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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
SoaPiNuReYe, believe me, your dad has my sympathies. But I think your posts will be counterproductive. You may want to rethink them.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do as well. And that's too bad, because it also means that half the delicious tragedy of Javert is being missed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
