A feature of these more recent rallies as opposed to the more spontaneous ones earlier in this round of debate over the issue was how much more organized things were. The word got out to carry an American flag and to show pro-American sentiments.
I think this accomplished a lot: - In terms of sheer numbers, these rallies are huge. That demonstrates a fairly large body of people too deal with, and potentially to earn the support of, should they become citizens.
- the earlier criticisms about waving the Mexican flag, or chanting negative messages has been overshadowed, I think, by a show of how organized these folks can be, and their desires for their future here in this country.
- it makes nay-sayers like State Rep (Ariz) look pretty darned bad:
quote:Still, along march routes yesterday there were some voices of those opposed to illegal immigration. In Phoenix, state Rep. John Allen (R) held a sign that said "Governor, I'll hold them off, you get the National Guard."
"The question is, when do we stop this activity of illegal immigration?" he said into a battery of cameras. "Right now, it's like Groundhog Day. You wake up every day and there's more of them. It will be this way until we have a closed border."
While some may applaud his gruffness, in the midst of a peaceful, pro-American rally he looks like a complete @ss, IMO.
. . .
Ultimately, I don't know if these rallies have changed any minds among those who really dislike the idea of the latinization of America, or dislike the whole idea of illegal immigration into the US. But...I do think there's a powerful message here for those who may care to listen, even out of self-preservation.
Anytime a peaceful rally can draw this many people in this many places simultaneously it says something pretty impressive about the organizing power of the community involved. It doesn't take much imagination to think of what this would look like if we let it get negative. Right? And the impact of repeated peaceful rallies is also something difficult to ignore -- assuming these crowds will grow and major cities throughout the US will find themselves hosting a gathering of 200,000 (give or take).
I say, good for them! I don't mind a general amnesty. I wouldn't mind an easier legal immigration policy.
I would be bothered by strong-arm tactics at the border, and I think we'd be ill-served by any new law that calls for use of force against the poorest of the poor crossing our borders.
These are indeed interesting times for America. A bit of soul searching is in order, to say the least. And I'm looking forward to seeing how well our government institutions rise to the challenge posed by the obvious call to share our good fortune with our nearest neighbors.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am going to don my paranoid hat and admit that I fear this current trend is going to result in a tighter militarized border, and that the stated reason of preventing unwelcome immigration is also going to result in tougher emigration as well.
That is, my paranoid self recognizes stirrings of chaos in the party in power, increased militaristic and nationalistic rhetoric, a tightening of organized social control, and concern about the permeability of our borders. Given that The Handmaid's Tale has been leering ove rmy subconscious these last few years, I'm going to breathe a lot more freely once I have crossed the border successfully again.
(And yeah, I know it's crazy. There it is.)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Is it crazy, though? I think the craziness feels like it's coming from the Bush administration. I'm really worried about our country, and what it is becoming.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh, I dunno. Considering that the estimated total number of foreigners in the US without proper documentation is 9,000thousands*, rallies of 100s of thousands would seem to indicate that an overwhelming supermajority of even that select group of foreigners disagree** with the rallies' goals.
* Mid-range estimate of undocumented immigrants in 2001 plus the ~250thousand per year estimated to have entered the US since that time. ** This forum really really really needs a tongue-in-cheek smilie.
[ April 11, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I was suprised to hear that there was a huge rally in D.C., as it didn't receive any significant coverage on the local news stations.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
aspectre, just because people don't go to a rally doesn't mean they don't agree with it.
And CT, I have Handmaid's Tale paranoia almsot every day. I should really stop re-reading that book...
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tatiana...what do you mean by "what it is becoming?"
Posted by opiejudy (Member # 9301) on :
Well said Bob.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There were pro-immigration rallies on the mall in DC and around the country yesterday, and over the past week.
Those were not pro-immigration rallies. I am pro-immigration.
Those were pro-criminal rallies.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
People who oppose making illegal immigration easier to bypass seem impractical to me.
If they are going to be in our country, and there is no stopping that without relatively evil tactics, they should pay taxes like all the other people who live in it.
Of course, because they should pay taxes, they should also be granted privileges which a mere foreigner or visitor wouldn't be allowed. It works both ways.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Those were pro-criminal rallies.
Also well said.
I have difficulty reconciling my positive views on legal immigration with this ground-swell of support to essentially pardon people who have broken our laws and circumvented the checks and balances that were put in place to control immigration.
On a personal level, I understand and sympathize with illegal immigrants. Often, I think, they become a faceless threat to our way of life, and that's a tragedy. Most illegal immigrants are just like you and me, and if we interacted with them on an individual basis, we'd probably rail at the idea of having them deported or criminalized.
However, I think it's important to remember that uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a threat. Not at the individual level where illegal immigrants are our friends, or coworkers, or neighbors, but as a whole, where they threaten to overwhelm our social systems.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its sort of funny, the people out there supporting illegal immigrants aren't trying to let them stay illegal, they're pushing for ways to make them legal, and pay taxes, et cetera.
People don't come to America as illegal immigrants because they want to not pay US taxes, they come to America as any kind of immigrant they can because they want to work in the US. If we make legal immigration a viable alternative, and create programs assimilating illegal immigrants, the number of illegal immigrants in the country will constantly decrease, and be moved under legal regimes.
As for making it a felony and trying to hunt down illegal immigrants, if you think our justice system is overburdened now . . .
To say it would be a waste of resources is a gross understatement. Illegal immigrants are for the most part productive members of society. The sooner we acknowledge that, rather than try to undercut their contributions and kick them out, the sooner we won't be creating whole new levels of government waste.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Those were pro-criminal rallies.
Sign me up.
I saw we round up everybody who entered this land (or whose ancestors entered this land) without a visa and ship them off to Luna.
Yes, I'm talking about you.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Except that what their doing is illegal, its like saying drug dealers make alot of money and spend alot of money in this country so we should lighten up on them. Some may argue that these
"Illegal immigrants are for the most part productive members of society." where as drug dealers are not. The way i see it law is law no matter how "beneficial" it is to society it shouldnt matter how we view the criminals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The way i see it law is law no matter how "beneficial" it is to society it shouldnt matter how we view the criminals.
I think if a law isn't beneficial to society, it needs to be changed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If we grant amnesty again, we are essentially saying to the world that we will allow essentially unlimited immigration. We will have established a pattern of granting amnesty (second time in 20 years) and will have no credibility about enforcing the general (not "no felons" type laws) immigration laws in the future.
That may be a desired outcome, but we should be explicit about acknowledging it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think a blanket amnesty is a sound approach. Partly because an earned amnesty program predicated on achievable goals creates an incentive for illegal immigrants to be productive, and partly because there is good reason to try to make legal immigration the better-seeming alternative.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BTW, regarding illegal immigrants being criminals, I believe they are currently misdemeanants (and I think that's recent in the cases of visa overstays, which used to be a purely civil offense). Do you want people who trespass on others' property to in every case have substantial rights taken away and be kicked out of the country, too?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
How about we expedite & greatly expand the number of slots for legal immigration from Mexico -- but you have to be IN Mexico to apply. No legalization of anybody that's already here criminally. You want legal residency / path to citizenship? Fine. Go back across the border and wait your turn. After X months/years, any illegal found in the U.S. would be permanently barred from legal status.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Because it says "okay, it doesn't matter if you've been productive and would gladly pay taxes, you have to leave and not come back for a while," creating absurd quantities of waste, not to mention spectacular enforcement problems?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Regarding the pro-criminal rally comment: some of the people at these marches are there to protest the bill that would make helping an illegal immigrant a felony. Many of the churches in my area are concerned that humanitarian aid for immigrants may be punished under this law. Granted, some senators have said that they don't intend for the law to be interpreted this way, but it's certainly possible that a judge could.
Does Congress really want to criminalize giving food, water, clothing, or shelter to "the least of these"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does Congress really want to criminalize giving food, water, clothing, or shelter to "the least of these"?
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see how Congress is going to enforce anything in the grey area between "blanket amnesty" and "Send them all home."
If they go with the current plan, and let whoever has been here for five, three and two (or whatever it is) years stay or go by putting them in different groups with different standards, how the hell are they going to prove how long they have been here? Who vouches for them? Their employers who illegally employed them? Especially if this criminalization act passes that stiffens fines for employers hiring illegally, there is no way an employer is going to vouch for an illegal. Besides, the employer is guaranteeing that he'll either lose a low paid worker, or will gain a higher paid one.
What thought has been given to HOW they'll determine how long anyone has been here?
If I were forced to make a plan, I'd say let everyone who has a job stay. Make them pay a fine, say one or two thousand dollars, and the same sum for each additional family member, and let them stay and become active, working, LAW ABIDING Americans.
If they don't have a job, send them home. If they have a record of ANY criminal activity in America, send them home. Increase the number of slots open for them to come back, but in the mean time they have to go back to Mexico and get in line with everyone else. It's not fair to those in the rest of the world that want to come here, and it's not fair to Americans to have dead weight on their society.
The automatic problem however, is that wages for many of them making less than minimum wage is an automatic spike in the cost of labor for employers using illegals. Any plan would have to come with a massive increase in border security. Be it through laser and camera operated blimps, cameras, fences, more security personnel, whatever, but not one person should be able to get in who isn't checked and documented.
I'm all for increasing immigration quotas. I want to bring in both the poor and tired, AND the skilled and the educated. But this is for LEGAL, CONTROLLED immigration. America is NOT a free for all.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, my "If I were Queen of the world" solution is this:
Set up a guest worker program so that people coming across the border seeking work and employers seeking employees can get together legally. Pay the workers at least minimum wage, cut taxes, do everything legally. Have a citizenship program that allows people who have been working legally and paying taxes to become citizens of the country.
If an employer is caught employing people who are not legal guest workers and pay less than minimum wage and such - throw him in jail. Increase drastically the fines and penalties for hiring illegal workers, including prison time. Make it so undesirable for people to hire illegal workers that it becomes virtually impossible for an illegal immigrant to find work unless he/she goes through the guest worker program and does things properly.
And yes, I know there are tons of problems with the idea, but my point is that the people who hire illegal workers, pay them nothing wages and run honest business people out of business by undercutting them are a major part of the problem. We need to be going after them.
Posted by Corin224 (Member # 9337) on :
Here's the problem I have with these rallies. I am immediately suspicious and dead-set against any group who says "You're oppressing me!!".
I'm sorry, but there's one key word in the phrase "illegal immigration". Can you find it? No . . . left . . . a Liiiitle bit further . . . THERE it is!
***ILLEGAL***
As in against the law. Already. Currently. Given the present state of affairs. It is a criminal act. Which ALL of these people undertook with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what they were doing. Does that give us the right to treat them as sub-human? No it doesn't. We should give them the same respect as all other life.
Does that give us the right to treat them as criminals (in a legal sense?) . . . why yes it does. Why? Because they broke the law! And now they're upset because they're going to be punished for breaking that law which they KNOWINGLY broke.
I fail to see the problem with that.
Now . . . what's the REAL problem? Let's address that.
It's safer, easier and more desirable to try to make a life as a permanent fugitive in the U.S. than it is in Mexico. (or other countries, but we all know the general assumption being made here.)
Ladies and gents, change the situation. Period. There's three options.
1) Make it easier to immigrate legally -- I see problems with this one, but I'm willing to accept it. After all, our country has a reputation as a safe refuge that I'm proud of and willing to stand behind even perhaps to my personal detriment.
2) Make it less desirable for people to immigrate illegally -- How? Well . . . by making the penalties for getting caught tougher. Or by enforcing current laws more rigorously.
3) Make it more desirable for people to stay where they are -- There's the root of your problem. How do we fix that? I have no idea. There's gotta be a way though, but it'll take time, without a doubt. So . . . in the meantime, what are the options? Well . . . 1 or two.
The people at the rallies want option #0. Keep the situation like it is.
Is there a problem?
Does it need fixing?
I don't see that option 0 works.
But that's just my personal opinion.
-Falken224 (posing as Corin)
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: Here's the problem I have with these rallies. I am immediately suspicious and dead-set against any group who says "You're oppressing me!!".
I'm sorry, but there's one key word in the phrase "illegal immigration". Can you find it? No . . . left . . . a Liiiitle bit further . . . THERE it is!
***ILLEGAL***
I can't speak for everyone, only myself, but please don't adress me like that.
I think if any changes are going to happen with immigration, it needs to be done in the Mexican Government. Specifically, America has to stop pretending that everything is hunky-dorey down there and start making some demands that they change the way they treat their people. Mexico has already made some changes, but by and large, the people are still poor, the police, still corrupt, and the government not doing enough to stop it.
It's time for America to start attacking the root of the problem: why do these people some here in the first place.
Furthermore, if we make it easier to come here legally, and thus manage to cut back on the number of illegal immigrants in the country, then companies that usually pay them crappy wages will have to up those wages. Two things happen, Immigrants make the money they need faster and return home, and business owners have less incentive to hire immigrants because their legal and can demand minimum wage.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Because it says "okay, it doesn't matter if you've been productive and would gladly pay taxes, you have to leave and not come back for a while," creating absurd quantities of waste, not to mention spectacular enforcement problems?
Sometimes the easy choice must take a back seat to what's right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As for option 3, Bush took a stab at that a couple weeks ago during his Cancun summit. One of the major topics of discussion was a way to integrate the security and economy of all of North America into one giant flow of goods and free borders. There's a massive array of problems with such an idea, but on the surface it all sounds nice and cheery doesn't it?
One of the biggest problems is Mexico itself. First off, the Mexican government is talking about backing out of NAFTA, which is just silly considering their trade with America has TRIPLED since it was first introduced. 90% of Mexico's trade is FREE due to the number of free trade deals they have with other nations. It's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is for American business which will suddenly find it more expensive to do business in Mexico, and to operate factories there. That'll probably hurt as much as help Mexico. American companies will raise prices to deal with new tariffs, but I wouldn't be surprised to see worker layoffs and slashed wages in Mexico as well.
Integrating our economies as they are is next to impossible. They have a huge unemployment rate, crime is rampant, most of the people are unskilled and poorly educated by first world standards. It would be impossible to have a free flow of jobs, skill, and technology with that massive a gap between them and us. Integration with Canada would also be difficult, but a million times easier.
We can't help Mexico until they help themselves. Crime and corruption in their government is so insanely rampant, we'd never make any headway without first getting them removed from power. The drug cartels there won't go without a fight, a bloody one. If they cleaned up their act, made some real progress, cut their crime and proved corruption was down, and made some efforts to reduce the 40% poverty level of their country, I would have zero problem with an American/Canadian backed effort to modernize and improve Mexico as best we can. Use local Mexican labor to build new schools, new police stations, all the basics of infrastructure that they currently lack or need more of. But make sure that money isn't being funneled to drug cartels and dirty politicians too.
We can't do it all for them, and considering the progress they've made in the last couple decades in improving their economy and infrastructure, I'd say there's hope. But that's your long term solution.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I find it ironic that it seems to be people who generally support the minimum wage who are so supportive of illegal immigrants. The whole thing of paying people less then minimum wage sounds strange to me. And the argument of there are jobs Americans don’t want to do it highly confusing to me. Admittedly I live in low immigration area, but we don’t have a rough time of finding people to clean toilets or work as garbage collectors.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Well said, Lyrhawn and Falken.
I am not in the least opposed to legal immigration. If these people have the drive to come here and succed, by all means do so. They'll make America a better place, as all hard-working immigrants have.
But, we are a soverign nation. Citizens of other countries don't have the right to come here, and don't have the right to do it illegally. To get the benefits you have to follow the rules, regardless of if you think they're stupid or not. So, it would help if those of Latin origin (immigrants or not) who espouse this "colonize the southwest, it's ours anyways" would shut up.
More legal immigration, crack down ruthlessly on illegal immigration (and the hiring of illegals, as Belle said). If you're caught trying to sneak over, you're marked and lose your chance to come over legally (for a time or forever, can't decide on which). As for the people here - that egg is already scrambled. Create a legalization program with no tolerance during the process.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
They had an "immigration reform protest" rally here in Wichita yesterday. THe protestors planned it for right at quitting time downtown (4:30 - 5 PM) and started at cityhall with about 1,000 protestors, which grew to about 2 or 3,000 by the time they marched down by our building here and up by Senator Pat Robert's office and basically totally gridlocked all of downtown at quitting time. It really built momentum after it started. When I left work at 4:30 (avoid it becaue I go west from our building instead of east/south/north or any further into downtown) there were quite a few high-school aged kids just coming in to take part in it.
I was kinda surprised to see it here - hadn't heard much rumblings about immigration reform. In a way I'm glad to see that Kansans are at least listening to national news and aware of the issues.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I fail to see what's particularly "right" about policing illegal immigrants like violent criminals instead of treating them as normal people who have committed a minor transgression.
Jay: I'm not generally supportive of the minimum wage, so I assume you're talking about somebody else
All the arguments that are being presented here for some sort of extremely strict crackdown (far more than we currently do) on illegal immigration don't proceed based on any arguments for bettering the country, they are based on rather unusual interpretations of what it means to be a state and what it means to be an illegal immigrant. These are people, people who did something a little bad and are often doing a lot of things very good. To react disproportionately to the negative out of some sense of moral duty disavows the notion of a public morality in favor of self-righteousness.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I won't disagree that these people do lots of good - what I will disagree on is that illegal immigration is 'minor' or 'a little bad.'
More later - just got a phone call, and I got the gov't CS job that I wanted. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Potential LEGAL immigrants waiting their turn across the oceans probably don't feel the same way, fugu.
Thing is, I've yet to see anyone explain how you're going to separate the ones that ARE violent and bad for the nation from the ones that are productive and helpful to America. I doubt you are suggesting we just keep them all and sort it out later. Though if you are, I strongly disagree with that. Their illegality is what makes weeding out the bad ones so hard, and is why we have a legal process to begin with, the same process that millions of other people around the world are going through, have gone through, and wish to go through.
To suggest that all 11 million of them are perfectly peaceful helpful and productive members of society is dishonest, just as portraying them all as useless barnacles is just as dishonest. Truth is, we don't know. We don't know which ones are criminals making things worse and which ones are holding down jobs that keep America running.
Such is my suggestion to FIND OUT. Send home the bad ones, keep the good ones, and yes, protect the moral duty to be FAIR to everyone on the planet that wants to come to America. We all talk here about how lucky we are to be born in America, and we are. But what about those who are unlucky enough to not be born on the North or South American continent? The ones who can't hitchhike their way to a better life and are stuck across the sea? Shouldn't that moral duty also be to protect the equality of their chance to come here, rather than give free rides to people who circumvented the system just because they were lucky enough to be close enough to hop the fence?
I don't think an "extremly strict crackdown" is necessary. I do however think an extremely far reaching effort to document them, weed out the bad, and major efforts to restore order at the border (ooo, I feel a slogan blossoming in my head!) are extremely necessary.
It sends a message to the rest of the world that America is a land of law, and it's a land of opportunity and fairness for ALL, not just for those lucky enough to be geographically close enoigh to cheat their way in.
It sends a message to those who would immigrate here illegally that we aren't going to stand for it anymore, and that if they want to get in, they'll have to do it legally. And Congress should thus create a new legal path, be it a guest worker program or increased immigration quotas to accomodate that new message. It supports it twice over.
It sends a message to those that would enter this country for dangerous purposes as well. America doesn't have an open door for anyone who wants to just waltz in and harm the country, we're serious about our borders.
It sends a message to Americans everywhere. It reaffirms that we are a welcoming nation of immigrants who will still take in the tired, and the poor, but will do so in an orderly fashion tha respects the current situation in America, not an America that existed a century ago. It tells everyone that we're in the business of securing American and making it stronger, and not just letting people do whatever they want.
This mess has been decades in the making, and cleaning it up will be very, very messy, and costly. But better we do it now, fairly for all, and in order to secure our borders now and forever, than offering up amnesty for everyone and encouraging the next generation of illegals that America is a giant free ride for all, laws be damned.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The individual act of an illegal immigrant is a little bad. May we all go our entire lives doing no more than that little bad.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: These are people, people who did something a little bad
These are people whose very first act on American soil was the willful violation of statutes lawfully passed by our Congress. They can wave U.S. flags for the cameras if they want, but their actions speak louder than words, and they express a contempt for the Constitutional system that flag represents.
For us to shrug and say, 'that's ok' is equivalent to a slap in the face of every current or potential immigrant who's gone through the proper legal channels.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:These are people whose very first act on American soil was the willful violation of statutes lawfully passed by our Congress. They can wave U.S. flags for the cameras if they want, but their actions speak louder than words, and they express a contempt for the Constitutional system that flag represents.
Most of the people who have been waving the US flags for the cameras, are legal residents of the United States. Many of them are US citizens, others are legal immigrants. Virtually every legal immigrant in the US has been marching the streets requesting legal status for illegal immigrants. If it's a slap in their faces, why are they protesting in favor of it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Irr...
quote:These are people whose very first act on American soil was the willful violation of statutes lawfully passed by our Congress. They can wave U.S. flags for the cameras if they want, but their actions speak louder than words, and they express a contempt for the Constitutional system that flag represents.
The people in those protest marches aren't all illegal aliens. In fact, a great many of them are from churches organizing to draw attention to the ludicrous double-standards that exist in our treatment of the poor who migrate to our country, legally or otherwise.
For decades it has been in our economic interest to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration since it represents a cheap labor pool of people who represent very little drain on the public coffers. This is still true. What has changed is a bunch of hand-wringing about how some few among these masses might be terrorists. I suspect what is really going on is that there are many people who dislike the idea of a shift in the ethnic balance of America.
If we're going to enforce laws, how about we all start obeying all the speed limits to the digit? How about everyone pays every dime they owe in taxes? Or...how about we make every violation of ANY law a felony.
Seriously, I think the argument about "their first act was to break the law" is not just specious, but displays a profound, and even willful ignorance of the history of immigration "policy" in this country as well as a history of the contributions of immigrants and their offspring.
This kind of thing runs in cycles. There were riots in NYC (and over much of New England) when waves of Irish and Italian immigrants came here. And look! The country is not only still standing, it's the strongest in the world, and near about the strongest it has ever been.
Our Southern borders are where they are largely due to historical flukes, accidents, and outright chicanery. The people who lived one side or the other the border have a completely different perspective of that imaginary line than do people on this side who think it is something established and accepted universally.
It's all well and good to say "tough luck" but I venture to say you'd feel radically different about it if you were on the other side and knew the history of the US government's (and various proto-US governments') actions along that border.
Just read up on the wonderfully colorful folks who established the Republic of Texas and how they treated the Mexicans and mixed-blood folks in that area as they worked to grab the land that established the eventual US border.
People have long long memories for stuff like that. Especially when the look from the dirt roads on one side to the resource-rich lands on the opposite side of the border.
And it's also nice of you to just tell them to clean up their own act. But let's not forget the various policies of the US toward "OUR" hemisphere and how those policies helped to keep the other countries just a little bit backward.
The rant about how they're illegal is just too simplistic.
Posted by opiejudy (Member # 9301) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: Those were pro-criminal rallies.
Sign me up.
I saw we round up everybody who entered this land (or whose ancestors entered this land) without a visa and ship them off to Luna.
Yes, I'm talking about you.
LOL. Unfortuantely I have to go, not one shred of native american in me anywhere. I will miss you all, thank you at least for not sending me back to Germany or Ireland. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Native Americans didn't have visas when they entered this land. They've got to go too.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah! kick 'em off the reservations back to where they came from before we got here.
Oh wait...
Ummm....
Cr@p.
Good thing for us the European colonists all came over with pieces of paper granting them title to the land, otherwise we'd be in serious trouble!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Does anybody know when they started issuing visas to legal immigrants?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I stand by what I said in one of the other threads on this subject (I think there are 4 now).
1. Enforce and/or strengthen laws preventing further illegal immigration.
Only once this has been accomplished:
2. Deal with illegal immigrants already in the country.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And so nobody will consider anyone else's view, and the world will keep spinnin' round.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
And it's also nice of you to just tell them to clean up their own act. But let's not forget the various policies of the US toward "OUR" hemisphere and how those policies helped to keep the other countries just a little bit backward.
The rant about how they're illegal is just too simplistic.
Doesn't really apply to Mexico. Though Mexico isn't the only problem, they're the biggest creator of illegal immigrants. America has done a lot more to help Mexico than any other nation on the planet, and far less to hurt it than European countries did in the past.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Virtually every legal immigrant in the US has been marching the streets requesting legal status for illegal immigrants. If it's a slap in their faces, why are they protesting in favor of it?
Bull. I'm sure there are legal immigrants there who have family members who are here illegally. But as for the rest, bull.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Irregardless -- are you saying that legal immigrants, for the most part, are not in favor of a legal status for illegal immigrants?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Doesn't really apply to Mexico.
Um...the history of our interaction with Mexico is not all that rosy.
Recently, sure, we're on better terms and are more helpful to them. But that doesn't erase the past either.
Just because the Spaniards were worse doesn't mean that Mexicans should look at us and think we're their best friends.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Yes, I am. People who earn something are rarely supportive of those who steal it.
And before you cite the recent Bendixen survey to me, check out the methodology.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
[url=http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html]Some words about the US policy of Manifest Destiny and why Mexicans might not (to this day) agree that we "own" the border lands.
What the words cannot describe is how wretchedly anyone not going along with this US policy was treated within the borders of the rebelling territories.
And the US government aided and armed the rebels.
Just because we won doesn't mean what our government did back then was the right thing.
Oddly enough, we were the first nation to recognize the sovreignty of Mexico when it won independence in 1821.
We just didn't agree that it's borders should be stable.
Funny, that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, I am. People who earn something are rarely supportive of those who steal it.
Do you have anything to back up your assertion?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Doesn't really apply to Mexico.
Um...the history of our interaction with Mexico is not all that rosy.
Recently, sure, we're on better terms and are more helpful to them. But that doesn't erase the past either.
Just because the Spaniards were worse doesn't mean that Mexicans should look at us and think we're their best friends.
You seemed to have been saying before that American intervention is the reason for why their nation is so "backward" today. Other than the Mexican American War, Mexico has caused all of it's own problems, so I don't really see what you're referring to.
As for Texas and what not, Texas had been in revolt for a decade and was larely ignored by Mexico. Then America comes along decides to help to Texan independence movement, which isn't surprising given our history with breaking anyway, and all of a sudden the Mexicans start caring about Texas.
I'm not saying it was the best day ever, and I acknowledge that it has harmed relations even to this day between the two nations, (though again, compared to French conquest and Spanish overlordship I don't see how we're the real bad guy), but they messed up their own country for well over a hundred years and thensome without anything to blame on us. Mexico has a ton of natural resources, even without Texas.
The fact that they've recently broken the 1 trillion dollar mark for their GDP and are I think ranked something like 16th in the world in GDP and economic ranking is in SPITE of all the crap they keep forcing upon themselves, and could only be possible because of America.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Yes, I am. People who earn something are rarely supportive of those who steal it.
Do you have anything to back up your assertion?
Only my observation of human nature + anecdotal evidence from the handful of legal immigrants I know whose opinions on this I'm familiar with. I think most of them were frustrated with the bureaucratic hurdles involved with immigration & would like to see it reformed, but they certainly don't support amnesty for those who flout the law.
Those pseudo-legalized in previous amnesties are probably an exception.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Funny, my anecdotal evidence runs counter to yours. Also so far as:
quote: Bull. I'm sure there are legal immigrants there who have family members who are here illegally. But as for the rest, bull.
I think there are many reasons that legal immigrants could favor amnesty other than having family members that are here illegally. As you stated in your post, most people that have been involved with the immigration system in America have found their interaction less than wonderful. It seems completely consist to want to change the laws so that others don't have to go through that same process.
Even if a person did feel, as you've suggested, that somebody else was getting something free that they'd worked for, there is still the possibility of empathy for another's plight as well as a sense of justice that transcends the law.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
As someone who is here in the U.S as a legal immigrant and has gone through all of the hurdles of immigration since the age of fifteen, I can very much see why someone wouldn't want to go through the process of legal immigration.
I pay three times the amount of tuition that a citizen does here, I am unable to work (student visa), I don't get the full benefit for the taxes me and my family are PAYING for (for example, I am not eligible for government grants, scholarships or anything of the sort, among other things) and the possibilities for advancement past my current status are very limiting.
Why would anyone want to be a legal immigrant? It's not much better than the alternative.
It is indeed a very tiring and involved process that has caused me and my family nothing but grief. I'm all in favor for people never having to go through the same process I did ever again, whether they are illegal immigrants or not. Give them some incentives and some workable alternatives and I think the number of illegal immigrants will decrease steadily.
Telling someone who's working in the US illegally to support their family that they have to leave the country for few months/years so they can come back legal is not workable because:
1) The person working here illegally is doing so for a reason, going back probably does not yield enough income to support their family. Going back for a year/more is simply not an alternative for them.
2) If the person is granted immigrant status after said year, what kind of visa will they be getting? To be eligible for a work visa the company has to sponsor you, something I understand to be a costly process (monetarily). Why would a company agree to pay more for an immigrant when they can get someone for less money (an American they wouldn't have to sponsor). From a business standpoint, it really wouldn't make any sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are you working towards citizenship?
Just curious, as the answer will effect any further comments I make on your post.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am exhausted by the heat here now, but I cannot let this pass without comment, although I shall be uncharecterisicly brief.
Freedom of migration is both a human right and an esential part of free trade. NAFTA is a farce becouse of the massive loopholes preventing free movement.
Those who oposse immigration work on three pricples, none of which can claim to be valid. The first, often cited, priciple is that the law must be upheld, regardless of all other concerns. This might be called the Inspector Javert school of legalism, holding that the law is more important than the people for whom it was suposidly written.
Then there is racism, no further comments are needed as to the evil of that view.
Finaly there exists and enormous anti-free trade movement in this country, fed by unions who have long since forgotten the International brotherhood of the worker, which is, after all the foundation of the Union movement.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Let me tell you the difference between the illegal immigrant and the people that report the illegal immigrants. The Illegal Immigrant had his butt smuggled across the border where, if he wasn't killed by the 'Coyotes' then he could get caught by the border patrol and sent back home. The illegal immigrant had nothing to start out with. Maybe a few pesos or rupees and a dream. If the illegal immigrant actually got into the US it wasn't for his own sake. It was for his children's. I mean in lots of poor countries, they don't get good educations, and to an immigrant whos seen the hard side of life all he wants is to see his children leading a better life than he did, right? I mean that's everyone's dream, right? Illegals don't even get to reap the benefits of America. They got to sit and suffer while the watch their children grow up in an American society. Why do they do it? Love man. The immigrant-haters, or the minutemen, don't do JACK squat. Where I live, all they do is buy a pair of binoculars and watch Mexicans at the neighborhood 7-11. And they get paid too! Don't get me wrong, I'm not hatin on the border patrol, but it'll be the day I die when I see a hard-working minuteman. These guys think they're like the neighborhood watch or something. They got minutemen watching mexicans in Minnesota. Where are you gonna find a Mexican in Minnesota?? I know illegals man. They work hard and earn little, but we're all God's children and we're all entitled to his land.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
My dad grew up in India. He had to walk 3 miles barefoot to school and back. They can't afford buses back there. I don't know if anyone knows anything about India, but back there the public schools are trash. If you acted up, the teacher would beat your butt until it was red. My dad's house had leaves for its roof. His house was 2 bedrooms and he had 8 brothers and sisters. Back there if you see a snake you kill it. Over here you run to your momma like the rich sissy you are. When my dad got married in Bombay, he had to share a 2 room apartment with my mom and another man. Bombay is almost entirely Hindu, and believe it or not my dad was Catholic. Over there it was him and his wife and the other dude in his apartment. No one else gave a crap about him. My dad barely even spoke Hindi, but he learned English since he was a child.Back then, everyone in India wanted to go to America. But only a few made it. Don't talk to me about immigration or America, because if you ask me, my dad did not spend his life savings to fly 10,000 miles, just to get his butt turned back around.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Since when was "freedom of migration" a human right?
Javert? Gosh, talk about a loaded comparison!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: I was suprised to hear that there was a huge rally in D.C., as it didn't receive any significant coverage on the local news stations.
I don't know what station you been listenin to but it's been on 93.9, 94.3, 95.5, 99.1, 103.5, 107.7. Dude I'm seriously doubting that you can live in D.C. and not know about the rally. I live down in Manassas and traffic was still backed up. Everyone at school skipped to protest, and the teachers didn't care. It was all over the Washington Post, it made front page like 3 times.
I don't think that you can make a statement like that and say that you're from DC
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
SoaPiNuReYe, believe me, your dad has my sympathies. But I think your posts will be counterproductive. You may want to rethink them.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Lyrhawn:
That is still undecided at the moment due to reasons I'd rather not post about on a public forum. I'm curious as to how that would affect your reply to my post though, would you be so kind as to fill me in? Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: SoaPiNuReYe, believe me, your dad has my sympathies. But I think your posts will be counterproductive. You may want to rethink them.
Look man I respect your opinion, but it's really easy for a person to just say 'go back to mexico' to an illegal. My neighborhood is like 80% Hispanic. Manassas City (where I live)has authorized the cops to just bust into peoples houses and demand their legal documents. All they have for evidence against them is that they've seen them at the construction site down the road. They've already done it to a family down the street from me. Of course the city officials got criticized and now they can't do it anymore but it really did happen. As absurd as it may sound it's true. People may say that all the illegals should just go back to where they came from but these people have dreamed about entering America and for one reason or another they know, or think, that they won't be allowed to enter. here's a tragic story of an illegal, read this
quote: In March of 2004, 16-year old Edgar Guzman, was brought before the US Bureau of Immigration and Customers Enforcement in Colorado. He had entered the United States illegally, traveling from Guatemala on foot. In Guatemala he had been a member of the MS-13 gang. His sole reason for leaving his native country was to escape the gang life, live with his Aunt in Georgia, and begin school. He begged authorities not to deport him
If I had stayed in Guatemala, members of the Salvatrucha gang would have killed me. I've seen them hit people with baseball bats and shoot them. I know they kill people. I know that if I go back to Guatemala they will torture me. They will kill me if I go back to Guatemala. They will kill me because I left the gang.
On March 10, 2004, Edgar was released from jail and deported. On March 20, 2004, 10 days after he was deported, Edgar was found dead from multiple gunshot wounds. He had hidden in his home for 10 days and eventually left the confines of his house when his grandmother had unexpectedly died. He barely made it 5 blocks from his home before members found him and delivered the punishment that was deemed appropriate for his deserting the gang. Death is almost always the only means of escaping the clutches of MS-13.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
SoaPiNuReYe, your post is very sad, but it does not answer mine. I'm on your side, and I'm telling you that telling everybody (including the Americans on your side, I might add) that Americans are rich sissies is not helping things or engaging in reasonable discourse. And as for the people who disagree with you, reasonable discourse implies that you should try to explain why they are wrong, rather than insult them. Insulting people may make you feel better about something, but, in this case, at least, accomplishes little else.
EDIT: make now to post coherent
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
What I'm saying is that I can hardly sympathize with people who expect the whole of the illegal immigrant population to just get up and leave without even putting themselves in their shoes. These people aren't gonna leave, no matter what immigration reforms come by. Most illegal immigrants already have families established and taking them out of this country is literally the equivilent of seperating a child from his/her parent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, that story is a great example of why I consider effective criminal enforcement to be a civil right. Most people think only of protecting defendants when they think of civil rights in the criminal context. There is certainly important work to be done there - a person charged with a crime is in a very vulnerable position and needs such protection.
But good law enforcement is as much a civil right and as necessary to exercising true freedom as Miranda or 4th amendment rights. I believe wholeheartedly that both sides of this can be achieved - they are not incompatible goals. But both need to be thought of in the civil rights context, not just one.
This concludes this self-serving tub-thumping derail. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Unfortunately border patrol people come across stories like that a lot from what I hear so I understand why they may have found his story hard to believe.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rico: Lyrhawn:
That is still undecided at the moment due to reasons I'd rather not post about on a public forum. I'm curious as to how that would affect your reply to my post though, would you be so kind as to fill me in?
Well, if you aren't here with the intention of becoming a citizen, then you aren't really an immigrant, you're a visitor.
I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't intending on staying here, you aren't an immigrant, if anything that'd make you a migrant I guess. If you plan to stay here, I think the process should be streamlined, made easier, and you should be given every benefit of a citizen. If you don't plan on staying here, and are just here for the education, then while I don't think the process should be any means be a nightmare for you, and I don't think you should have to pay three times more (Jesus, how much ARE you paying?) than anyone else, I also don't think you have as much room to complain.
If you're just visiting, you could have chosen to go somewhere else. If you want to stay, then I disagree with how you've been treated, and am entirely on your side.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Swampjedi, the E.U. views it as thus, I view it thus and it is clearly a logical extension of the right to subsistance, which is universaly recognized as a human right.
It is also cited by Wikipedia as being part of free-trade.
As for my comparison to Javert, I can as of yet think of none more valid to describe the thoughtless upholding of the law. But perhaps my naïfité is shown in my analogies, I certainly hope that the world, like Javert, realizes the meaninglesness of their quest, although I also hope that this goal is reached soon enough that suicide is not seen as the only solution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for my comparison to Javert, I can as of yet think of none more valid to describe the thoughtless upholding of the law.
Perhaps if you deigned to consider the fact that their position isn't "thoughtless" you might actually be capable of discussing the issue rather than merely pronouncing on it.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, by law you can be a "landed immigrant" and not be a citizen.
That certainly disagrees with "if you aren't here with the intention of becoming a citizen, then you aren't really an immigrant."
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Dag, I specificly mentioned three distinct reasond to oposse immigration, only one of which I called thoughtless, this was the one I compared to Javert. Please deign to read my arguments before condeming them.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Lyrhawn:
My plan is to stay, has been since the beginning. The reason I say that's still up in the air is that I might not really have a choice in the matter at this point.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Pelegius, people often use the word 'clearly' when things are anything but.
I don't see a compelling reason to have the right to go anywhere you want. I do, however, see a compelling reason for nations to have soverignty - the foremost of these being security. If anyone who wants to can enter the country, we can't be secure. It's like in computer security - if an adversary has free access the the hardware, you've lost.
I honestly don't care if the EU recognizes "freedom from mimes and clowns" as a universal human right. This isn't the EU, thank God, and we have the right to do things differently here.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. That won't work here.
[ April 15, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Swampjedi ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The right to substince, which is classified as a second-tier human right, would seem to allow for movement in order to subsist, however, I am glad to be informed how incredibly stupid I am and how, in the glorious state of Georgia with its shining swamps inhabited by Jedi, things are done differently. However, being from San Antonio, I can tellm you that our economy depends upon the people whom you hold in such contempt, so please, if you do not recognize their right to move to a more economicly friendly zone, at leat recognize ours to maintain our economy. We are fairly proud of the free market here, and have never regretted NAFTA, but I personaly, and others as well, regret the loopholes in NAFTA that keep it from actualy representing free trade.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
You're reading quite a bit into what I said, Pel.
I didn't call you stupid, nor did I attack you personally in any way. You should learn that "attacking your ideas" doesn't mean I'm coming at you with a knife.
I do not hold anyone in contempt. I decline to agree with your idea of a human right - that doesn't make me a monster or an idiot.
Your post does, however, cause me to want to ignore any future posts on this thread by you.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Your attack was indeed quite personal, and vindictive, using material from another forum in an attempt to discredit me, rather than adressing my points on free trade. Your discussion of human rights has been esentialy limited to saying that you disagree, withoug attempting to argue in any way except from an expert, and, although I am sure you are quite intellegent and competent, I do not know you or of you well enough to make an argument from authority seem particularly convincing when the authority you cite is yourself.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I don't need any 'evidence' for saying I disagree with your opinion, for that is all you have offered. Show me your 'evidence' that freedom of movement is a human right, and I'll work with that. "Wikipedia says so" and "The EU says so" don't count as evidence. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I have no need to attempt to discredit you. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not falling for that, and that I will not let it slide. Since you've gotten the point, I'll remove the reference.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
We're all God's Children and we're all entitled to his land.
No further explanation needed.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yes there is - is private property bad, then?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Everyone needs their privacy, but America is one of the few countries in the world where a person can come in, get an education, make money, and at the same time not be oppressed by a corrupt or tyrannic government. It is wrong not to share such a blessing, am I not right?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Actually, for the most part, I think private propert is bad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is wrong not to share such a blessing, am I not right?
I can think of many situations where it would be wrong to forcibly share something I enjoy with someone else who doesn't want it or can't afford the cost.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Just because somebody was unfortunate enough to have been born outside America in a poorer country doesn't mean we have to share it with them. All we have to do is let it be there for the taking, let them seize the opportunity. Immigration isn't the only way terrorists come into this country. The Oklahoma city bombings are a good example of this. While we have the right to deny people passage into this country, and we SHOULD exercise it, I believe that we still need to help those less fortunate than us. Even if it means letting them into our country illegally.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Swampjedi, I did not say that Wikipedia says something, I said that something was and refered you to the apropriet Wikipedia artical if you were in doubt, I also cited the European Union as a practical example.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I like the Javert comparison, but only if people understand Javert's point of view can they understand the full impact of the story and how it truly may relate to situations where the law, and those who uphold it, are concerned.
To look upon Javert as unthinking or unfeeling is a tragic mistake, IMO. What he was was a figure who had found that the law has meaning only if it is enforced equally, and that later good does not expiate earlier misdeeds.
Victor Hugo used that character to show the cruelty of the French laws, not the cruelty of Javert.
I know many who think Victor Hugo's characters are too one-dimensional, but, I disagree. Javert was not the embodiment of a bad system of laws. He was a servant of those laws and it shaped his choices. The fact is, Hugo shows him to be right about a great many things, and still portrays him as a tragic figure in the end BECAUSE the laws were not equitable, and he did care a great deal about equal treatment.
Anyway...applying THAT analogy to the situation at the US borders, we should examine closely the job we are asking our various law enforcement officials to do. And, if we want to carry it fully, we should really look at our laws regarding immigration and deportation, and so on.
There are lots of inequities (and iniquities) to look at. And if Congress really wanted to do something positive, they could, in fact, do an A-Z review of US immigration law, and policy, and figure out something that would both benefit our country and be fair and even-handed with everyone who wishes to come here legally.
That Congress is not doing that, but is (so far) rushing to pass legislation to suit the perceived attitudes of various constituents means (to me) that we are doomed to simply adding a new layer of complexity and inequality to an already too-complex and unfair process.
And still, we will ask the law enforcement folks at our borders (and working in areas with large immigrant populations) to do the noxious job of implementing those laws and dealing with real people.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Very well put, Bob.
I do think Javert works here, once you explain him in that light. It doesn't feel like an insult anymore, though I believe it was intended as one.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I do as well. And that's too bad, because it also means that half the delicious tragedy of Javert is being missed.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Bob, really? I always viewed Javert as one with good intentions who failed to think enough about his actions and the effects they had on others. Well, that and he was crazy (there's an actual condtion called Javert syndrome for one who obsesses over an indvidual.)
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
As I said, insult.
***
I think there's a sane limit to the amount of people we can help, SoaP. If the burden becomes too great (either real or perceived), then the positive will become a negative.
Where do we draw the line? Where does our integrity as a nation take precedence over the desire of people to come here?
I think it's our responsibility to help out our neighbors. But just because my neighbor is poor doesn't give him the right to move into my house without my permission.
The law should be equitable, as Bob said. Granting another amnesty just doesn't seem equitable. Turning a blind eye to illegals doesn't seem fair to the ones who respect our laws enough to go through the legal process.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What "nation" do you speak of? The United States is not, and never has been, a nation-state, it is, instead a state of nations, a nations-state if you will. The intgrity of my nation, the Celts to be techical about it, is not under threat from immigration or from suspension of immigration, nor do I believe that any nation is, but the integrity of the state rests upon immigration, due to the nature of the state. Ireland, a nation-state, has legal immigration for all citizens of E.U. countries and has, partialy as a result, experienced enormous economic growth.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Don't play semantic games with me, Pel. You know what I meant.
"...[T]he integrity of the state rests upon immigration, due to the nature of the state." Does this have any meaning, or is it just superscilious nonsense?
Ireland having open immigration for all EU citizens is a completely different situation than the US and Mexico. I'd say it's more like Georgia letting Florida people move in. The former is a difference of type, the latter of degree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Relying on the EU as an example of making immigration less restrictive is flawed. While EU has a right of establishement for people in other EU countries, it does not allow unrestricted immigration from outside the EU. In fact, it is attempting to enlist Turkey to halt the flow of illegal immigrants.
At least some of the opposition to Turkey's proposed EU membership is based on the fact that this would allow unrestricted immigration from Turkey to all EU countries, and many people oppose this.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Swapjedi, the difference between a nation and a state is not semantic, it is the basis of the argument here, as the United States was founded on the priciple, as I have endevored to explain, of being a state of nations.
The difference between Georgia and Florida are minimal, they speak the same language (in a dialect which is completly incompresendible to outsiders) etc. The differences between Poland and Ireland, or Denmark and Réunion are much more profound, indeed considerably more profound than the differences between my own city and Monterrey (with which it is twinned and to which flies one of only two non-stop international flights, the other one is to Mexico City.) After all, 58% of my city is Hispanic, the City was founded by Spain, Spanish is spoken by around 70% etc. That does not include undocumented workers, who are numerous. There is clearly more in common between Texas and Coahuila (which were part of the same state for years) than between Latvia and Spain.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
If you will forgive me, I would like to qoute some bad poetry:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!!"
For, in those mediocre lines, is encapsulatedthe ideals of a state, ideals which have been abadoned in favor of mercantilism which is, at best, misguided, and, at worst, a byproduct of racism which leads to the devalopment of para-military forces ready to shoot the untermensch who infringe apon our sacred soil.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
The dictionary says I should have used state instead of nation - or heck, country. I resent the fact that you're nitpicking over this one word, when it was obvious from the context that I meant "country" or "The United States." I'm not a political scientist, nor am I writing a paper on the subject. So how about you come down from your lofty heights of intellect and explain to this dirty "incompresendible" redneck what you're talking about? Explain to me why this distinction matters when we're talking about immigration? I expect I see where you're going, but I think you need to say it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Swapjedi, the difference between a nation and a state is not semantic, it is the basis of the argument here, as the United States was founded on the priciple, as I have endevored to explain, of being a state of nations.
It might have been founded on that principle, but that is not the principle upon which it currently rests. "States" as in "United States" does not have the same meaning as "States" as used in international law (as in the EU or UN charters and other documents which use the term "member States."
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Thanks again, Dag.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Dagonee, to an extent, it does. The United States was expected to be, but clearly is not, a confederation of independed States, much like the E.U. For this reason the United States today is more federalized than other Federal democracies.
SJ, the differentiation is often unimportant, but in this case it is of vital importance. However, no damage done, no need to dwell on the linguistics of the issue, which make debate possible, but should not dominate it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:The United States was expected to be, but clearly is not, a confederation of independed States, much like the E.U.
I believe you are thinking of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Those didn't work and we adopted a system that shed the idea of independent States. What it was expected to be for 11 years is not as important as what it's become in the 219 years since then.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, I am talking about the United States before the Civil War. I have actualy no idea why Dagonee brought this up, however, as it appears totaly irrelevent to the topic at hand, in my humble opinion. The United States was expected to be a collection of states, but is in fact one federal state.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're the one who brought it up, not me.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, I said that the U.S. was a state, you then said that it was not States. How can we possibly be arguing over something which a. is self-evident and b. we agree on?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, I said that the U.S. was a state, you then said that it was not States.
You said: "it is the basis of the argument here, as the United States was founded on the priciple, as I have endevored to explain, of being a state of nations."
I then said "It might have been founded on that principle, but that is not the principle upon which it currently rests."
You brought up the subject of the United States. I added additional information to a subject you brought up.
Why the hell did you feel the need to say, "I have actualy no idea why Dagonee brought this up, however, as it appears totaly irrelevent to the topic at hand, in my humble opinion." How the hell is the structure of the United States before the Civil War relevant to the topic at hand if the structure of the United States now isn't?
quote:How can we possibly be arguing over something which a. is self-evident and b. we agree on?
Because you're asserting something that is inaccurate - namely, that I brought this up - and also bitching about the relevancy of the topic which, again, you brought up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am confused, the United States is A. a state and B. a state of nations, as opose to a nation-state. That is all I said and all I meant to say when I said that "it is the basis of the argument here, as the United States was founded on the priciple, as I have endevored to explain, of being a state of nations."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You said you didn't know why I brought it up. I explained that you brought it up the subject of the U.S. as a collection of states and I expanded on the current state of that principle.
Why is that confusing to you?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, I only said it was a state of nations. I am not sure that a nation of states means anything, but I suppose that the Slavs, Celts and Turkic people could claim that. I am actualy prefering this discusion, surreal though it may be, to the one before.
I think all add to the surreality Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm disappointed. No one has brought up how we are a nation of immigrants--indeed, illegal immigrants--and thus ought to welcome further immigrants.
If they had, I'd be pleased to ask them how the Native Americans handled their illegal immigrant problem, you think maybe I could check at the Cherokee embassy?
Oh well...I probably should not get too snarky. I've been awake too long.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Mabus-
Different time, different place. Totally irrelevant.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Different PLACE?
Huh?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:No one has brought up how we are a nation of immigrants--indeed, illegal immigrants--and thus ought to welcome further immigrants.
While I'm sure there are many of us here with illegal immigrant blood, it should be pointed out that some of us are in fact, the children of legal immigrants. Not everyone who came to this country did so illegally.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The situation in America today is radically different from the one in the early 20th to early 19th centuries.
Those differences, I think, make the type of immigration we welcomed (and that some fought) back then a bad choice for today's America.
The land is settled, the nation is built, the infrastructure long since laid and formed. We're among the other nations in the world in our constant growth, but we are no longer a nation in the flower of youth. Like many, we're still trying to find our way, after a fashion.
I'll always be a supporter of some form of immigration, we cannot close off the borders. But we are becoming a nation of turmoil and problems. Internally formed, internally fought. I think the best thing for America right now is to fix our internal problems, make America flourish as a land of hope for all, then welcome the tired and poor as a nation willing and able to better help them. America shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme for the world's poor.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:America shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme for the world's poor.
America is hardly a get rich quick scheme. If that was how immigrants viewed it, I don't understand why they're working hard at menial jobs that will most likely never make them rich. America represents an opportunity to better your situation through hard work. That is exactly what I think it should stay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I support immigration, because without it my family wouldn't be here. However, that doesn't mean I support throwing away every and all control over our borders.
Allowing an amnesty, then saying the next day "Look, we don't have an illegal immigrant problem anymore." doesn't work.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What do you mean no has pointed it out? I have spent the last page defending the view of the United States as a state of immigrants, or a state of nations, the term I used in contrast to nation-state.
Kwea, heavan forbid that there be less burreacracy Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
"We're all immigrants" just doesn't hold any meaning for me. After all, regardless of how you view the rise of human beings, it's doubtful that anyone has a family line that is tied to the same place since "the beginning."
It's like saying the grass is green - true, but it doesn't really add anything to a discussion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:America shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme for the world's poor.
America is hardly a get rich quick scheme. If that was how immigrants viewed it, I don't understand why they're working hard at menial jobs that will most likely never make them rich. America represents an opportunity to better your situation through hard work. That is exactly what I think it should stay.
I think my point was that the world's poor looks at America as the solution to their problem, rather than any effort being made to better the nation they live in. Now, I don't blame them for that, as the problems in the majority of their home countries are not of their making, they are the making of the oligarchs, the rebels, the government, the tyrant, or the British. It isn't their fault, but at the same time, immigration to America as some sort of promised land is NOT a god given right.
The world should be doing a better job at making the third world, and for that matter, the first world nations with high poverty levels, more liveable for every man, woman and child. That means investing in the third world, and not just throwing money at them and letting them kill each other with it. Or in general, throwing money at them and then patting ourselves on the back.
But at the end of the day, my main problem with such high levels of immigration is that America isn't at its best. We have so many internal problems that have been brushed under the rug in the last two decades, we need to fix those before we can welcome anyone else into our homes. It's time to clean house, not have a house party.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Sorry about the snarky, silly post a few back. I was becoming somewhat sleep-deprived.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'American' jobs do not belong to native-born Americans by some sacred god-given right either, Lyrhawn. I know you haven't suggested that they do, I'm just pointing it out.
I hear a lot of that rhetoric about jobs in America being 'ours' and 'they should go to Americans'. This from the same people who otherwise will buy at the cheapest price they can, shopping at Wal-Mart and saying to hell with doing good for American workers beyond them simply having a job at all.
No, that argument isn't really about protecting American jobs for Americans. It's really about keeping them out, because we're not comfortable with them.
Why don't they stay in their own homes and make those a better place? Well, that's a good point. But please do bear in mind that as white male Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries, we were born on third base. We didn't hit a triple, y'know what I mean? It's awfully easy to sit in our air conditioning, shortly before driving to work in our insured automobiles at our forty-hour a week jobs (largely without corruption) and tell everyone else, "Fix your own homes, don't come here!"
My thoughts on immigration are very much tempered by the certainty that if I were born in a third-world nation, and if by crossing a border illegally I could suddenly multiply my wages, standard of living, safety, and the promise of all of those things for my children many score over...I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd listen to Americans whine about how awful it is that their nation is being 'invaded' whilst I'm mowing one of their lawns, or picking some of their food...all at wages and standards much, much better than home. And still pretty crappy by American standards-which is what I'd be working for for my children.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here, here, Rakeesh.
-Bok
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Rakeesh, I don't disagree with you overall. But, I do think American jobs should go to those here legally.
We need more legal immigration / work programs, not an open border. And if that means a wall, so be it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
People here legally should have first dibs on a job, assuming they want it. But there are many (not all) jobs that illegals do in worse conditions for less money, and the supply of willing workers frequently just isn't there.
Furthermore, I am not saying there isn't any rationale behind that reasoning. I just get irritated when people put it under anything but strictly law-abiding terms.
But I have different irritants with the rule-of-law argument, because to most Americans there are laws and then there are laws.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Here, here, Rakeesh.
-Bok
Adding my applause. Especially to the "we were born on third base" part. A just world is the world we would create if we didn't know who our parents would be.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Part of living in America is the ability to pass your things on to your children, improving their chances in life.
I refuse to feel ashamed because I was born here, even though that seems to be what a lot of people are trying to do...make people ashamed of our standard of living, and our situation in life.
I don't see many people going there, giving up their lives in the US, and living among the poor and deprived in Mexico (or any other poor, corrupt place).
And I don't appreciate people inferring that every person who opposes a completely open, porous border, is somehow racist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who said anything about shame? And who said I don't oppose a completely open, porous border? I was speaking of the kinds of people who think that American jobs are theirs by some sacred birthright, or something. It's a rhetoric I've heard before. Oftentimes, such people are racist in matters of immigration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The fact of the matter is despite our rhetoric about being a 'beacon of freedom', etc. etc., we often live our freedom and our standards of life at the expense of others who were less fortunate in their birthright.
There is something to be ashamed of in that, perhaps. But it's nothing more than pretty much every other nation on Earth is guilty of, too.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
I'm curious how the people supporting the illegal aliens (especially the Mexican ones) feel about Mexico's treatment of their illegal aliens?
EDIT: I forgot to add this article where Mexico is criticizing Georgia for their new anti-illegal immigration law calling it "discriminating against Mexicans".
Jesse
[ April 19, 2006, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Eisenoxyde ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yeah, the hypocricy [ed: of the Mexican government] is stunning.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Interesting article Eisenoxyde. To answer your question, I feel that Mexico's treatment of its illegal aliens is pretty horrible and I'm glad that we strive for a higher standard.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Amanecer - but what about their government demanding that *we* let their people come here with a free pass? (And encouraging their people to come here any way they can.)
Jesse
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But please do bear in mind that as white male Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries, we were born on third base. We didn't hit a triple, y'know what I mean?
You know, this attitude gets under my skin. My husband and I are white, and we're probably considered upper middle class, maybe even rich depending on what scale you use.
And not a single bit of the wealth we've earned was given to us. I'd love to meet all these born on third base white males who sit around and get a check from somewhere because they're white and male and don't need to work for a living.
I have a lot of friends who are well off as well, and not a single one of us were trust fund babies. I only know of one or two whose parents actually paid for their college education, the rest of us had to make do with either scholarships, loans, or working through college to pay our own way. None of us went to ritzy private schools or to schools in all-white suburban neighborhoods, for that matter. My husband went to a high school in which whites were the minority.
In my circle of friends are many people who started out poor or middle class, and now earn much more than their parents. My parents declared bankruptcy, lost their home to foreclosure and had their car repossessed when I was in high school. I did not come from a privileged background. Same with my husband - his father was a math teacher and his mom a stay-at-home mom. Wes and I are where we are today because we worked our butts off to get here, and we're still working to improve our lives and to set up a good future for our children, which is why I'm finishing my degree and going back to work and he's starting a new business.
I'm sick of hearing how we have it easy because we're white. It hasn't been easy. It's taken determination and work ethic and no one ever gave us a darn thing. My parents never paid one cent toward higher education for me, I've done it all on my own. There are plenty of opportunities for people to get ahead in this country, that's why so many people want to come here. Yes you may start off poor and in a bad neighborhood with perhaps not-so-good public schools but if you apply yourself and try and are determined and have a good work ethic you can succeed, regardless of your color or gender. There is no magic pill that turns all white males born in America rich.
I live in a county that is 98% white and yet has a high poverty percentage. Not all poor people are minorities and not all white people live on easy street.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While I don't think most people here would qualify as "rich", even the poorest of us have it pretty good (and have always had it pretty good) compared to most of those who risk their lives to get here.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I acknowledge that, and love that I was born in America. I just resent being told I have it better than everyone else in America because I'm white.
It's much more fair to say that my kids have an advantage, being born into a two-parent home, upper middle class, and living in a low-crime area with good schools. That's fair. They do have advantages over inner-city kids who have to walk through metal detectors to get to class. (and we've worked darn hard to give our kid that advantage)
But to say they have an advantage just because they're white? No, that's where I disagree. I could drive five minutes away from my house and show you dozens of white families living in abject poverty, their race certainly didn't give them some magic potion that makes life easier.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Exactly, kmbboots. Our baseline is much higher than in other places, and it's worth recognizing.
That said, I agree with Belle. My accomplishments aren't worth any less because I'm a WASP.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my opinion, it isn't so much a matter of race as it is being born in this society that gives us a head start.
edit to add: No one is suggesting that our "head start" means we don't have to do some running ourselves.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:My accomplishments aren't worth any less because I'm a WASP.
It's not even being recognized for my accomplishments, actually I spend a lot more time focused on what I deem as failures I've had - such as not finishing school the first time around and having to go back now at 34.
It's more about recognizing that yes, some people do have advantages over others, but they aren't necessarily linked to race. I think the economic status you're born into says a lot more about how "easy" you're going to find success in life. But even being born into the most privileged of situations is not a guarantee of personal success, you still have to work for a living to make it in this world. (unless you're one of the afore mentioned trust fund babies) And in the real world, being white is no guarantor of success.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Amanecer - but what about their government demanding that *we* let their people come here with a free pass? (And encouraging their people to come here any way they can.)
Seems pretty hypocritical.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
kmbboots, I don't really like the idea of a 'head start.' That implies that it's all a race, and that those with a 'head start' are cheating those who are running the race according to the rules.
Belle, I understand now.
<rant>
I remember in college this one non-white kid complaining about how many disadvantages he's had to overcome. He then went on to gripe that they could only afford a 'small' house in Atlanta, and other stuff. Finally someone asked him the question that we were all thinking... how much, exactly, did his parents bring home a year? It was close to a million dollars.
I wanted to beat the snot out of him. Pulling the race card when his parents made close to 50 times what mine did? I'd really like to know what disadvantages he's overcome that I had to.
I don't really care about race and disadvantage - it's all about economic status, for me. I was on a committee at Emory with faculty and admissions staff, and they kept going on and on about "racial diversity" in the upcoming student body, and how it was such a step in the right direction with regard to righting past wrongs. I raised my hand and asked about economic diversity. It kinda got quiet, then the dean of admissions admitted that about 40% of the kids admitted came from families with 250k+ income a year. Yeah Emory, way to go. You sure picked those who had overcome huge disadvantages to admit! My family's income was in the bottom 5. Don't break your arms patting yourself on the back. In fact, let me do it for you.
</rant>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't meant to imply that there is anything wrong with a "head start", just that our good fortune needs to be recognized as good fortune rather than something that we earned - or something that others have failed to deserve.
I also want to be clear that I am not talking about race.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I'm sick of hearing how we have it easy because we're white. It hasn't been easy. It's taken determination and work ethic and no one ever gave us a darn thing.
Hard work and a strong work ethic are only "parts" of what is needed to achieve a good standard of living--it also takes a system where economic growth is possible.
My problem with illegal immigrants is not race. I love immigration. My wife immigrated (legally). I am even grateful for the illegal immigrants who contribute to society. As a parent I certainly emphasize with anyone who tries to come here to get a better life for themselves or their kids. Rakeesh hit the nail on the head when s/he said:
quote:My thoughts on immigration are very much tempered by the certainty that if I were born in a third-world nation, and if by crossing a border illegally I could suddenly multiply my wages, standard of living, safety, and the promise of all of those things for my children many score over...I'd do it in a heartbeat.
But I ultimately agree with TheHumanTarget when s/he wrote
quote: However, I think it's important to remember that uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a threat. Not at the individual level where illegal immigrants are our friends, or coworkers, or neighbors, but as a whole, where they threaten to overwhelm our social systems.
America has a system that works for a lot of people. Belle can work hard, have a strong work ethic, and achieve a nice lifestyle. She should not feel guilty. Her behavior should be emulated by people who want the same success.
It is possible because of our economy, government, laws, et cetera. If illegal immigration is not put in check, I don't see how our system can survive. If it is overwhelmed and crashes everyone suffers. If it is nurtured, there is success for many and a beacon of hope for many more.
Immigrants add a lot to our economy. I don't dispute that illegal immigrants add to our economy--but porous borders next to a country with millions of desperate people needing to flee surely poses a grave threat to our system. Illegal immigrants in Phoenix are a strain on public resources funded by taxes. Crimes and gangs also seem to increase in areas with high levels of illegal immigrants.
Surely we can find a method of making it possible to allow more legal workers and turning back more illegal immigrants. At least Congress’s actions are spurring the debate forward.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Ok, understood and agreed.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: I don't dispute that illegal immigrants add to our economy--but porous borders next to a country with millions of desperate people needing to flee surely poses a grave threat to our system.
Agreed. I have no trouble with guest worker status, if the person can stay in the US, hold down steady employment for a certain period (save 5 years or so), then they should be allowed to apply for citizenship. That type of system would allow employers looking for labor and laborers looking for work to get together, legally, and allows a way for those who truly do want to come here and work to improve their lot a way to do so.
I agree with you, lem, that just opening up our borders to any and all who will come is not in our nation's best interest. It will put a strain on social services. I don't know about the crime issue, but I know from hearing anecdotal evidence from cops and firefighters that crime is very high in areas with lots of immigrant families, especially domestic violence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'American' jobs do not belong to native-born Americans by some sacred god-given right either, Lyrhawn. I know you haven't suggested that they do, I'm just pointing it out.
I hear a lot of that rhetoric about jobs in America being 'ours' and 'they should go to Americans'. This from the same people who otherwise will buy at the cheapest price they can, shopping at Wal-Mart and saying to hell with doing good for American workers beyond them simply having a job at all.
No, that argument isn't really about protecting American jobs for Americans. It's really about keeping them out, because we're not comfortable with them.
Why don't they stay in their own homes and make those a better place? Well, that's a good point. But please do bear in mind that as white male Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries, we were born on third base. We didn't hit a triple, y'know what I mean? It's awfully easy to sit in our air conditioning, shortly before driving to work in our insured automobiles at our forty-hour a week jobs (largely without corruption) and tell everyone else, "Fix your own homes, don't come here!"
My thoughts on immigration are very much tempered by the certainty that if I were born in a third-world nation, and if by crossing a border illegally I could suddenly multiply my wages, standard of living, safety, and the promise of all of those things for my children many score over...I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd listen to Americans whine about how awful it is that their nation is being 'invaded' whilst I'm mowing one of their lawns, or picking some of their food...all at wages and standards much, much better than home. And still pretty crappy by American standards-which is what I'd be working for for my children.
Oh I quite agree with you Rakeesh, though I do think that Americans born here should get first dibs, and mostly they do. Still, how fair is it to the American construction worker or the American landscaper when an illegal can come in and work for next to nothing and thus undercut him? I guess my argument there is actually for more legalized immigration. I'd rather have more immigrants here legally than illegally so they are protected by wage laws. It levels the playing field.
And I do understand what you are saying about being a few steps ahead in America. I hear a lot of my own thoughts echoing in Belle's words about the anger with people who assume that white people in America just automatically get everything when that is not the reality. But the fact of the matter is there is a system set up here to help give us the chance to work hard and actually get somewhere. Hard work isn't an automatic path to success in third world countries.
However, and I've said this before on here, the first world should do more to make sure that hard work in the third world DOES give them a chance at success. It's been done all over Africa on the small scale, with entrepreneurs lending small business loans to individuals who paid it back with minimal interest and made their lives better. It's an investment in humanity, in the target nation, in the first world nations that want more equality and less exodus, and in our own selfish future interests in selling them useless crap. Everyone wins. But they shouldn't give up right off the bat and head for the border.
Also, I'm not sure if somewhere in there you called me a racist, but my argument for or against illegal immigration has zero to do with the fact that it is hispanics coming here. If the country south of us was populated by Germans, British, Chinese, or whatever I'd still have precisely the same position. I don't think god gifted America to me alone, or the rest of the American people (American race? Part of why I'm curious about the racist argument, but that's for another post).
I just think America has too many problems that are effected by large numbers of immigrants, and trying to fix them while not plugging the holes, is like trying to fix leaks in a boat without first taking it out of the water. It's easier to fix a leak in drydock, then we can put to water again safely and more easily and fairly allow increased immigration.
The whole argument comes down to control. America needs to be in control of itself, it needs a measure of control over it's safety, it's future, it's security. It needs to be able to control how many people get in, and of what number of them are skilled and unskilled. Often times the arguments FOR an explosion in immigration come off as arguments AGAINST control.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Belle,
quote:I live in a county that is 98% white and yet has a high poverty percentage. Not all poor people are minorities and not all white people live on easy street.
Had I been speaking strictly of Americans in America, I think your complaints about my statement would be more on point. However I was speaking about white Americans in America when compared to all of humanity.
Do you disagree with my assessment under those circumstances? Being born on third isn't necessarily easy, but it is easier. For, say, an African farmer to attain the same standard of living and security of physical welfare in Africa, he'd have to work much, much harder than you would doing so in Alabama. It doesn't mean you were sitting there born with a silver spoon, it means that when compared to him...you had it pretty damn easy.
And so did I, please bear that in mind.
quote:But they shouldn't give up right off the bat and head for the border.
Why not? Just because it's their country? Because they were born within an arbitrary set of geographical lines? I am loyal to my nation because it is loyal to me, to an extent. And to my family, my fellow citizens, my neighbors, and so on and so forth. But if I lived in a place where quite a few of my infant children died, if there were warlords rampaging up and down my street every year or so, if there was constant flooding and epedimics...I'd leave. I'd bug out. I'm not going to blame anyone who does.
quote:I live in a county that is 98% white and yet has a high poverty percentage. Not all poor people are minorities and not all white people live on easy street.
This is a country, God bless it, where the poor often have a better standard of living than the rich in some third world nations. It is that standard by which I made my baseball analogy.
quote:But to say they have an advantage just because they're white? No, that's where I disagree. I could drive five minutes away from my house and show you dozens of white families living in abject poverty, their race certainly didn't give them some magic potion that makes life easier.
Which family do you think is better off in America? Your family, or a hypothetical family which makes precisely the same amount of money, has the same job security, the same healthiness, etc. etc., but who is African-American, or Hispanic, or Asian?
The problem is obviously nowhere near as bad as it once was, but to suggest as you are doing that whites and minorities in America are equal in opportunity as you are...well, that's just not the world I see. I'm talking real-world opportunity, not the kinds of opportunities that exist for exceptions, but for the rules.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Why not? Just because it's their country? Because they were born within an arbitrary set of geographical lines? I am loyal to my nation because it is loyal to me, to an extent. And to my family, my fellow citizens, my neighbors, and so on and so forth. But if I lived in a place where quite a few of my infant children died, if there were warlords rampaging up and down my street every year or so, if there was constant flooding and epedimics...I'd leave. I'd bug out. I'm not going to blame anyone who does.
I suppose I wouldn't blame them for trying either. Doesn't mean they all automatically get to actually come here though. I think it's a two way street, if we're willing to help them, and really help, not just the useless money throwing schemes of the past, but not full on nation building, then I think they should stay and work to make their nation something to be proud of. The reason I think many of them leave is despair and hope. Right now they have every reason to despair, and every reason to hope for a better life somewhere else.
Take away their despair and give them a reason to hope for a better life where they were born and it'd be a good step towards raising the standard of living for all of humanity, not just the lucky few who happened to be born in south and central America and can walk or hitch a ride to America.
It's true that national lines are arbitraty and unfair, and you can use that argument to justify migration in the north and south American continents. Anyone can also use some higher moral argument about humanity deserving a better life in general, and that we'd understand why they'd leave, hell, we'd do it too if we were them. But if we're going to go down that road, one of empathy and understanding, why not take it a step further and not ignore those unlucky enough to live an ocean away, and talk about helping them to help themselves too, and in the process, also help ourselves.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Some of the biggest racists I have ever met were minorities themselves, so I don't but the "race=hardship" line myself. I am not saying that racism isn't an issue, because it is at times, but economic issues are a FAR greater issue in this country than race is, at least in my experience.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, the not-listening-to-qualifiers is getting frustrating. I did not say, "Race=hardship." I said, "Race=morehardship, if you're in the minority."
So please, guys, remember that's what I'm actually saying. It's incredibly ironic for me to listen to myself labeled as playing the race card.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Which family do you think is better off in America? Your family, or a hypothetical family which makes precisely the same amount of money, has the same job security, the same healthiness, etc. etc., but who is African-American, or Hispanic, or Asian?
Why would they not be considered as well off as me if they have all the same things - the same economic status, job security, etc.? Are you insinuating there is something inherently bad about being African-American, Asian, or Hispanic that makes them inferior to me even if they have all the same things I do?
We have African-American neighbors who are at least as well-off financially as we are, perhaps more (I happen to know what their house was listed at, and if they paid the listing amount they spent a lot more on their home than we did on ours) and I would never take the stand that "Oh, it must be terrible for this highly successful family to be African-American, they would be so much better off if they were white." I wonder if I asked them if they wished they were born white what they'd say. I have a feeling they are proud of their heritage and cultural roots as African-Americans and would not want to give that up for whatever benefit you think there would be for them to be white.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This is a country, God bless it, where the poor often have a better standard of living than the rich in some third world nations. It is that standard by which I made my baseball analogy.
But your analogy didn't say that. You didn't say "Guys, those of us born in America already start on third base because even our poor are rich compared to people in third world countries."
Had you said that, I would have had no problem with it. But no, you specifically singled out white males and made the analogy about THEM.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, alright, I see the misunderstanding then. This discussion is about immigration, and America's relationship with its neighbors and the world and how restrictive or inclusive we want that to be. I was operating from the given that the things I said about Americans were in comparison to the rest of the world.
We were talking about immigrants into America, and I said that Americans are largely born on third and some think they've hit a triple. I mean that most especially when I hear people complain that immigrants should fix their countries first.
quote:Why would they not be considered as well off as me if they have all the same things - the same economic status, job security, etc.? Are you insinuating there is something inherently bad about being African-American, Asian, or Hispanic that makes them inferior to me even if they have all the same things I do?
So...wealthy or at least well-off minorities in America are immune from the forces of racism, marginalization, stereotypes? These are forces which you face to the same degree living in America, of course, right?
That's my point. My point was obviously not that minorities in America are guaranteed to have it awful. I should have been more specific when I said 'better off'. I did not mean which family was more worthy, or happy, or more fulfilled. I meant, "Which of these two hypothetical families in America do you imagine would face greater hardship?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, I have a hypothetical plan to float to deal with the illegal immigration thing. First, we do an amnesty. However, we make it a conditional amnesty. That is, we get the illegals here now to come forward, get all the paperwork done and all, and confer on them legal status. However, this legal status is predicated on the number of new illegal immigrants we get. If it grows past a certain point, we'll have no choice but to revoke the bestowed legal status on all these people whom we now have documentation for.
I think this, combined with a guest worker program, may actually be one of the better options in dealing with the problem. At the very least, I think it's better than the unconditional amnesty or "Let's say they're all criminals." options. What do people think?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I know that today's immigrant walk out day has backfired for some people. My brother is a regional manager for a restaurant chain. They had so many people not show up for work today that he had to scramble to get things covered and barely did.
He said there will be many firings of the people who didn't come in and didn't have valid reasons to be off work. His reasoning is if he can't count on them he doesn't want them as employees. His business is so high in turn over anyway, he can hire more people to replace them. He'd rather have people working for him that appreciate their jobs and won't leave their employer in a lurch.
Since we're in a right-to-work state and they violated company policy by being out without calling in, he can fire them at will. And he is.
Probably not the result people were hoping for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you honestly think that people didn't expect for some of the people who walked out to get fired?
Acceptance of negative short term consequences in the pursuit of postive long term goals is a corner stone of nonviolent protest.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Easy to say unless you're a family who depends on that income to survive.
Hopefully, since these are all fairly low wage earning jobs, it is going to affect mostly students or people who only worked part time, not people supporting families.
I'm just sad for those that are going to be put in hardship because of this. As my brother said, he didn't need to see them walk out to appreciate them, he appreciates them when they show up and work hard for his company not when they take unscheduled days off. They took his willingness to hire and give an opportunity to people who for the most part were unskilled and didn't speak the language, and threw it back in his face by betraying the trust he had put in them. He hired them and they promised to do a job. They didn't do it, and left him in a bad situation.
It has probably made him less likely to hire immigrants in the future, I don't know. I hope not. But I know he was very angry, and very hurt today.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Belle, I was kinda wondering about the irony of that as well. In part, the walk-out was meant to make people aware of Hispanic and immigrant workers. On the news all day various stations have been asking viewers to write in about their experiences. It seems the people who work in jobs or certain geographical locations where these workers are prevalent, are not blind, they see them and recognize them in some form (whether its simple use or admiration.)
The people who are not exposed to this part of the population because of the types of businesses they visit or the city/state in which they; they are the ones most likely to be critical of the value of immigrant workers. But most likely they will only see the numbers in the streets in other cities and it won't touch their daily lives, which is a shame.
It was a great show of unity, pride, and organization, even if it seemed to lack a certain sense of practically.
I hope your brother would at the very least recognize that they did not leave work out of laziness or disrespect, but to protest and take part in the American civil process. It says a great deal about the character of these people and the goals they had in mind when they came to this country.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:So...wealthy or at least well-off minorities in America are immune from the forces of racism, marginalization, stereotypes? These are forces which you face to the same degree living in America, of course, right?
Nope, they aren't....and neither are white people. More people are discriminated due to their income level that due to race, IMO, regardless of what race they are.
And most of the bigots I know...not all, but most....are not white.
That was my point.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Here's the deal Shanna. We've talked about this many times, because my mom is in the employment industry and my brother does a lot of hiring and my husband and I used to own a business as well so employment law and problems with recruiting and maintaining employees is frequent dinner conversation.
All of us agreed with one thing. That we'd rather hire a man trying to support a family than a teenager who just wants money to put gas in the shiny new car Daddy bought her for her sweet sixteen. For several reasons - the family man is usually more commmitted to his job because he needs it more, therefore he's more reliable, and we'd rather that if we have to pay someone, we pay somebody who really needs and appreciates the paycheck. All of us have experienced the teenager who will blow off his or her work schedule because they stayed out late last night and got drunk or because they have a hot date coming up.
Immigrants with families usually are reliable, dependable hard working people who respect the fact they have a job. We respect them in return. My mom has put her faith in immigrants before, she's gone so far as to arrange English classes for them, to have translators available to help them understand the benefits forms they're filling out, she has bent over backwards to be accomodating. Not entirely out of the goodness of her heart - but because they make darn good employees, usually. It's a win-win - good for her company, good for the immigrant.
But today they betrayed the trust, and destroyed what credibility they had with my brother for sure. My mom not so much, she didn't have as many problems as he had today. So now, why should he bend over backward to hire an immigrant over an American-born teen, if the immigrant is showing him that he is not any more reliable or any more dependable? Why not just make things easier for everyone and hire the teenager who speaks the language, instead of going out of his way to accomodate the Spanish speaking immigrant instead?
See, that's why it's hurtful. They may have lost their job over this, but sure they can probably get another one. But will the next employer be just as hesitant because he/she also got burned today? Perhaps. They may have in fact, set themselves back instead of leaping forward. Like I said, my brother and mom already appreciated immigrants. They admired their work ethic and respected them. Remember that it's harder to work with people who don't know your language, so my brother and mom were going out of their way to accomodate, it wasn't the path of least resistance for them. Now they feel hurt, and betrayed, and they honestly may hesitate to hire immigrants again next time.
And honestly, I can see why. If there are enough people available to hire, and it's easier to hire the English speaker, and neither group has shown itself to be more dependable than another, hire the English speaker. Why not?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But today they betrayed the trust, and destroyed what credibility they had with my brother for sure.
Oh, come on. That's RIDICULOUS, Belle. It was a planned march and walkout. No "trust" was betrayed; no implied social contract was trampled, here. I think your brother is just being a kneejerk counter-reactionary.
If he wants to fire them for missing a day of work and inconveniencing him, fine. It's entirely his right to do so -- and as you've observed, they're disposable labor anyway, so it's not a huge issue for him to do so. But for him to stomp around and complain that his feelings were hurt by the fact that they put an issue that's clearly of some importance to them before a job that you freely admit is disposable is more than a little whiny.
Posted by Son Of Kerensky (Member # 9233) on :
Well the local protest here failed due to lack of solidarity among the legal and illegal immigrant community. Those who wanted to protest were overwhelmed by those who desired to maintain their job. I would know considering a lot of the people who work at the company I work for are illegal. The company I work for obviously turns a blind eye simply because those who are the policy makers line their pockets with larger annual bonuses because they do not have any obligation to provide these workers benefits, in turn that responsability is given to the taxpayer to pay any medical expenses they have. It is another scenario of the rich getting richer and the middle class being crushed closer to the poverty line with the illegal workers caught in between. Who's fault is all of this? Well there are a lot of reasons why it happens, but the major one comes from greed of those in positions of authority within the major businesses. In this case the company I work for is German not American though located in The United States and most of their money is shipped back over to Germany. Even so American businesses have the same practices just look at the news and the businesses that had a 'holiday' today for the protests. The illegal workers just want a chance to prosper and the middle class and poorer Americans just want a chance to rise above their parents station in life which is becomming more difficult every day mostly due to the economical elite.
So solutions? There are no (zip,zero,nadda) easy ones. For one thing Mexico is in dire need of a clean up, unfortunately no one wants to take care of this mess. The corruption has deep roots and will not die easily no matter what force acts on it and without it being taken care of any solution would eventually fail. Border enforcement would be an expensive proposition no matter how it occurred. With no physical barrier the border patrol would require a huge ammount of man power and a support system similar to the military more then law enforcement. With a safisticated physical barrier the number of personnel on the ground could be greatly reduced, but either way the taxpayer will eat the bill which will make most politicians fear for their future (political cowardice is such an annoying disease). The last problem is the humanitarian issue in dealing with those already here. Returning them all home or even half home is nearly impossible for many reasons. One many of their children by birth on United States soil are now American citizens (a law that should be revised). Also, how can The United States claim to be the nation it is and turn a blind eye to those suffering when we evict them from what has been their home for most quite some time now? Either way you deal with the problem everyone of the illegal immigrants need to become documented and screened by some process. If they want to become citizens and be productive good have them pay a fee that will provide means to run the administrative costs of processing them and have them learn English as soon as possible. Why learn English to become a citizen? For many reasons one immigrants legal or otherwise who do not understand or speak the language are abused frequently and second if you really want citizenship this is a very small price to pay. Also, if they have a criminal background they get to go back to where they came from after all we have our fair share of domestic criminals to deal with. If you are not documented as a citizen or in processing for citizenship with in a certain time period of this going into effect then guess what your hiding for a reason and if your caught you get to leave the country.
If the Mexican government doesn't like this well then we can build a really strong concrete and steel barrier on the south border and drop off every illegal immigrant on the Mexican side and give them all guns and let them sort out their differences with their own government. On a side note do some research on how Mexico treats illegal immigrants and their naturalized 'citizens' you will find that it is definately not a good comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I also found it alittle odd to compare missing work for a civil march to a hangover excuse.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Knowing about this almost a month in advance, my scheduling manager at the restaurant I work at didn't schedule any immigrant labor unless he'd talked to them beforehand to specifically ask them if they planned on participating.
We had maybe a dozen of them show up, between front and back of the house staff.
Turnover in restaurants is high. If you nocall/noshow once, you're fired, and that's that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I felt similarly about students who didn't show in class today... I *kind of* support the cause and I support the right to protest, but that's a sacrifice you make; and if you miss a quiz when your out protesting, then that's your call, but I have too much self interest. Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I live down in Manassas...
First, just let me say..Haha...okay...moving on...
quote: I don't know what station you been listenin to but it's been on 93.9, 94.3, 95.5, 99.1, 103.5, 107.7. Dude I'm seriously doubting that you can live in D.C. and not know about the rally. I don't think that you can make a statement like that and say that you're from DC
Well, you sure showed me. I must not live here. Or I just don't listen to "Hot 95.5" or the recently flipped-to-Spanish 99.1 (long live WHFS!). I also don't often read the local rags as it's quicker and more reliable to get my news on-line.
Suprisingly, none of the news that I saw or heard yesterday mentioned anything other than a couple hundred people who held a rally in NW...(most talked about L.A., Chicago, Dallas).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I also found it alittle odd to compare missing work for a civil march to a hangover excuse.
You obviously don't run a business. As a business owner, you care that your business functions and you make money. It doesn't matter why they miss work. You can say they aren't the same thing, but they end up with the same result - the owner has no employees, and he's in a bad spot.
Exceptions are made for valid reasons to be off - sickness, planned vacations, etc., but if you don't show up and leave your employer in a terrible situation, you don't get a free pass because it was a civil march. We have a right to protest in this country, but no where does it say we have the right to do it without consequences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:but if you don't show up and leave your employer in a terrible situation, you don't get a free pass because it was a civil march
Which is fine, and he's well within his rights to fire them. But his feelings shouldn't be hurt.
Frankly, if they DIDN'T consider the future of immigrants in this country to be at least slightly more important to them than one of a dozen available menial, unskilled jobs, I'd be more concerned.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, Tom, I don't know what kind of bosses you've had in your life, but I feel sorry for you if you've never had one that cares about the people he hires and thinks more of them than "disposable workers" as you put them. His feelings are hurt because he's invested in the people that he hires and work for him, and I think he's a damn good manager.
He's the type of guy that comes in and asks about families and cares about people for more than just the profit they bring him, which is why as I've said, he's made a point to hire immigrants in the past.
You can criticize my brother all you want, but you don't know a damn thing about him besides what I've posted about him, and personally I'm proud of him and think it's a good thing he feels hurt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, Tom, I don't know what kind of bosses you've had in your life, but I feel sorry for you if you've never had one that cares about the people he hires and thinks more of them than "disposable workers" as you put them. His feelings are hurt because he's invested in the people that he hires and work for him, and I think he's a damn good manager.
Yes. And his employees, no matter how much they appreciate his investment in them, are aware that at the end of the day they're just employees who'll get fired if they take the day off to demonstrate on behalf of something very, very important to them. It's not remotely unreasonable to assume that they honestly and sensibly felt -- no matter how much they like him -- that the few dollars a day he pays them would be worth less than the chance to make a larger point.
Why should HE feel hurt by their "betrayal," when he doesn't actually care enough about them to understand and appreciate why they felt the march was necessary?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We're talking past each other. You're not an employer, you don't understand. So let's agree that we disagree and drop it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've BEEN an employer (albeit never of minimum wage laborers), and I DO understand.
And I'm saying that their interactions with him are primarily financial and basically menial. As much as he's "invested" in them, the primary coin of that interaction -- actual coin -- is not particularly excessive.
So they have to weigh the financial value of their job -- which is very low -- and the cost of disappointing someone they care about -- which might be quite high -- against the importance of this march to them and their perceived society.
But here's the thing. The cost of disappointing someone they care about varies based on how disappointed he allows himself to be. If he chooses to recognize the dilemma and respects them for choosing something demonstrably more important than whatever menial role they play in his organization, his disappointment -- and thus the cost to him of their actions -- decreases enormously.
In other words, by choosing to feel betrayed rather than sensibly outshopped by something more important, he's actually increasing the cost of the march to himself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here in Chicago, we didn't have a walk out. We did have a lot of employers allow their employees the day off if they wanted to march. Many, many of them with pay.
It does seem that, since Belle's brother is concerned with his employees as people and has an emotional connection with them, giving them the day off for something important to them might have been an option. Then he wouldn't feel betrayed and his employees would have felt supported.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So now, why should he bend over backward to hire an immigrant over an American-born teen, if the immigrant is showing him that he is not any more reliable or any more dependable?
I think this might be stretching the truth just a bit. They obviously are more reliable, as you've attested to above. I don't see how taking off one day to attend a well-publicized, politically important demonstration makes them on par with irresponsible teenagers. Also, I find it somewhat telling that this "unreliability" is now apparently applied, in your mind and your brother's, to all Spanish speaking immigrants.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I should really stop re-reading that book...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)