down to one thing CHEAP LABOR!

If they build a 10 foot high fence along the border, the republicans will put 20 foot wide gates every 20 yards to allow their guest workers in.

[ContraBass Black]

84. Wow.

That's the tallest straw man I've seen in a long time.

[slackmaster]

85. It's not, but what would you do if you were in their shoes?

:nuke:

[treestar]

92. It's more OK than murder and robbery

Or sending young people off to die in a necessary war. DUI, speeding, violation of environmental regulations, all more dangerous.

It's not "OK" it's illegal. We don't enforce our own law very well, or can't.

We have a crummy set of laws anyway, and they need to be changed to accomodate economic realities.

[AlphaCentauri]

104. OK because

if you are a political refugee who refuse to fight for your own freedom you can be a hero but if you are a desperate hungry poor then you are a terrorist

:sarcasm:

[mdmc]

106. yo - happy one year anniversary at DU

peace!

[AlphaCentauri]

119. Tank's, How time flies!

:)

[El Fuego]

107. Apparently because "They're people." That's what I'm hearing here.

The fact that person-hood gives you carte blanch to ignore whatever laws you want is news to me.

Maybe I'll try that one next time a cop pulls me over for speeding. "But I am just a PERSON! I have to drive fast to get to work on time so I can feed my family! You can't give me a ticket!" :cry:

[mike_c]

113. you just don't get it, do you...?

Is it because you can't understand the difference between "getting pulled over for speeding" and immigration without documentation, or is it because you simply refuse to understand the difference?

For about the umpteenth time in one of these immigration threads-- speeding is a crime, but "illegal" immigration is not. Speeding is a misdemeanor, but it is nonetheless a violation of state criminal codes. Crossing the border "illegally" is a civil matter, on a par with missing payments on a debt or pissing off your neighbors by not mowing your lawn. It's a nuisance, not a crime. Illegal immigrants are not charged with any crime, and they are held only in administrative detention pending deportation-- at which time they are free to go-- they are NOT arrested pending criminal justice proceedings.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit frustrated, but seeing this bogus reasoning time after time is getting to be too much. DUers are usually better informed than this.

[AlphaCentauri]

123. well said

:thumbsup:

[El Fuego]

139. See the actual law in my other post.

[El Fuego]

135. No, YOU don't get it, and you are totally WRONG. Here's the law.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

275 ENTRY OF ALIEN AT IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE; MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
SEC. 275. <8 U.S.C. 1325>

(a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(IT'S A CRIMINAL NOT A CIVIL MATTER. I WISH DU'ERS WERE BETTER INFORMED)

(b) Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter)

the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration

officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry), or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

(IT'S ONLY A CIVIL PENALTY IF THEY ARE APPRENDED WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN)

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) An individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.

276 REENTRY OF REMOVED ALIEN
SEC. 276. <8 U.S.C. 1326>

(a) Subject to subsection (b) any alien who-

(1) has been arrested and deported, has been excluded and deported, or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion or deportation is outstanding, and thereafter

(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed,or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter

(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this or any prior Act, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case of any alien described in such subsection-

(1) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(2) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; or

(3) who has been excluded from the United States pursuant to section 235(c) because the alien was excludable under section 212(a)(3)(B) or who has been removed from the United States pursuant to the provisions of title V, and who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, and imprisoned for a period of 10 years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "removal" includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.

(c) Any alien deported pursuant to section 242(h)(2) who enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reentry) shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the time of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised release. Such alien shall be subject to such other penalties relating to the reentry of deported aliens as may be available under this section or any other provision of law.

(d) In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien may not challenge the validity of the deportation order described in subsection (a)(1) or subsection (b) unless the alien demonstrates that

(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order;

(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and

(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.

[mike_c]

145. 275(a) does not usually apply to "illegal immigrants"...

...because the U.S. can rarely prove the statements in 275(a)(1-3) UNLESS immigrants are apprehended during the crossing, in which case 275(b) applies in most instances of economic migration. Once they're here, Section 275 rarely applies unless they actually went through the immigration process and misrepresented themselves.

Simply being in the U.S. without a visa is a civil violation only. Such "unlawful presence" for "entrants without inspection (EWI)" is covered by section 212:

The law defines 'unlawful presence' at section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) as follows: '..an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled'.

[El Fuego]

154. If not, what exactly does it apply to?

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers..."

The law is there, obviously it is subject to interpretation by the INS, DOS, and the courts, also the discretion of law enforcement.

I googled a little about 212(a), and it seems to apply only to those individuals who are in some way "on the radar" with their identity and presence being known to authorities. If someone has entered the U.S. and gone entirely underground, I don't think they have "unlawful presence" status, just from what I read.

[mike_c]

157. it is designed to prevent immigration fraud...

...i.e. to prevent misrepresentation of the immigrant's circumstances, reasons for immigrating, smuggling in connection with immigration, and so on. It is almost NEVER applied to economic migrants such as undocumented latino workers. Proving the statements in (a)(1-3) is very difficult when someone has not committed willful immigration fraud, but rather has simply entered without inspection.

Remember too that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. An immigrant does not have to prove that they entered the U.S. at "a time or place..., designated by immigration officers," rather the prosecution has to prove that they did otherwise, and simply saying that no record of their entry at such a place exists is NOT proof. In order to prove (1), the gov't has to prove when, where, and how an immigrant actually did cross the border. That is almost never possible. This law was not written to prevent undocumented workers or to prosecute them after they were caught-- it was meant to prosecute people committing immigration fraud, and that is just about all it is used for.

[El Fuego]

164. Sneaking across the border in order to avoid border patrols

is arguably immigration fraud. Supplying no information can be said to be equivalent to giving false information. Again, there is no end to how you can interpret these laws.

If the law is selectively applied so that "economic migrants" are not included, that is only government complicity with corporations and other parties who use them as slave labor.

[mike_c]

167. but it is not enough to simply say that someone...

..."snuck across the border." The gov't has to PROVE that they snuck across the border, and the defendent does not have to prove anything. That's why this law is almost NEVER applied to undocumented workers-- that's not selective enforcement, it's practical logic. If someone successfully "sneaks across the border" the gov't has a damned difficult time proving 275(a)(1) because they cannot document how it was violated.

[El Fuego]

170. The way I see it

IF there is no record of them coming in through an entry checkpoint, and

IF they didn't come in with a tourist or other visa,

They must have snuck in. How else could they have got here?

That seems like common sense, but I don't expect common sense to apply in the legal system.

[bluedog]

158. Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) federal felony for assisting

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.


more
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

[mike_c]

160. this is the law that targets employers of illegal immigrants...

...and to prosecute human smugglers.

An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien's illegal employment. Any person who within any 12-month period hires ten or more individuals with actual knowledge that they are illegal aliens or unauthorized workers is guilty of felony harboring.

on edit: it could probably be used to prosecute people like me as well, since I actively "encourage" illegal immigrants to work in the U.S., even though I have never provided any actual material support directly to illegal aliens.

[slaveplanet]

161. speeding is

an infraction. Which is NOT a criminal violation, and you do not have to attend a court in criminal session. If you don't pay, or enter plea by the prescribed date, or contest at traffic court then you are in contempt (failure to appear) and the matter becomes misdemeanor.

mike_c wrote:
--------------------------------------------
Speeding is a misdemeanor
--------------------------------------------

Speeding usually only becomes a misdemeanor if a certain percentage is exceeded or if you spin your tires, pop a wheely, etc,etc...

Then it becomes exhibition of speed, reckless... etc, etc
Then it usually is criminal, and you have to attend a criminal court session.

[mike_c]

162. ok, but that doesn't alter the essential point ...

...that the poster's arguement that if unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a "crime," then he can simply tell a cop that he can speed whenever he wants to, or some such nonsense.

[still_one]

183. ah, but the crime may be terrible working conditions, and explotation

[mike_c]

192. but illegal immigrants are just as much victims of that crime...

...as American workers. And in any event, punishing THEM for it is utterly unreasonable when the real culprits are the employers who exploit ALL workers' desperation to pit them against one another in a race for lower wages and worse working conditions.

[still_one]

203. I agree with you, and I was referring to the illegal immigrants

who have no recourse

[Robbie Michaels]

202. I'm Glad You Said This, Mike_C

I'm getting fed up with the disinformation on this topic myself. I can post all the links refuting the stereotypes of "they don't pay taxes, they drain our social services, etc." but no one on either side of the political fence wants to listen.

Fuck it. I'm done talking about this topic on DU because it's like talking to a brick wall.

[AlphaCentauri]

122. if you are speeding while there is no cop around?

could you consider your self a criminal for braking a civil law?

[mdmc]

151. there are lots of immoral laws that need to be overturned

it was once illegal for blacks to vote. Their humanity (and the constitution) gave them carte blanch moral authority to oppose this law.

[treestar]

109. Somehow I think it would be OK with you if the shoe were on the

other foot. Great job offer in Canada and you're there whether it's legal or not.

Would you really forgo an opportunity out of respect for some other country's immigration regulations?

LOL, I think not.

Not to mention that the average Mexican who comes can barely understand the regulations. They have some vague idea that it's hard to get here (pay the coyote), that they work here, and that they would like to "fix their papers" there just doesn't seem to be a way to do it anymore.

[El Fuego]

117. No, I would go to Canada LEGALLY.

You've got to be kidding me. OF COURSE I would respect the other country's laws. If someone doesn't, and thinks that's "LOL" laughable, they're a low life.

I know plenty Canadians who work here seasonally, and they are all here legally, and stay only for six months because they respect the laws of both countries.

And do you think a Canadian employer would even hire you if you were there illegally? Please, that is ridiculous. And haven't you ever heard of a "Work Visa?" The 9-11 terrorists were here with work visas. If they can get one, I'm sure anyone can.

[mike_c]

121. "Would you really forgo an opportunity..."

Especially when your family is starving? Anyone who answers that they'd watch their children die while they waited for a visa that they knew would never come is either lying, or seriously deluded.

[tjwash]

129. I wouldn't actually say they were lying or deluded.

More realistically, they are just fat and comfy in the knowledge that their shit doesn't stink, and that the economic situations of hyper-inflation, the top one percent buying off a completely corrupt government to bend all the laws to suit their needs and maintain the status-quo, and jobs being lost to a cheaper country's competitors could never happen here.

Oh, wait...

[Vinca]

128. Actually, if the 'pukes stay in power, I plan to emigrate to Canada

and I would never for one second consider slipping across the border and playing instant Canadian. There's a reason for immigration laws and I'm annoyed as hell that people on this forum who understand the meaning of the words "legal" and "illegal" are billed as racist. Quite frankly, I think it's more racist to encourage undocumented immigration by sanctioning the masses who are here today. Why? Because as soon as the current batch of "illegals" have the wand waved over them to become "legal," they'll be persona non grata to big business. If you're legal, you can make demands of employers . . . just like Americans used to. What will happen then? When employers can't hire Juan for five bucks an hour and no benefits to shingle a roof, Juan will be in the unemployment line with the Americans. Big business will hire more people smuggled across the border at $5.00 an hour. It's like hamsters on a treadmill. There's a curious similarity between exploiting people crossing the border illegally and trucking them across the ocean on ships as slaves. Legal immigration and secured borders are not bad things. The first response to this post will be "you can't eject 12 million people." The second will be "go after the employers." I agree and neither will happen. At this point we should focus on securing the borders.

[mike_c]

134. it's easy to be superior with a full belly and healthy children....

But would you hesitate to "play instant Canadian" if you were in the shoes of most illegal immigrants to the U.S.? If that was the only hope you had of providing for your family?

It's easy to be "legal" when you actually have some hope of achieving legal immigrant status and the pressure isn't too awful.

[Vinca]

184. Well, that's an interesting comment.

When my husband and I were married some 30 odd years ago, we had $6.00 between us. We lived in a rented, 10' x 50' trailer home for $100 a month. Neither of us had family to fall back on and we made the choice, early on, that since life might turn out to be a real struggle, it would be prudent to remain childless. It did and we did, working 2 jobs all the while. Despite your "superiority" comment, not all posters on this forum are ensconced in McMansions and secure in their futures. Life is a struggle and I don't want to deprive immigrants of an opportunity for a better life. I just want them to get in line so the poor individual in Darfur who's been on the list for 5 years can come first. Why is that so bad? I'm also puzzled about why the Mexican people, in particular, wouldn't want to put their enthusiasm into improving Mexico. It's a beautiful country and I don't see anything especially noble in them abandoning it. Just my opinion - I'm sure you'll flame me.

[mike_c]

191. no flames, and I was in precisely the same situation....

...right down to the rented trailer in West Virginia. I would have crept across any border to get out of that kind of poverty, and compared to what the average indigenous Mexican endures, our poverty was luxury. It's easy to criticize them when we are here and relatively comfortable. I've had YEARS when I didn't know where the food for the rest of the month was going to come from, but it usually came from somewhere, and apart from a really bad couple of months 30 years ago I've never consistently gone to bed without having had enough to eat that day. I've usually had shelter, even when it meant periods of couch surfing, and my family never lived on the street or in the woods.

But if I were a Mexican with no prospects, and believe me, the notion that "legal" immigration prospects exist for poor brown laborers is completely false, I would have little respect for rich men's borders-- not while my children were hungry. I'm not flaming you, even if you feel otherwise, but I don't really believe that you would act differently in their place any more than I would.

There's an excellent response up thread about why Mexicans don't simply stay and fix their own country, which IS beautiful and rich in resources. Between American exploitation and homegrown oppression, Mexicans have been kept impoverished for generations. When your belly is empty and your children are starving, the path of least resistance often leads across the northern border, and while you might WANT a better life in Mexico, it isn't likely to come fast enough to save your family. So you go to America. Can you really blame them? I can't. There but for the grace of god....

[liberaliraqvet26]

115. Its not OK

[OregonBlue]

136. I want to go work in Mexico. Will they allow me to just waltz in an

take a job without any paperwork?

[corporate_mike]

156. No, but if they did, you'd be paid $5 per day

[Donald Ian Rankin]

148. I've heard two sorts of argument used to justify it.

The first set boil down to the claim that the current US immigration laws are bad, either because they are unjustly harsh to individual immigrants or because the country as a whole benefits from immigration, and thus don't deserve to be obeyed or supported.

The second set of arguments that justify, if not illegal immigration, then opposition to opposition to it, are that while illegal immigration is immoral, the degree of suffering caused by most measures against it would be greater than could be justified by the good they'd do.

For what it's worth, I have a lot more sympathy for the second line of thought than the first: I think that US immigration laws *are* too harsh, but that to justify not obeying it a law has to be not merely bad but very bad, and that while immigration may well be in the interests of America as its population ages, most of the benefits are lost if that immigration is illegal, and hence the immigrants aren't registered and don't pay taxes, vote etc.

I also think that the laws on immigration ought to be changed to the point where obeying them *is* immoral and enforcing them strictly *is* justified. If you want something to be tolerated, the solution is to make it legal, not to have laws against it which aren't enfored. I can sympathise with the position "for now, we ought not to enforce the law because it is bad", but only if accompanied by the position "and therefor we ought to change it to the point where strictly enforcing it can be justified, and then strictly enforce it".

[still_one]

182. You bring up some interesting points

It could be argued that civil rights would not have happened if Rosa Parks, and others did not violate what was the law in the south at the time

Obviously, the best course of action is laws that work and are fair

[mike_c]

159. people debating this question should read Salon's proposal....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1064574

This really gets to the heart of the issue IMO.

[rucky]

173. That's not the question.

The debate is this: What are we going to do about it?

Millions are marching because they want to be treated with dignity & respect.

It's that simple. That's why the movement is so big (and scary to those who do not treat immigrants with dignity and respect).

[bluedog]

188. they are marching for AMENSTY.....n/t

[rucky]

209. I'm pretty confident a policy that doesn't involve prison...

would be reasonable. They'd be willing the jump through the hoops if there is citizenship (or permanent residency) at the end of the path.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

174. Because freedom of movement is a basic human right.

You don't like it here? You can leave.

[Lexingtonian]

176. A rule that is only very selectively enforced

and cannot stand up in court is, whatever the piece of paper it's written on and sanctimony of opinion held about it, not strictly speaking a law.

You cannot actually reconcile present immigration law and enforcement with integrity with the civil rights guarantees of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

I've had a lot to do with immigration. I've come to the opinion, as a lot of people in the business itself have (and it simply is a business), that the laws as they stand are just politics in statutory form. If you study immigration law historically, the statutes simply manifest society wide racisms and contemporary economic pressures.

Immigration is a matter of judgment calls. There are people in positions of power who make Constitutional ones, and there are people who make unConstitutional ones.

Does that mean 'illegal immigration' should be condoned? No. But every argument that starts with the term 'illegal immigration' begins with the pious, but stupid, inherent assumption that immigration law as it stands has the standing of law and principle rather than merely being a form of political opinion that the police enforce.

Segregation was similarly a set of bad laws on a wrongful foundation, likewise pretended to be Constitutional. It also met a social need of its time. It was nonetheless a legalized travesty and not worthy of piety or compliance.

[bridgit]

179. illegal immigration is not OK, we have jobs/they need jobs, i have...

no problem with any of that. the problem i have is that the corporate/job offering climate is such that no questions are required of these folks, so they simply fall into their various communities, again i have no problem there either; but they circulate unchecked and without any further desire to verify their doings in this country, jobs or no...

it was ronald reagan's smart-ass idea to make everybody, every LEGAL person in america produce a picture ID & a SS card...or a green card/work visa, to prove who they were before they could gain employ here; as an IC i have to do that far more than i care to. i guess he was figuring that whomever couldn't prove a reason to be here 'legal & ready to work' would create a group of folks he could point to and say, "sorry but, you are not found legally worthy to work here" yet another republican idea that simply didn't work that's all...

folks who are here illegally should not be led, by either their corporate employer/handlers, or their legal advocates; to believe that america is some hugh-ass, free flowing, no-laws-zone, wherein you are able to do whatever the hell you personally need to do. that is simply not the case.

[Pathwalker]

180. If it was good enough for our FOREFATHERS, it's

good enough for us? Why DID our forefathers illegally immgrate into this country?
:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

186. no no-- it was all legal-- they made TREATIES with the legal residents....

Well, with the ones they didn't just murder outright. And everyone knows that treaties have the force of law, and that real Americans would never do anything ILLEGAL, right? And let's see, wasn't most of the American SW part of Mexico until Polk annexed it by force in 1846? Sarcasm aside, it really is a shame to see so much sanctimony and righteousness about protecting American interests in these immigration threads.

This is in fact one continent with a bunch of shifting and ephemeral political divisions, most maintained for somebody's power and profit rather than for the good of the people. Latino working people are our brothers and sisters, no less deserving of a decent life than Americans. All of this talk about marginalizing them as "illegals" sickens me. It reflects very poorly upon Americans, IMO.

[B Calm]

194. Illegal or Republican Guest Worker, to me they are both the same.

They both have the same goal to work as cheap labor for cheap labor cons, thus bring down the cost of all labor!

[Nikia]

208. I may not agree with specifics, but guest workers could be useful

There are already guest workers in the United States. They are hired by comapnies that have a temporary need for increased labor, like companies who process vegtables after the harvest. They must meet certain requirements, including advertising the position to American workers before seeking out foreign workers. If there are more comapnies and positions which qualify under these laws, more people should be granted temporary labor visas. I think though that comapniese with permanent positions should do more to attract American labor like paying more or offering low cost housing in areas where it would be too expensive for low wage workers (or even middle class) to live.

[Cleita]

195. Nobody says it's okay. What's not okay is that these people

are made illegal by outdated legislation and quite honestly unfair legislation. Do you feel that unjust laws should be followed to the letter?

Remember that there are two illegal factors here, the employer as well as the employee. There is a solution here, to raise the immigration quotas so that the immigrants are not working illegally and the employers are not hiring them illegally.

The workers then will have rights and when they have rights like to minimum wage or to join unions other American workers will benefit from this instead of being undercut on their jobs as they claim. Although I have yet to see some convincing studies that this is in fact true and not just another RW talking point being spread by Rush, Sean and Bill.

[B Calm]

197. I know a manufacturing company in Indiana

where over half the workforce is Mexicans. Many people who live in the area tried to gain employment there, but...

[Nikia]

207. Are there some companies that don't try to get workers w/ visas though?

There are at least a few companies in the area where I live that work with immigration to get legal temporary workers from Mexico with visas. These are temporary workers that help process agriculture products. Many of these comapnies triple or quadruple their workforce during their busy season and do need a lot of temporary labor.
Do companies who hire illegal labor even try to do this?
The number of visas given out should increase if there are more qualified companies with qualified positions. If that is done, we must hold companies to the letter of the law. They cannot just avoid following proceduares because it would be more expensive or require extra effort.

[DanCa]

205. I am for a humane immigration policy

The minute men are not the way to go damnit.