Who the HECK are YOU to Condone ILLEGAL Activity, Lowered Wages, & Strains

[Dr. Jones]

Having read the original post of the rather popular thread started by poster "matcom," I simply wanted to provide a counterpoint thread to discuss the REALITIES of illegal immigration.

What I see here so often is excessive idealism and a refusal to acknowledge the reality of what illegal immigration has done and continues to do to our country. I admire their hearts for people, but we need to look BEYOND the emotional aspects of the issue and seriously consider the ramifications of allowing undocumented (illegal) workers to come across our borders.

I am still surprised that so many here have completely ignored the "illegal" in "illegal." Illegal is doing something that is against the law. We found out recently that Abramoff has done something illegal, and he will be punished for it. Those who cross our borders without the proper authorization and paperwork, sneaking into our contry via tunnels, trucks, and river crossings, are doing so ILLEGALLY. And as some legal immigrants have said here, this illegal manner of entering the United States - and then to be granted de-facto amnesty for having done so - is a slap in the face to all who did it the proper, legal way.

I find it inconsistent that we Democrats should be seekers of truth and justice, and yet we let our emotions trump all common sense. Why is that? Why on this one issue we cave?

One can read story after story regarding how illegals have put a tremendous strain on our healthcare and social systems. Hospitals, clinics, and doctors are overrun with illegals in our southern border states. This causes EVERYONE'S costs to go up!

WE pay the price.

One can also read story after story regarding how illegals have come into this country and have usurped the jobs that American middle class workers have done for years and most certainly WILL DO. The only problem is, these hard-working American middle-class workers cannot do these jobs anymore NOT because they WON'T, but because they are LOCKED OUT due to vast numbers of illegals working for lower pay. So now we have illegals doing the work that Americans WILL do, but greedy anti-American companies who only care about the bottom line are replacing Americans with these lower-paid illegals who are doing it for far less pay.

The middle class no longer has their traditional cushion they've reverted to in the past in times of unemployment. Lost your factory job? Sorry, no jobs anywhere else. Those are taken up by lower-paid illegals. Lost your construction job? Sorry, can't get in there either. Contractors are only hiring illegals (case in point, New Orleans reconstruction) who, because of Bush repealing the statutes that previously forced these contractors to pay fair wages, are paid far less than Americans would have been paid to do the job.

WE pay the price.

What effect does this have on wages? It pushes wages down. So thanks to lax immigration laws and the hiring of illegal workers by greedy companies, we will ALL see our salaries go down to compete with these illegals. It's the WAL-MARTIZATION of the American workforce going on, right before our eyes.

WE pay the price.

Is it the fault of companies who hire illegals? Absolutely! But whose choice was it to come across the border in the first place? Did someone threaten them with their lives if they didn't pack up and sneak across our southern border? I don't think so. Despite their circumstances, there IS indeed a modicum of personal responsibility at play here.

Who is standing up for the American worker? Whatever happened to the Democratic pro-labor stance? I thought we were FOR the American middle class worker! Am I wrong? Have things changed and I just didn't get the memo?

My point is, this pie-in-the-sky "Oh, let's just let everyone come into our country illegally, that's what we need!" philosophy is simply unrealistic and idealistic. Maybe it'll hit you when you lose your job and you find out you've been replaced by a lower-paid illegal worker. Maybe it'll hit you when you find out you'll have to sell your house now because your wages have been lowered due to illegal immigration and you can't afford it anymore. Maybe it'll hit you when you're homeless and debt-ridden because the bankruptcy laws now force you to pay some of your debts back. How you gonna pay that debt back when you're making only $5.50/hr? Maybe once you realize all this, you'll cry out to Congress to DO SOMETHING! But it will be too late.

I tell you this - you WILL feel it in the near future if things don't change, and soon.

[acmavm]

1. Don't try using logic and reason when dealing with this issue. Doesn't

work.

[Dr. Jones]

4. Hmph.

n/t

[mdmc]

2. we are all humans

it should be legal to immigrate to the usa.

[Dr. Jones]

5. It IS legal if done LEGALLY.

That's the point. It's already legal, it just has to be done the proper way.

We have our laws in place for a reason. The creators of those laws knew the ramifications of illegal immigration and what it would do to our economy, healthcare system, and social structure. We would be overwhelmed!

[mdmc]

18. perhaps the legal method is not efficient

in some ways, smoking herb is legal. If you are rich, and you do not have a criminal record, you really are not in any risk of going to jail for smoking herb. If you get caught, you pay a violation. You can probably plead your violation down to an even smaller "transgression", and continue to have no criminal record.

Since it is public policy not to jail rich pot smokers, pot smoking is kinda (KINDa) legal.

Immigration should be legal. If you desire to jail someone, perhaps the "coyotes (people runners)" should be cracked down on. I would support that.

The law should always be followed, except when the law is immoral. I think that the immigration laws are immoral.

[mondo joe]

39. It would be immoral for any country to not manage immigration and

border security.

[monktonman]

29. OK Jonesy

how bout just flinging the gates open and letting the ENTIRE WORLD imigrate to america??
The real reality IMO is that the only thing wrong with the whole issue is having a boarder in the first place. How about for once, america lives up to its real ideals and offers an open and unconditional hand of hope for all people.
Oh my go its the end of the world. My paycheck is shrinking. It must be those brown people.
I know, I know I must be one of those way far left libruls.

[Cobalt Violet]

48. No actually you sound more like a right-wing kool-aid drinking...

Anti-Labor pro-slavery corporatist.

[monktonman]

53. ok dude

how you got that from my post I'll never know but keep reachin.

[Dr. Jones]

58. You do realize that you're citing Bush policy...don't you?

The reason Bush has not secured our borders...the reason Bush condones illegal immigration...is because they are working on a unified borderless Canada/U.S./Mexico as the new Western trading bloc to rival the EU.

Think about it. NAFTA...CAFTA...and soon the FTAA...it's coming. And you may just have your wish.

By the way, I'm growing weary of the "brown people" remarks. Race really has nothing to do with this. If it were white people I'd be saying the same damn thing!

[monktonman]

59. why arent you complaining about CANADA????

[dogfacedboy]

108. Canadians aren't illegally sneaking across the border in droves.n/t

[monktonman]

61. I suppose John Lennon was probably a Bush guy as well?????

Imagine

[Dr. Jones]

64. Just saying that Bush has been promoting the same

open borderless policies you are pushing for.

Could this be another Bush/Republican trap? Because so many here seem to be falling for it. :cry:

[monktonman]

65. ok so if we agree on somethin

then I should change my mind???? How does that make any fucking sense??
What I'm really saying is that I'd like to see all borders dropped everywhere.
I dont think bushie is saying that.

[Dr. Jones]

71. Bush IS saying that..

furthermore, look at NAFTA, CAFTA, and the forthcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). All promote an abolition of our borders - EVEN WITH CANADA. This IS Bush policy and will be a reality one of these days. I'll try to find a link to this...but certainly you can start off by typing FTAA into your favorite search engine.

[monktonman]

75. Thats not the question I asked....

What I'd really like to know, and perhaps some other DUers could help me with this, is if Bush says the sky is blue and I know the sky is blue should I change my mind just because he said it?
I mean I wouldnt want to appear like I was agreeing with him or anything.

[LunaC]

105. "The creators of those laws knew the ramifications"

And it was the creators of those laws that failed to enforce them, knowing full well "what it would do to our economy, healthcare system, and social structure"! Cheap labor is an integral part of the Capitalist plan. The Wal-Martiniztion of the American work force has already occured and we're obviously overwhelmed, but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The best we can do is put the cap back on so we don't cause more of a mess.

[mondo joe]

16. There is a legal process by which to immigrate.

But the USA is not obliged to accept every person on the planet to immigrate.

To the contrary, we have an obligation to manage that process.

[EVDebs]

35. Robert Samuelson's Newsweek article Hard Truth of Immigration

Robert Samuelson's Newsweek article

The Hard Truth of Immigration--
No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many of them are poor or unskilled workers.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8100266/site/newsweek/

[Dr. Jones]

74. Absolutely!

Precisely my point.

[mdmc]

119. that is not true

we can do it , America! Have faith in God.

[Dorian Gray]

23. It is legal to immigrate to the USA.

But, we can not sustain unchecked immigration. That is why there are yearly quotas. Like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world.

[mdmc]

28. I believe in world citizenship, in a human collective

I understand your quotas, and your need to check immigration. We can do better (the new dem party mantra). :)

[Dorian Gray]

34. I like the idea that

we can all be citizens of One World. That we all belong to this Earth, and that there need not be borders.

But, unfortunately, that flies in the face of human instinct and reality. I love the idealism, but it is impractical and the world would be a mess if we allowed it to happen. So, we need to find the best way to allow immigration in our country, allowing for the best outcome. Jobs and health and "wealth" for all. It's a difficult order, and what we have going on now is not working for us. Turning a blind eye indefinitely to illegal immigrants doesn't help either.

I do think that we need to streamline the immigration policy and allow for higher numbers, particularly from the Latin American countries, to immigrate here legally. Or to have temporary work visas that they would have to re-apply for on a yearly basis. But, in a fashion where it would just take a day and not MONTHS to get that permission to work. (That's how it worked in Hong Kong when I lived there.)

[smirkymonkey]

42. Also, what is wrong with the countries that immigrants come

from - why shouldn't EVERY country take responsibility in providing their citizens with opportunity and a chance at a living wage?

Shouldn't we be putting our efforts into programs that help develop poorer countries so that they can be come relatively self-sufficient? I am not saying we should stop ALL immigration, but nobody looks at the core issue, which is why do immigrants have to leave their homelands in the first place? Shouldn't the leadership of the Mexico (and others) be held accountable?

[Dr. Jones]

80. Yes they damn well SHOULD BE!!

However, a well-off society does not make for desperate workers who are willing to work for low wages and no worker's rights in order to satisfy the profit demands of global corporations.

I really am starting to see the picture now, and it's UGLY. It's the power of the corporations and the state over the people, collaborating in order to perpetuate an impoverished lower class who is desperate to work in any conditions. :cry:

[mdmc]

50. thanks for your post.

peace and low stress

[dogfacedboy]

106. It is legal.

There is a legal process. Follow the process, or no entry. Period.
Yes, we are all humans, but in the US, the US humans, ie citizens and LEGAL aliens, must come first. Dr. Jones is correct.

[mdmc]

120. that seems immoral

the law is sometimes wrong.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Wow something must be wrong with my computer

I thought I was at DU.

[nonconformist]

20. This can't be DU

There are champions of cheap labor all over the place.

[Cleita]

141. No one is championing cheap labor. We are championing

human rights. Creating an underclass of slave labor is neither humane, nor just.

[rockymountaindem]

25. And what, may I ask, is illeberal about supporting the working class

against those who would exploit foreign labor in order to pad their bottom line? Why should Americans be forced to accept a lower standard of living so that poor people from elsewhere, who have *broken the law* to get into our country, can live marginally better than they did at home?

I just don't get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. We are all part of the working class. nt.

[smirkymonkey]

46. You're not the only one...

I'm completely stumped.

[Lerkfish]

7. I have an idea: why don't we NOT take the rovian bait?

and relegate this wedge issue until AFTER the elections?

eh?


what say we?

[Dr. Jones]

10. Not sure it's a Rovian wedge issue this time...

becasue the Repubs know they have LOST the Hispanic community on this issue.

I heard on the news last night that they've put off any future Immigration bills until AFTER the election, and that's the reason why. So they can calm the Hispanic community down and get them to vote Repub again. I think the Hispanic community is smarter than that though.

[nonconformist]

27. Rove hates this shit

It exposes his boy for the corporate ass-licker that he is. It shines a bright light on the fact that Bush doesn't care one single bit about the American worker, and it brings much needed attention to the war on the middle class.

All they can do is attempt to frame the debate with racism and straw men.

[doc03]

57. Didn't some Democratic Governors declare a state of

emergency on our southern border?

[Cobalt Violet]

8. "Whatever happened to the Democratic pro-labor stance?"

The pro-slavery, pro-corporatists have placed the race card with it. And unfortunately it's working.

[mike_c]

9. easy solution....

Congress should pass a federal living wage law that applies to EVERY job in America, and require provision of health insurance meeting at least some minimum national standard. If businesses can't afford to pay it, they can't hire workers. Period. Then we'll see whether Americans step up to take the jobs currently dominated by marginalized illegal immigrants if employers can no longer exploit an underclass just because it's desperate enough to allow itself to be exploited.

Taking this out on the immigrants is not the answer. They're working people just like you and me, and they deserve the same opportunities as you and I. You would deny them access to the same benefits you enjoy because of an accident of birth? That's shameful, IMO. The problem isn't illegal immigrants-- it's wage slavery and exploitative capitalism.

As for your emphasis on the illegality of their status, that is easily fixed. Legalize them-- grant them amnesty. Voila! No more illegals. You see how silly that argument is? They're "illegal" simply because we say they are, not because they've committed any particular act that is inherently criminal.

[Dr. Jones]

17. Amnesty is NOT a good solution.

1: It's a slap in the face to all LEGAL immigrants who did things the RIGHT way.
2: The U.S. would be OVERRUN with illegals once word got out that America gives amnesty to illegals.
3) We would ALL be out jobs!! No kidding! Do you REALLY think "American" companies would hire Americans anymore?

[mike_c]

24. you conveniently ignored the actual substance of my response....

eom

[Warren Stupidity]

38. you expected anything else?

Instead the solution is a goddamn wall around fortres america and the mass deportation or incarceration of 11M+ people.

[QC]

41. Where does the original post advocate those things?

I seem to have missed that part.

[mike_c]

55. you seem to have missed a lot....

The OP is a fascist xenophobic rant. Remember, from the defining characteristics of fascism:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/14_Characteristics_Fascism.html

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

(snip)

9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

(snip)

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

[QC]

60. OK. How about replying to what he actually posted? Show him and us

the error of his ways. Give him such a thorough schooling that he has to flee DU in disgrace.

But don't try to convince someone who knows better that namecalling is any substitute for argument.

[mike_c]

67. ok-- why don't YOU respond to the substance of the comments...

...I've already made, since the poster of the OP seems uninterested in doing so?

1) Do you disagee that the fundamental issue is NOT illegal immigration, but corporate/business exploitation, and that ending that exploitation is more important than denying immigrants the right to seek a better life? Why?

2) Do you disagree that illegal immigrants are simply working people like you and I, and that scapegoating them for what amounts to an accident of birth-- where they were born-- is churlish and cold-hearted?

3) Do you disagree that a pro-labor stance should support ALL working people, not just your friends and neighbors, people who look like you and have the same cultural heritage as you?

4) Do you disagree that the primary issues raised in the OP reflect an overriding emphasis on scapegoating a particular minority class, protecting corporate power, minimizing labor power, and making law and order a more important consideration than humanitarian reform of a fundamentally unfair system-- unfair to American workers, especially the working poor, and to immigrant workers alike?

[QC]

73. OK, here goes...

1. Agree.

2. I agree that uncodumented workers are, well, workers. I do not agree, however, that citizenship is a mere accident of birth.

3. Ideally, yes, but as things stand in this country now, we are not even doing right by the working people who are already here. If your kids are hungry, you shouldn't be inviting the neighbors over for dinner. Reform the system, and then you can increase the numbers of legal immigrants.

4. No, I do not consider it scapegoating to be concerned about the impact of a large supply of cheap labor on wages. As for protecting corporate power and suppressing labor, it seems to me that the open borders crowd is more guilty of that than is the OP.

A question for you: do you believe that wages are exempt from the law of supply and demand?

[mike_c]

86. thanks for your responses....

I believe that the wage floor should be exempt from the law of supply and demand. Obviously it isn't because busnesses routinely seek to lower the wage floor by any means possible, including exporting jobs to countries with lower wage standards, fewer employee protections, etc. I regard that as human nature, but one of the basest and most unfortunate aspects of human nature. It's selfishness institutionalized and economically rewarded.

We regulate other aspects of human nature as a matter of course if they would harm society when given free rein, so why not regulate corporate ability to set wages as low as workers will accept? Labor has no real power in that regard unless it's organized-- otherwise the alternatives for individual workers are nearly always worse than the lowest wages offered by business. Frankly, I view wage and benefit reform as one of the most important issues facing labor. We cannot allow people to do business in the United States if their business can only be built upon the backs of employees driven into poverty.

Unfortunately, as someone points out down-thread, capital is not restricted by borders, so real labor reform in the U.S., including sealing the borders against illegal immigration, will simply result in the exportation of jobs to places where labor is cheaper. We're already seeing this happen. Again, working people are not at fault, no matter where they live or where they come from-- the fault lies with government and corporate business. THAT'S where our reform efforts should be directed, not toward further marginalization of working people, and not toward scapegoating immigrants and denying them the right to better their lives.

[QC]

87. Looks like we agree. n/t

[sadiesworld]

93. Labor power is being suppressed by the importation of cheap labor.

Whose point are you trying to prove?

[mike_c]

103. I disagree....

Labor power is being suppressed by lack of political will to regulate wages and other corporate practices in the U.S., combined with a largely unorganized labor force that lacks collective clout. If all illegal immigrants were expelled today and the borders were sealed, do you really think that would cause wages to rise significantly in cheap labor businesses, like the "hospitality" industry or corporate agriculture? Maybe some of the poorest of America's working poor would occupy some greater fraction of those jobs, but that's no solution to anything-- it just substitutes one exploited class for another. It's the equivalent of moving the maquiladoras to this side of the border-- more jobs, but only at the cost of driving more people into poverty.

Note too the comments down-thread about the border being permeable to capital in any event.

Again, I think scapegoating illegal immigrants for being more desperate than most American workers is not the answer, and excluding them will only cause corporations to drive American workers to similar depths of desperation. We shouldn't be blaming working people for this situation. The blame belongs with government and corporate business.

[sadiesworld]

132. Yes, if all illegal immigrants were expelled (which I'm not suggesting)

and the borders sealed, wages would rise significantly in a number of industries.

In 1964 liberal democrats in Congress shut down a temporary worker program and began taking border enforcement seriously. Oddly enough (or perhaps not) dems were galvanized by the activism of Cesar Chavez and Edward R. Murrow's Harvest of shame which documented how migrant workers' wages were being suppressed by the importation of cheap labor. From 1964 until 1981, the migrant workers made substantial gains in wages and benefits. In 1981 the valves were opened and cheap labor once again began to flood the market. Most of the prior gains have since been lost.

You can't have a labor supply willing to work for substandard wages and working conditions (and w/o the legal recourse to address those issues) and NOT have a substantial impact on wages. If we were to send boats to Africa or Asia and pick up scads of even more desperate workers, provide them with barracks to live in, a couple of squares per day, and $50 per week, would that have an impact on the wages being earned by illegal immigrants now? Would that even be remotely ethical?

[mike_c]

144. most of the migrant workers in Chavez's day were documented...

...either hispanics born in America or legal immigrants. The majority were in fact American born.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0323chavez.html

A years-long shift in the field workers' workforce from mostly American-born in the 1960s to mostly undocumented immigrants today has added another layer of challenges that has made them more vulnerable to unscrupulous supervisors, poor housing, deportation and job loss.

That shift also has affected farm worker advocacy organizations that once dealt with U.S.-born laborers. In Chavez's time, fights revolved around water breaks and short-handled hoes.

Today, advocacy groups are dealing with issues that U.S.-born farm workers rarely faced.

more@link

Also noteworthy, UFW membership in the industries dominated by illegal immigrants, particularly agribusiness, has declined dramatically:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ufw8jan08,0,6225953,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

In 2006, the UFW does not have a single contract in the table grape vineyards of the Central Valley where the union was born.

Nor does it have members in many other agricultural swaths of the state: The union Chavez built now represents a tiny fraction of the approximately 450,000 farmworkers laboring in California fields during peak seasons — probably fewer than 7,000.

Precise numbers have always been elusive in an industry dependent on transient, often undocumented workers. The physically grueling, minimum-wage work has historically been the bottom-of-the-rung job for the newest immigrants, today overwhelmingly undocumented Mexicans and, increasingly, indigenous people from the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Guerrero. Employers depend on the undocumented workers, who come north because it is so difficult to make a living back home.

more@link

All of which suggests to me that the biggest problem is perhaps correlated with the change in immigrant demographics but not necessarily caused by it: the real problem is that labor in the industries where illegal immigrants are most likely to work is largely unorganized, or ineffectively organized. The grape boycott and other UFW struggles during the sixties and seventies showed that an organized farm workers union could force employers to treat workers more fairly, but IMO it also highlighted the real tendency of corporations to do exactly the opposite unless forced by government or organized labor.

on edit-- I want to particularly stess that I don't believe the positive changes in farm workers' status during the 1960's were due to labor market forces, as you suggested, since the majority were not illegal immigrants at all, and so were not affected by "getting serious" about border control.

[sadiesworld]

145. Exactly, Cesar Chavez fought the importation of undocumented workers.

The UFW started losing effectiveness (and membership) when the floodgates of illegal immigration were reopened.

At the risk of sounding snarky, you are once again proving my point for me.

Well, I have a hallway to paint (no illegal labor for me!) so I must bid you adieu. Happy posting. :hi:

[Dr. Jones]

90. I'm not sure if ANY of those things you cited are good solutions...

but we certainly have to do SOMETHING, that's all I'm saying. The realities of illegal immigration are dire for our country, and something has to be done to curb it.

[JDPriestly]

31. I agree with you.

Anyone, legal or illegal should be able to sue for triple wages if not paid their due under a new minimum wage law. The only reason employers hire illegals is the low wages. If the low wages are subject to severe penalties, employers will hire Americans or at least people who speak English.

Also, unless here by marriage, people seeking immigration or work visas in most cases should be required to demonstrate some English fluency before being given their work visas. I have lived in various countries and speak several languages. Based on that experience, I believe that people should learn the language of the country in which they expect to earn their living. Besides, in this day and age of technology, people need to be able to read directions on machinery and other products they are to use in their work. I have a friend whose illegal cleaning lady was preparing to pour Drano into bucket and mop the floor with it. My friend stopped her just in time. I'd like to see the statistics on work-related injuries to illegal versus legal workers. By the way, I don't care where an immigrant comes from, what color or race they are. I just care whether they are legal or illegal and whether they can speak at least some English.

We tend to forget that depressed wages mean depressed income tax revenues for the government and larger government debt. The downward trend in wages will drag the whole country down.

[mike_c]

37. absolutely....

"We tend to forget that depressed wages mean depressed income tax revenues for the government and larger government debt. The downward trend in wages will drag the whole country down."

What many seem to be missing here is that the real beneficiaries of a "guest worker" law or any immigration reform are ultimately corporations who can continue to rely on a socially marginalized work force, whether they're illegal hispanic immigrants or whether they're working American poor. These are the same corporations that are already benefitting by the exploitation of that marginalized underclass-- illegal immigrants just happen to be the group most willing to allow themselves to be exploited in exchange for what are real benefits by their standards.

I've also heard people advocate using the American prison population to harvest crops, etc. In essence, solve the problem of an illegal immigrant underclass by replacing it with a slave class. Why can't people understand that the exploited folks are not responsible for this situation-- the exploiters are. Follow the money, if nothing else. Who really benefits by allowing employers to force workers into poverty? Society certainly doesn't benefit-- lower consumer goods prices are more than offset by general drag on the economy that results when fewer and fewer people have an income beyond the marginal survival level. That is the road to a third world society with affluent cities ringed by shanty towns.

[Cassandra]

11. This article by Thom Hartmann might be useful here...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-21.htm

" Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries. "

He makes some good points that do not demonize immigrants but look at what's behind all this and what kind of labor market we want to have in this country.

[Dr. Jones]

22. Thanks!

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

Great point!

[Cassandra]

33. Notice that Thom...

is less concerned about the illegality of the immigrants and more about the scandal of laws against hiring illegals being ignored, or enforced with a slap on the wrist for businesses.

[smirkymonkey]

56. Brilliant article...

This to me is the crux of the matter...

"There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico...Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!"

By continuing this we are not only driving down American wages, but we are supporting the continued dysfunction of the countries from which the immigrants are coming. Mexico has no incentive to change therefore, it's citizens will always be kept down and mired in poverty, while the elite continue to reap the benefits of it's cozy dealings with U.S. plutocrats.

[DanCa]

12. Let me work please

Look I don't know how to solve this immigration issue. I'll be the first to admit that it's beyond me. All I know is that I want a job. I hate disability insurance it's nowhere near what I used to make. I'll glad do any job that any American doesn't want to do. Unfortunately I can't find employers willing to employ people with young onset parkinsons disease.

[acmejack]

26. Thank you Danca

The jobs you & I can do are off shored.

[Dr. Jones]

30. You know, DanCa,

you are a model and and example for every callous, unfeeling Republican who claims Democrats "just feel like the government owes them something." I've heard a couple of Repubs say this and it makes me so damn mad! Goes to show, there's so many good, faithful, hard-working Americans out there!

You've probably thought of everything in terms of a job. The very first thing that came to mind is government work (City, State, & Federal) -they do employ the disabled.

[DanCa]

43. When I was first Dx'd in 2003

I fought like tooth and nails to keep my job. I was working in my college as a fitness instructor. They said simply put how can I train people when am constantly freezing and shaking all the time. I agreed and asked them if I could work on the phones or at least clean the equipment. There response was that I could get hurt working around the facility with my condition. It was so demeaning too this day I feel like going back their and smacking them with my baseball bat.

[Dr. Jones]

85. That was rude of them to do that to you.

The problem with these companies nowadays is that they are so callous and unacommadating! From my experience, I've found that companies consider workers as disposable. Last night on the news I even heard that they are now discriminating against pregnant women and firing them!

I think it was rude that they couldn't change your job position. Hell with 'em.

[SPKrazy]

13. So Make It Not Illegal, Don't Tie Guest Workers To Low Wages

and let these people who want to come here and work, work!

Stop the exploitation, but a line in the sand of the desert shouldn't be a reason to keep hard working, family oriented, honest people from coming to work.

We should allow more legal immigration, and enforce the laws about illegal immigration

[Redstone]

14. Do you eat fresh vegetables in the winter? If you do, you're the problem.

All your bitching and railing and moaning is worth exactly nothing if you contribute to the problem, personally, by consuming the products of "illegal-immigrant slave labor."

Funny, I see SO many people howling about the immigrants, but not ONE has, so far, pledged to stop eating fresh produce in the winter, when it's only in season in places like California, where it is picked and packed by...guess who?

Think about that when you pour the dressing on your dinner salad tonight, OK?

Redstone

[mondo joe]

19. Bullshit. Consumers don't do the hiring or wage setting.

Let the farmers pay a fair wage and set prices accordingly.

You'll see the sutuation correct itself.

[Redstone]

44. Bullshit. The consumers set the demand.

Yet another copout. Funny how nobody wants to accept any responsibility.

Redstone

[mzmolly]

49. When I eat veggies and fruit in the winter I don't encourage illegal

immigration. I'd rather pay MORE and support union apple pluckers personally.

Do you shop at Walmart?

[Warren Stupidity]

62. domestic agriculture competes directly with foreign agriculture.

There is nothing simple about this issue. We can raise wages here at home and enforce hiring laws and the elites will just take our jobs and ship them overseas. We could theoretically close the border (practically this is impossible, but never mind that) and then what? There are no immigration laws on capital. It flows across borders unimpeded, seeking the lowest wage, the least benefits, the greatest 'value' in exploitation of labor. Lets flog the bottom of the working class here, the 'illegals', lets deport them, incarcerate them, wall them out. But will that change anything for the better? I rather doubt it. It is the working class that is coralled territorially, divided against itself, fighting each other for a place at the table. It is the elites who have class solidarity. What a farce.

[mzmolly]

66. We need to deal with this from another angle.

We need to address outsourcing and other issues by enforcing trade agreements etc. We also need to remove the incentive for predatory employers to hire "illegals" by making them do jail time.

This issue can't nor should be about punishing illegal immigrants, however.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. Machines. n/t

[Redstone]

45. You think they wouldn't use machines if they could? They can't.

Redstone

[bluedog]

51. there are many machines that do the work

notice your lettuce in bags?...done by machine.....check it out..google web sites for farm machinery .machines do the work of pickers of much produce.......its the farmers that don't want to spend the money on them..

[mzmolly]

54. Are you claiming that EVERY fresh vegtable is picked by an exploited

worker?

[Virginia Dare]

15. The "people", including the Democrats, who support the

so-called "guest worker" program, either haven't thought it through all the way, or are blatently anti-american worker and anti-american taxpayer. The "guest worker" program is a lose/lose situation for everyone but the corporate fat-cats.

[specimenfred1984]

32. I Can Solve This Issue With 3 Easy Answers

1. Allow amnesty for all people currently in the U.S..
2. Tighten all U.S. immigration policy with strict limits on immigration from all countries.
3. Elect dems so they'll control at least one branch of the government.

The problem is our fascist government won't allow that to happen, they make way too much money the way it is now. That's why "*" lifted wage restrictions (Davis-Bacon Act) in the Katrina areas, why Wal-Mart hires "illegals", why Halliburton hires "illegals", why the elections are rigged, etc...

If workers are given legal status, they can form unions and other pro-labor orgs which would force corporo-fascist whores like the repukes in power now to at least act like they care about America and Americans.

As usual, the only way any solution will occur is to have democrats controlling at least 1 branch of government.

[calmblueocean]

52. Yup. It's not that hard.

I wouldn't call it "amnesty", of course -- there should be some payment of a fine as penalty for breaking the law. But I really don't understand why this gets discussed so endlessly. The solutions seem relatively simple and straightforward.

[thinkingwoman]

40. "excessive idealism"

In so many ways, "excessive idealism" is the root of all evil. :evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

47. "Illegal" is the key word. I'd rather open up the borders completely than

encourage illegal immigration by not punishing predatory employers.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

69. BRAVO! What excellent comments!

:applause:

on edit: there was nothing offensive in Cleita's response whatsoever. I do not understand why it was deleted. Presumably someone has decided to respond to rational and civil argument thru use of the alert button.

[Cleita]

77. I guess the moderator didn't think so.n/t

[mike_c]

79. I'm rather shocked by that....

:shrug:

[Cleita]

83. I did call a DUers name out, but so did the OP.

If that's why it was, this whole thread should be locked. But what do I know.

:shrug:

[frustrated_lefty]

89. Careful, you might hurt yourself if you fall off that highhorse.

Bringing up popularity as a factor in an exchange of ideas is loathesome. W. was pretty damned popular for quite a few years there, and, you, me, and everyone else were told "we" were "not" and we "should just get over it." In this particular instance, matcom's OP was primarily an emotional rant which managed to convey fuck-all beyond the fact that he's pissed about the topic and you're an asshole if you disagree with him. This gentlemen seems to be attempting to bring the debate back to, saints preserve us, actual thoughts which take into consideration facts, practicality, and the internal consistency--or lack thereof--of arguments routinely put forth on DU. Any reason or argument which you, madam, attempt to present becomes suspect in light of the manner you chose to present it.

This crap about misdemeanors vs felonies is ludicrous. You seem to suggest misdemeanors aren't really breaking the law. They're totally separate, right? Funny, abortion in SD is a felony, but domestic violence in many states is a misdemeanor. Do you really want to pursue that vein of thought? His point was we get high and mighty about abuse of the law when it suits our needs. Support for flagrant disregard for the law, in any instance, ought to be justified pretty damned thoroughly in light of that fact.

As far as the holocaust comparisons, they're beneath contempt.

I'd like to say I found your reasoning disgusting, but there is little evidence of reasoning it what you posted.

-fl

[Cleita]

94. All I have to say is enjoy the world you are creating for

yourself and your grandchildren. Remember that Big Brother may be watching you.

[nonconformist]

97. Our grandchildren are gonna be pretty pissed off

if we allow America to become a third world nation with a weak, tiny middle class.

[Cleita]

102. Then we will be Mexico, a nation in which five upper class

families reap all riches and everyone else is forced to subsistence. Why don't we just secede to Mexico so we too can enjoy all the benefits those immigrants are so stupid to leave behind.:sarcasm:

[nonconformist]

107. Or we could address the problem.

Put serious pressure on Mexico to improve conditions for it's citizens and workers.

[Cleita]

113. Yes, that is a better solution, but it's much easier to blame

an underclass with no rights for the problems created by employers and the Mexican government.

[mike_c]

146. like we're doing in Iraq...?

Exactly how do you "force" a foreign country to change at that level of culture, history, and government?

[frustrated_lefty]

137. Big brother may be watching?

Umm. Alright, I'll bite. I already know big brother is watching me, or at least has watched me on a few occasions. Just what exactly does that have to do with this subject?

As far as the world I am creating for my children and my grandchildren and on down the line for the next 7 generations, that actually has been a subject close to my mind and heart of late. It is actually something I'm trying to do something about, but be-damned if I'm going to try and discuss it here while the subject is so emotionally raw.

I would suggest that you take a 5 by 5 walk around the blocks surrounding your workplace, and count the number of homeless and displaced and disadvantaged you walk by every single day without doing more than spitting out memes about how unjust it is. And, if you can't be trusted to care for your brethren and sistren, then why the hell should any merit be attributed to your pc, self-righteous outrage regarding immigrants?

Fixing the world is a great ideal. It helps to have a proven track record, albeit on a smaller scale before you dive headfirst into that mess. If we can't handle our own, we're fucking irresponsible to invite more into the cradle. Maybe your virtue is beyond question. As a nation, though, we AREN'T taking care of our own.

Before you go off on this topic, toddle your little hushpuppies down to the Gulf Coast. Can't do that? Fine, house a homeless family until they can get on their feet. If you won't do that, any more crap you care to express in this thread is posturing and nothing more.

-fl

[Jade Fox]

68. My problem with your post.....

and most of the posts about Immigration is, while they contain lots of opinions, there is little factual evidence to back those opinions up. Statistics, please!

I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm afraid the United States just cannot handle all the people who want to come here, and we need to focus on livable employment for American citizens.

But I'm more inclined to blame those who hire illegals. Doesn't the "breaking the law" aspect of illegal immigration become a joke when so many Americans are willing to hire the "criminals" in question? Aren't we signaling to these folks that we ourselves don't take the immigration laws seriously? (do as we say, not as we do) Yet you expect would-be immigrants to be morally responsible, when it's likely their reasons for breaking the law (poverty, needing political asylum) are better than ours for hiring them (cheap labor). I don't mean to paint all would-be immigrants as sainted victims, but let's not blame them for essentially being invited to come to the US.

[Dr. Jones]

100. Actually, you make an excellent point.

Even as Bush continues to spout his idiotic rhetoric IN MEXICO this week, "Jobs Americans WILL NOT DO," you have a point - these illegals are essentially invited over here by Bush/'Fox truly thinking they are doing something noble and worthy.

Something to consider. :)

[Ioo]

70. Dr. Jones, many here do not understand that illegal is illegal...

They want to impeach the president (I do) because he did this and that, all of it illegal, but for some reason they want to give other activities that are illegal a pass. They are all hypocrites! They are also using a great right wing tactic, they are bluring the line of "illegal immigration" with "legal immigration" and saying that somehow if you are against illegal immigration, then you some how hate all immigration. Kinda like the right wing saying "All dems hate the troops" because we do not all support the war, they have blured the war and the warrior. I want to think that all are welcome in the United States, as long as you have a skill (any skill) and desire to make America even greater, to make America your home (No I do not want to throw open the boarders and let everyone come over, they have to add to the betterment of America).

I think that we should spend the time and money to make those that want to come to the United States and be a part of it, and help to better it, welcome to do so, the INS needs massive reform.

But I can not stand here and tell you shit like, “George Bush Broke the Law, and should be impeached” or “Come on Fits arrest a few more people” and then in the same breath give a pass to illegal activity.

Yes, I know they are humans, and yes, I know Mexico SUCKS, but there is a right and wrong way to do things, and they CHOOSE the illegal option, and I will not reward that.

Bush had a right way and a wrong way to spy on Americans, and he choose the wrong way, and you want to impeach him…

The fact remains, regardless of what any of you say, illegal is illegal. You can not get around that. You can attempt to justify your hypocrisy it all you want, “Oh xenophobic rant” and so on, but the fact remains, there is a right way to immigrate and a wrong way, these people broke the law, all other arguments are moot.

Mexico is in fact a democracy; they crap hole that is Mexico is in their hands to fix. I am willing to bet none of these illegal immagrates even voted in Mexico. If you truly believe all the hype that we can change America through our vote, then you have to believe that the Mexican people can do the same. I spent a long time working in Mexico City, it is not just another point on a map for me.

I am not a heartless ass, I am also not a hypocrite.

I am glad that there are democrats that are standing up and saying no.

[Cleita]

72. Entering the country illegally is not a felony, but a misdeamenor.

To compare the immigrant worker to Abramoff, who committed felonies, makes his argument go poof.

[Ioo]

78. Illegal is illegal, who cares the level of illegal

You are saying that it is olay to break the law, period.

It is still illegal...

[Cleita]

84. No what I am saying is that everyone has broken the law at

one time or the other, but are not felons. How many get traffic tickets and parking tickets? This is breaking the law. So if you are going to compare a felony to a misdemenor, it's what the Republicans do.

[Ioo]

88. So We should not pay traffic fines to you?

I mean if you are willing to allow a misdemenor to go unpunished. Do you support the blanket forgivness of all traffic fines? What about all case of beating a dog to death. Okay by you?

[Cleita]

91. I have seen all kinds of animal cruelty in the rural Northwest

which is snowflake white. You can go weeks without seeing a brown person and that person is probably a Native American.

If you don't have a link to an article about that, all I can assume is that you are coming from a second source for that information and it's probably not true.

[Ioo]

95. What? Your logic is misdemenors are okay..

and crulty to animals is a misdemenor, so you are okay with not punishing those that beat animals...

I did not refer to a story, I did not point to ANYTHING particular...

[Cleita]

101. Absolutely not, but the word Draconian comes to mind.

FYI Draco was a king in ancient Greece whose laws and punishment for those laws was excessive, kind of like cutting a man's hand off for stealing a loaf of bread. I find comparing an immigrant who crossed the border illegally to Abramoff who committed felonies not a valid argument. However, debate seems to have been lost here if you are on the opposite side.

The Republicans are so happy when they give us a divided issue to fight over in an election year.

[Ioo]

121. I am not divided, so to hell with the Republicans...

This year I will vote for a dem no matter his stance on anything. Unlike MANY MANY Democrats, 9 out of 10 issues that we agree on is okay with me. SO MANY Dems are ALL or NOTHING, and that is why we lose.

So many times have I hear on this board, "I am not voting for so-in-so because I disagree with him on issue X" and yet so-in-so agrees with them on everything else.

If Rockerfellow or Byrd vote to allow ILLEGAL ALIENS into the door, they will get a stern letter, but will still have my vote. For me 2006 is a make or break.

[Cleita]

128. Good for you. I have voluntered to work for a candidate for

Congress who is the only Democrat running for a seat that has been held by a Republican for twenty five years. In the last two elections no Democrat ran against him.

So I am volunteering to work for someone I don't particulary like for the same reason to get Democrats back in charge of the House.

[Ioo]

81. So here is a list of Laws SOME on DU say you can break. Have fun!

Animal fighting
Bad check
Commercial piracy
Carrying a pistol without a license
Disorderly conduct
Some Credit card fraud
Cruelty to animals
Indecent exposure
Indecent proposition
Medicare fraud
Possession of prohibited weapon
Receiving stolen property
Reckless driving
Shoplifting
Simple assault
Theft (second degree)
Unlawful entry
Unregistered firearm
Welfare fraud

You are welcome to do any of these things, because they are all Misdemeanor and okay...

I am going to go and swip few dogs from a petstore (Theft (second degree), and Shoplifting) have them fight to the death (Animal fighting), take the winner and tie him to a tree for a month (Cruelty to animals). Swip a credit card (Theft (second degree)) and use it to buy (Some Credit card fraud) a stolen car (Receiving stolen property), drive 100 mph in a shool zone (Reckless driving). When I am done, I will come show my butt to the dog (Indecent exposure).

All of this is OKAY by some here in DU.

[mike_c]

116. be sure to not smoke near that straw man....

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

143. When the President obeys the law, get back to me.

All this sudden hue and cry about illegal this and that, we are a nation of laws, etc.

Let legal observation start from the top down.

[Daphne08]

76. Come to Southern California and you'll all see the results of

what this has done to construction and restaurant industries.

I didn't understand the impact of illegal immigration until I moved here four years ago.

[Cleita]

82. I live in southern California. I worked in the restaurant business

with illegals. If anything they helped keep the restaurants going. For one thing most legal restaurant workers the waiters, the bartenders and the managers are all documented workers. The first two like earning tips.

It's in the kitchen that you will find the undocumented workers preparing the food and washing dishes, the jobs other people don't want to do because they prefer the waiting and bartending jobs.

If they weren't there the restaurants would close because there wouldn't be enough workers to fill those lowly positions in the kitchen.

So what is your argument? Do people tip less because there are Mexicans in the kitchen?

[nonconformist]

96. "the jobs other people don't want to do"

Really now?

Americans won't cook or wash dishes?

Or Americans won't cook or wash dishes for substandard, labor busting wages?

[Cleita]

104. Uh, ah, ah. I didn't say that. I said there wasn't ENOUGH of them.

And many of the kitchen workers are Mexican/American and quite legal.

[mike_c]

92. the Pew Research Center finds the opposite pattern....

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=274

It seems that people living in states with large immigrant populations, like California, were the LEAST likely to oppose illegal immigration or favor harsh reforms like making illegal immigration a felony, closing the border, etc. The folks MOST likely to do so were invariably from states with relatively few illegal immigrants. Not suprisingly, there was also a direct correlation between education and American's views on illegal immigration. People at the lower end of the education range tested in the poll were dramatically over-represented among those advocating harsh treatment of illegal immigrants, closing borders, etc. People with more education tended to be significantly less likely to advocate harsh reforms.

edit: I changed the URL to point to the actual Pew report rather than the NPR story about it.

[QC]

98. Perhaps those at lower education/skill levels fear the competition.

It's very easy for a credentialed professional, like most people here, including yours truly, to be all magnanimous about the whole thing, but a construction or meatpacking worker will probably see the matter differently.

This is why, I think, opinion on immigration often tends to break along class lines.

[Cleita]

111. It's very Roman Empire.

In Rome there was the ruling class or Patricians who were mostly descended from the original Latin tribes that founded Rome. And then there were the plebians or everyone else exept the slaves. The lower pleblian class consisted of many freed slaves who were from other lands and who intermarried with the other pleblians making up a population of Romans descended from many lands. The Patrician class looked down at them like they were a sub-species.

[QC]

115. The patricians in this case are the oligarchs in both countries,

enriching themselves by playing the plebes off against each other.

[mike_c]

112. I think you're right....

What I found most surprising about that poll was the correlation between the pattern of contact with illegal immigrants and opinions about how to deal with the issue. People from states with large illegal immigrant populations were least likely to advocate harsh immigration reforms. That's one reason I think there is a strong element of xenophobia underlying many arguments like those presented in the OP-- the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration tend to be people who've had little contact with illegal immigrants.

It's also worth mentioning that the most frequent response was that the best way to deal with illegal immigration was to penalize employers who hire them. That's not necessarily a solution that I think would work well, but it IS on the road toward a solution that puts the blame where it really belongs, IMO-- on business that drives workers into poverty in order to maximize profits and damn the human costs.

[QC]

117. Yes, xenophobia is sometimes a factor, or even often.

My complaint, though, is the way that many people here think that if someone disagrees with them on immigration, it's enough for them loudly to denounce that person as a "rethuglican xenophobe," throw in a Holocaust comparison, and move on. The quality of the discussion on this issue has been the sort of thing one would expect to see at Freak Republic, not DU.

[Cleita]

125. Why are people afraid of the Holocaust comparison?

They shouldn't be because our country is heading down the same path. I assume that's probably why my post was deleted. However, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[Rex]

99. You seem to be missing the point.

nt

[Beelzebud]

123. Exaplin what he's missing, then. If you have such a good grasp on this

then what's the deal with the "nt"?

You say he's missing the point. Explain!

[Gregorian]

109. What is the difference, then, between immigration and outsourcing?

If it's about jobs, then outsourcing is a much bigger issue.

[QC]

114. "outsourcing is a much bigger issue."

Well, that depends on what line of work one is in. For people in some blue-collar fields like construction, outsourcing is not the big story. For white-collar workers, it is.

[mike_c]

124. don't forget that blue collar manufacturing jobs...

...were among the first to be outsourced. The rust belt's fate was sealed before the term "outsourcing" was even coined.

[QC]

133. Yes, those jobs started heading out about 25 years ago,

Only old school labor lefties like Michael Moore raised much of a fuss about it. On the political boards (where my experience goes back to the days of connecting to USENET with my 2400 baud modem) there wasn't much discussion of outsourcing until it affected white-collar professionals. Then, of course, it was the greatest outrage of the past century.

Things aren't real, you know, until they affect the middle class.

[nonconformist]

118. They're both big issues, and they both need to be addressed

I don't follow the logic that says that if something isn't the only factor relating to an issue then it shouldn't be dealt with.

But I tend to think that if you are white collar, upper middle class professional, outsourcing is your biggest issue. If you are a blue collar, middle class worker, insourcing is your biggest issue.

[TheFarseer]

110. Thank you for posting that

It's pretty much how I feel even if it isn't 'PC' enough for some around here.

[Beelzebud]

122. I remember when Democrats were the pro-union, pro American worker party.

Now they are in the same party as the Republicans:

The Corporate Party

You know what happens when you let an entire group of people think it's ok to work for sub-standard living wages? The middle class is destroyed.

I wish the Democratic Party would be for the middle class. But those days, sadly, are over.

[Ioo]

126. Those were the days, Now we are the party of... well nevermind

Now we are looked at as a bunch pussies that will not stand up for America...

[Beelzebud]

127. Exactly. The Corporate Party is destroying America.

[Cleita]

130. Don't despair. There are a lot of Democrats out there, myself

included who still have the same principles as the old Democrats. If we take back Congress, those Democrats will get their voices heard by the moderate ones.

[nonconformist]

131. It's so disheartening

*sigh*

I guess I'm one of those old school Democrats. I think we're becoming a rare breed.

[earth mom]

129. What's really getting to me about this issue is that

there are people here in the U.S. of A who care MORE about people from another country having jobs than they do about the people already here legally who have seen themselves downsized and marginalized over the years with their pay and benefits reduced so fat cat employers don't have to foot the bill-LEGALLY or ETHICALLY.

This marginalization has happened to my family. We have lived on less and less for years and years and now I find that that's okay with people around DU. Even with my husband getting a better paying job a year and a half ago-we find according to the current value of the dollar-that he's making almost the same as he made TWENTY YEARS AGO! But hey, according to many folks around here, it's okay for citizens of this country to be MARGINALIZED and treated as so much trash. All so other people can come here and help that process along. Because what happens to them is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than what happens to people like us.

Excuse me, BUT...
:wtf:

Sorry, but I don't get it. At first this whole thing pissed me off because I know in my gut that it's not fair or ethical to both sides. It's exploitation through and through. But now the thought of this tug of war hurts and makes me feel a bit depressed. Because, frankly I am stunned and hurt that there are people around here don't give a damn what happens to the people like my husband and I. We are people whose allegiance is 100% to THIS COUNTRY-a country my husband even went to war for. But that does not matter.

So, yeah, I'm angry, shocked and hurt that there are people around DU who don't care a good gawd damn if my husband and I and our family has been marginalized and have had to live on the edge not knowing if we would end up in a cardboard box or not. We look at the future and see that it is uncertain indeed-but who gives a damn about us because we're already HERE-living the american dream, right?

NOT!!!

:rant:

[nonconformist]

134. I agree with that, totally

Holier-than-thou posturing, that's what it is.

[earth mom]

136. Sorry-I'm a bit confused by your reply....

Holier than thou posturing by whom? :shrug:

[nonconformist]

138. The ones who imply that we should care more about

illegal workers than ourselves.

[earth mom]

147. Thanks-got it now!

:hi:

[Seedersandleechers]

135. GM is spending 600-650 million on plants (auto) in Mexico

Other large companies are following. I would think there would be a lot of new jobs in Mexico...

[Cleita]

142. So blame the people who are guilty, the Mexican government ,

the employers who hire them, and the union busters like President Reagan. That's whom to blame. As long as you are blaming the undocumented worker, the focus is off of them and they are laughing all the way to the bank at your expense.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

140. How To End Illegal Immigration Tomorrow

Punish people that hire them swiftly and harshly, with huge fines and possible jail time.

We cannot increase border security enough to stop illegal immigration. If you believe we can, you are lying to yourself, probably because you are being emotional rather than logical. Besides, the day we build a wall around America is the day we cease to be America. I don't want to live in the Land of the Imprisoned and the Home of the Scared, and I doubt any of you do, either.

Stop blaming the immigrants. They are just as much victims in this as we are. They are also being exploited and abused and, like us, they are just trying to do what's best for themselves and their families, even if that means breaking a law or two. I dare most of you to swear that you've never broken any laws to get by, and any of you who do are probably full of shit. Instead of fighting each other, let's focus on who the real enemy is - those who seek to profit from firing Americans and hiring the poor of other nations.

[rman]

148. do SOMETHING? - but what?

You offer no solution and you frame the other side of the argument by claiming the alternative is to let the situation with illegal immigration continue.

Government is owned by corporations, that's why the situation got to be what it is, and it's why it won't do anything to actually solve the problem.

An international agreement has been made that does in fact worsen the situation in Mexico: the infamous NAFTA. It's just one example of how international meddling by big (US) corporations rigs the system in their favor.
Unless fundamental changes in government are made, whatever "solution" they come up with, it will work out in their favor and to the disadvantage of low income workers both legal and illegal.

In their efforts to "reform" (they love that word - people automatically assume "reform" is for the better) immigration legislation they present an over-simplified picture where it's basically a matter of US workers versus illegal immigrants. The corporate controlled government will end up screwing both while both think the other one is screwing them. Good old "divide and conquer".
I think i don't have to explain why the corporate owned media play along.

[maddezmom]

149. locking

as flamebait like the counter argument