Illegal Immigration

[Sanslines]

From the Los Angeles Times:

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.


3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.


4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.


5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.


6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.


7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.


8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.


9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish


10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County).


(All the above from the Los Angeles Times)


Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.

The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was, (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), a NET $70 BILLION/year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University ]. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE number.


29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.



If they can come to this country to raise Hell and demonstrate by the thousands, WHY can't they take charge over the corruption in their own country?

We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue.


THE U.S. VS MEXICO

On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this
profession."


Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts. It's called affirmative action or racial privilege. The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent.

Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.

DID YOU KNOW?

Did you know .. that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals?

Did you know .. that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so?

According to the L.A. Times, Orange County , California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members, 98% of which are Mexican and Asian.

How's your county doing?

According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide. A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the "greatest criminal challenge the country
faces." Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population.


Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. "Imagine teachers in classes containing 30-40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren't fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials
likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references."

WHEN I WAS YOUNG?


I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island . They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breathe free. They wanted to become Americans. Now, far too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges ... affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify
their culture.

WHY CAN'T WE SEND THEM HOME

What part of "ILLEGAL ALIEN" is too hard to understand??

[naturalmanwa]

At first, most of the illegals from south of the border were migrant workers who did work most of us wouldn't do, and caused little trouble. It seems the situation has went too far and gotten out of hand. I think something needs to be done and quickly. Sending them home just means they will come back sooner, or make more work for the border patrol.

Perhaps the solution lies in their own country. If they had better living conditions and higher wages, perhaps they wouldn't need to come to the US. Maybe a little understanding and help from the industries in other countries would be a start?

[Naturist Mark]

The original post appears to be stitched together from several anti-immigrant emails circulating on the web.

That list attributed to the LA Times is very suspect. I'd like to see a link, or at least a publication date.

In particular - illegal immigrants are not eligible for HUD subsidies.

Even LEGAL immigrants cannot accept Welfare - it is grounds for cancellation of a visa and expulsion. - the US Citizen children of immigrants can recieve welfare.

The crime statistics are far too high.

100% of births in LA county are to US citizens - being born in LA county MAKES YOU a US citizen - regardless of the parents status.

Snopes debunks the first part of the list Here. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp)

Illegal immigration would be nothing but a minor matter if our own government did not support it. No other country allows such large scale illegal immigrants to work in their nation - not even Mexico. If we were serious about stopping illegal immigration we would simply start enforcing the law against HIRING illegal immigrants - but US business does not want that - illegals work far more cheaply - and their labor depresses wages for all Americans - which is the POINT. We NEED illegal labor in order to keep everyone's wages low. That is worth giving millions to politicians to ensure that no matter what anti-immigrant policies are enacted - the simple act of enforcing the law against hiring illegals is never implemented.

Did you know that fines against corporations for hiring illegal immigrants went from over 2000 in Clinton's last year (a pathetically small number) to ZERO in the first year of the Bush admninistration? Our government SUPPORTS illegal employment.

Any politician who doesn't back enforcement of the law against hiring is just blowing smoke. All the other measures being considered amount to window dressing.

We could start an exodus of illegals very simply - levy large fines against any employer who knowingly employs an illegal - and enforce the fine. We don't even need to spend money on new enforcement - pay half of the proceeds of the fines to the informants - even if they are the illegal workers themselves. We would soon see lines of people leaving the country.

-Mark

[harveym]

Should we rewrite the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty to read:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free (as long as they don't huddle too much, aren't very poor, not too tired, and are willing to accept limited freedom).


My father came to this country as an illegal immigrant in the 1920s. He took jobs no one else wanted, eventually became a legal immigrant and became citizen and a productive member of our country.

Sorry - I have no sympathy for this antiimmigrant hysteria that seems to be sweeping the US.

[FMII]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif One of the most perplexing and distirbing issues and answeres of our immigration issues are normally addressed from those that live in the central part of our country. And those that have come from immigrants like myself. However, weather we like it or not, we do have imigraton issues that need to be addressed by our government and are not. Not to profile any race in particular. But if we were to become a land of the select I believe we could assist in developing a stratigy in ending the Iraqi situation. And other immigration problems. But to sum up this diatribe - dosen't it all boil down to money? The rich get richer and the middle class disappears.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
From the Los Angeles Times:
...illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. (But is it illegal to live in a garage?--and even when it is, is it really a serious crime?!)

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish. (So what ?! Is that illegal? There are also radio and T. V. programs in French, Italian, Russian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, Hindi, Urdu, American Sign Language, etc. It's always an asset to be bilingual, and here in the Western Hemisphere Spanish is the obvious language to start learning. If you're a nice person many immigrants are glad to take some time to help you out--even though many of them are already far ahead of us as far as being bilingual is concerned!)



10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish. (Name a major city in California and it has a Spanish name: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, [OK, there's Bakersfield, there's Long Beach, and some other exceptions]. But California is a great place to live thanks to generations of Hispanic Americans and their culture, their cuisine, their hard work and their language!)


(All the above from the Los Angeles Times) (But is this from a staff reporter's news story, a right wing columnist's opinion article or some crackpot letter to the editor?)

If they can come to this country to raise Hell and demonstrate by the thousands, WHY can't they take charge over the corruption in their own country? (Demonstrating is also not illegal in this country! And it isn't just immigrants in the demonstrations--many of their friends, families, and employers and customers are glad to see immigrants stand up for what they belive in!)



WHY CAN'T WE SEND THEM HOME

What part of "ILLEGAL ALIEN" is too hard to understand?? But the items I commented on above weren't about the legalistic aspects of immigration but simply rambling and hysterical like other parts of this post.)

Paz,
Kevin

[simonsebs]

I have no problem with a person coming to this country to work, as long as they go through the proper steps to become a legal citizen. That being said from what I've heard America is somewhat to blame for this problem. Not only because of the government not stopping big business from hiring illegal immigrates, as has already been discussed. But also from NAFTA and the free trade agreement. That may not be right,but its what I've heard.

[usmc1]

In 1978 I produced an award-winning radio documentary, "In Search of the Illegal Alien", which aired on a 50,000-Watt, CBS & Mutual affiliated station. The only different element in the debate, is the concern about terrorists infiltrating with others to come across the border.

The same zenophobic, hate-based arguements were making the rounds then as do now. "Damn Meskins and wetbacks"!

Now we've got an idealogue on CNN fanning the flames and the fear-based, the hate-based and the ignorant are happy to throw kerosene on the fire and start their obscene dance of race hatred.

No one should be surprised that unemployed, despised young men on the margins of society in drug, alcohol and poverty infested neighborhoods and suffering the pains of race hatred and discrimination account for much of the crime in society.

Deport every migrant Mexican family in the country illegally, and I guarantee you that our predatory economic system will force another strat of society into that role of "crime producer".

What is surprising is how truly peaceful and hard working and eager to assimilate the vast majority of these migrating workers are, despite the language, cultural and racist obstacles with which they have to deal.

The very idea that people would argue that we should deny education and healthcare to children, any child, anywhere, for any reason, indicates just how far from our moral base we have moved.

The arguement that a child born in the Untied States is not a citizen because his or her parents have not submitted to the proper authority or procedure is disgustingly ignorant.

Yes, we should have tight border security to protect us from criminals, drug dealers and terrorists. But, every migrant trying to find work is not a criminal, drug dealer or terrorist.

Build a program to alow migrant workers with proper country of origin ID to enter the U.S. to find legitimate documented work and pnealize and criminlize the employers who pay under the table and off the books so that those migrant workers are properly taxed, and etc.

Taht would be too damn simple easy and humane, better to have someone to blame and despise.

[Qikdraw]

I just have to add that Canadians are NEVER in the US illegally. You could stay for years and never eb considered in the US illegally. However you still can't work legally, you can just reside here for years and not be considered illegal.

Why do I know this? Cause it was an issue when I went for my Permanent Resident status. I was in the US for 2 years before I applied. An Immigration supervisor said I was in the US illegaly, however he was proved wrong.

To add a bit of humour... I work in new home contruction, and some of the Mexicans I work with have accused me of taking jobs away from Mexicans. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif Of course they are kidding, but its pretty funny. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

[alfredr]

What I have to say on this subject would take me too long to type to get it all on here tonight. I'll try to be brief while trying to not cut out anything that will make it hard to understand me.

"From the L.A. Times" When??? The other work he cited is from 1994, twelve years ago!! How does that apply?

Basically, what I have to say is:

1. This country has always been built on the backs of immigrant labor, whether legal or not. They have always done the dirtiest, most dangerous, lowest paying, hardest jobs because that is what those of us who have been here a generation or several don't want to do and we want our kids to move up the ladder and become doctors and professionals and such.

2. Hatemongers have always blamed immigrants for taking our jobs and driving down our wages and it never mattered whether the immigrants were German, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, Indian, Pakistani or whatever.

3. They were always accused of sticking to their own communities, having their own newspapers in their own language, churches in their own language and otherwise not assimilating, but they also got accused of being after our women.

4. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to come here as a legal immigrant? The immigration process seems to be set up to discourage (legal) immigration; quotas are low, the procedure is complex, costly, time consuming and confusing. And guess what? It successfully discourages legal immigration!

5. So why do people want to pay thousands of dollars to coyotes (smugglers), often borrowing from multiple members of their extended family to come up with the money, sometimes selling their house or other assets so that one family member can come, and the trip is dangerous and arduous, much walking, running, traveling at night, heat, cold, crammed into trucks, vans, shipping containers, no first-class accomodations for your multi-thousand dollar passage, leaving parents, brothers, sisters and children behind? Well, they do it because it is perceived as being the best chance for a better life. Same reason that our ancestors came here, the ones that weren't kidnapped and sold into slavery.

6. Isn't our Social Security system in trouble because we are getting older and there aren't enough new workers coming into the system? And don"t we have 11 or 12 million workers here already that we are keeping from joining the system?

7. We have marginalized these people and then we criticize them for being on the margins. I talked with one man after the first demonstration here in Georgia this year, I think it was in April. He said he had tried to buy health insurance for his family, but he couldn't because he didn't have a valid Social Security number. I assume he is fairly typical; he wants to participate in our system, but as long as we keep him illegal, he can't. So if someone gets sick, where do you suppose they're going to end up? At the emergency room, where we will blame them for the over-crowding of the ER. The same sort of thing happens when we deny them drivers licenses, education or other "priveleges" that we want to reserve for citizens (and other legal residents, I presume.)

8. And what do you suppose would happen to the cost of everything if all this cheap immigrant labor could be gotten rid of? Do you think the companies would just swallow the additonal labor cost without passing it on? Do you realize that it is the consumer that pays for everything in this world, or at least our part of it?

9. If there were a decent chance of getting ahead in their home country, meaning decent paying jobs and working conditions, and not such a great disparity between the rich and the rest, and if the disparity between their situation and ours weren't so visible, (I blame TV for showing them how we live, they know how they live, how many of us know how they live?) they would be much more likely to stay home.

10. We are a magnet, the land of opportunity, like we have been for hundreds of years, and we have always benefitted from immigration and the culture the immigrants have brought to this country.

11. Let's legalize the ones already here and come up with a workable legal immigration system, one that permits sustainable immigration and discourages illegal immigration.

Well, I guess I didn't keep that short, did I?

[nudeM]

I am not against immigration, just as long as the immigrants adapt to our 'the American way' of life. I don't believe we should be legislated to adapt to their ways i.e., multi-language text books, learn 'their' heritage in our schools, government jobs that 'require' bilingual skills, etc.

As far as the immigrants in the past, sure, they were illegal to some sense, but they schooled themselves to learn the American language, learn the American way of life and worked themselves into society.

The illegal immigrants these days, want things 'given' to them, for the most part. They believe they 'deserve' special services. Working for the County, I have seen these day in and day out. Taxpayers are supporting these programs.

Why not support our 'own' first before we support illegals? Sure, they are not 'supposed' to be receive government hand-outs, but there are cracks in the system that allow as such. I have personally seen the government 'export' criminals and law breakers, only to return at a later date.

Believe me, I am not only speaking of Hispanics, but other nationals as well, especially here in Central California where the Hmong population is extremely high. We have allowed these programs to get out of hand, and now we must try to get things back in order. But, I'm afraid, the process will be a long legal challenge. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nudeM:
I am not against immigration, just as long as the immigrants adapt to our 'the American way' of life. I don't believe we should be legislated to adapt to their ways i.e., multi-language text books, learn 'their' heritage in our schools, government jobs that 'require' bilingual skills, etc.

As far as the immigrants in the past, sure, they were illegal to some sense, but they schooled themselves to learn the American language, learn the American way of life and worked themselves into society.

The illegal immigrants these days, want things 'given' to them, for the most part. They believe they 'deserve' special services. Working for the County, I have seen these day in and day out. Taxpayers are supporting these programs.

Why not support our 'own' first before we support illegals? Sure, they are not 'supposed' to be receive government hand-outs, but there are cracks in the system that allow as such. I have personally seen the government 'export' criminals and law breakers, only to return at a later date.

Believe me, I am not only speaking of Hispanics, but other nationals as well, especially here in Central California where the Hmong population is extremely high. We have allowed these programs to get out of hand, and now we must try to get things back in order. But, I'm afraid, the process will be a long legal challenge. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

What exactly is the "American Way" of life? Fried chicken, mashed spuds and cream gravy with sweetened iced tea on sunday after Baptist church services? Or a nice New England pot roast with brown gravy, new potatos, and water after Mass on Sunday. Or a backyard bar b que, beer and corn on the cob and beer chopped up potatos and onions cooked in aluminum foil and beer and no church at all (unless you consider the Terry, Howie and Jimmy priests). Or perhaps the American Way of life is taking the family out for some Dim Sung or nice Clay Pot Dinner after lighting some incense to one's honorable ancestors.

Look the melting pot is a myth, there is no one American Way of life. We have never been a truly "merged" culture and continue to grapple with issues related to our being a multi-cultural society.

Each wave of immigrants have clung to their language and ways of doing things. And depending on which parts of the country you go to you can still see the influences of European, Mediterranian, or Asian immigrants.

We strive, and it is hard, to acommodate and integrate all those languages into our legal, political, and civic systems because it is the right thing to do.

What concerns me, is that we're losing this value, that some things ought to be done simply because it is the right thing to do.

As to the Hmong. Unless you know the full background of their story you really need to refrain from commentary. The American Way of conducting foreign policy, intelligence and war has not been kind to these sweet and gentle people.

The Hmong in America are truly "our own".

[alfredr]

I thought the "American Way" was "work hard, get ahead."

The problem with illegal immigration is that it is illegal. We need a workable system to allow for legal immigration.

Most immigrants want to participate fully in our economy, paying their way and all. How about we let them?

And the American language grows and adapts and adopts new words brought here by every group of immigrants and we are a richer place for it.

Okay, this is shorter. Have a good day, y'all.

[nudeM]

Posted by usmc1: What exactly is the "American Way" of life? Fried chicken, mashed spuds and cream gravy with sweetened iced tea on sunday after Baptist church services? Or a nice New England pot roast with brown gravy, new potatos, and water after Mass on Sunday. Or a backyard bar b que, beer and corn on the cob and beer chopped up potatos and onions cooked in aluminum foil and beer and no church at all (unless you consider the Terry, Howie and Jimmy priests). Or perhaps the American Way of life is taking the family out for some Dim Sung or nice Clay Pot Dinner after lighting some incense to one's honorable ancestors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American way of life is working your way towards society and not relying on hand-outs. Learn ways to adapt to our way of life rather than being legislated to theirs adapt to theirs.

As far as the Hmong, what you stated may be true to some extent, but when you see our fish population dwindle by 'over fishing', then that's where I have a probem. We (Americans) are to abide by the laws and catch legal-sized fish. When you see the fish the Hmongs are catching, I shake my head wondering why they are 'legally' able to keep the catch.

Our clam population has dwindled down to almost zero due to the smaller clams being taken by Hmongs. Trust me, I have seen it time and time again.

True, they are hard workers and contribute to our economy vastly, but when you see them get away with things that others would be fined for, then it makes one wonder. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[harveym]

In the 1960s I lived in New York City. In Chinatown there were areas where no English was understood. In Little Italy there was a section with only Italian spoken. In Brooklyn there was a Polish neighborhood with no English. In Newark, New Jersey there is a Portugese section where you still can't get directions if you don't speak Portugese.
These areas have existed for years.
What Jingoistic xenophobia is suddenly making language such an issue?

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nudeM:
Posted by usmc1: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What exactly is the "American Way" of life? Fried chicken, mashed spuds and cream gravy with sweetened iced tea on sunday after Baptist church services? Or a nice New England pot roast with brown gravy, new potatos, and water after Mass on Sunday. Or a backyard bar b que, beer and corn on the cob and beer chopped up potatos and onions cooked in aluminum foil and beer and no church at all (unless you consider the Terry, Howie and Jimmy priests). Or perhaps the American Way of life is taking the family out for some Dim Sung or nice Clay Pot Dinner after lighting some incense to one's honorable ancestors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American way of life is working your way towards society and not relying on hand-outs. Learn ways to adapt to our way of life rather than being legislated to theirs adapt to theirs.

As far as the Hmong, what you stated may be true to some extent, but when you see our fish population dwindle by 'over fishing', then that's where I have a probem. We (Americans) are to abide by the laws and catch legal-sized fish. When you see the fish the Hmongs are catching, I shake my head wondering why they are 'legally' able to keep the catch.

Our clam population has dwindled down to almost zero due to the smaller clams being taken by Hmongs. Trust me, I have seen it time and time again.

True, they are hard workers and contribute to our economy vastly, but when you see them get away with things that others would be fined for, then it makes one wonder. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What handouts? Soup lines? Bread lines? WPA? CCC? What handouts specifically do you object to?

Hmong over-harvesting clams? But, they have a free pass? Others are charged, but they are not? Hhhmm, sounds like they got good lawyers.

[Bob S.]

Criminals should always be arrested and sent to prison or, if they are not US citizens and the crime warrants it, deportation.

I am a big fan of immigrants. The more the merrier. All they have to do is follow the proper channels and contribute to the well-being of US society.

But I agree in trerms of the Mexican illegal immigration situation, we need to 1) start enforcing the law much better than we are now. 2) Work with Mexico to see what we can do to better their economy and curb corruption.

Kevin:"Name a major city in California and it has a Spanish name"

California is based on a spanish word. It was also discovered by Spanish explorers in the mid 1500s and was part of Mexico until the 1800s.

Bob S.

[Baron Lake]

One of the biggest gobernment handouts them lazy no-goods enjoy here in the Central Valley is cheap subsidized water. Why them dirty leeches are.....
Whup....hold on a minete I might be thinking about corporate farming. Never mind.

On another note:
I doubt the "American" culture is endangered by immigration. In fact, an argument could be made for the idea we have been too successful in exporting that culture around the world. I'm talking about the "popular" and business culture here not the core values of freedom.

Probably generational differences effect assimilation as much as anything. Most of my Hispanic friends (even second generation) speak worse Spanish than I do, (which is hard to imagine).

You're right on the mark...um Mark. The major solution to illegal immigration is employer prosecution. Let's hold our breath shall we?

b.l.

[DoctorSurferDude]

http://www.mexica-movement.org/images2/illegal_pilgrims_shirt.jpg http://www.mexica-movement.org/images2/illegals_tshirt.jpg http://www.mexica-movement.org/images2/kiowa_stolenc.jpg

There are certain GROUPS of people that belong on this land more than those who try to keep them out.

I welcome change.... no hablas espanol? entiendes!!

[LamontCranston]

USMC1 - Impressive...In 1978 I produced an award-winning radio documentary, "In Search of the Illegal Alien", which aired on a 50,000-Watt, CBS & Mutual affiliated station. Now it's 25 years later and you're producing long anonymous posts to a dozen or so guys who'll forget you by next week.

The contrast is stunning. What happened?
Maybe arguing that you're always right, not the merits of any position, turned off the sponsors?

Or was it language like "Damn Meskins and wetbacks" that did it.

I understand you might wish to remain anonymous, but do you have a blog or website or column somewhere that gets more than two clicks a day?

50,000 watts of award-winning material is quite a contrast to this forum.

Yikes... hope I can hold it together better than that..

[DoctorSurferDude]

A Select Collection of Quote: Change

Confucius: Quote: Change
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change
Charles Kettering: Quote: Change
People are very open-minded about new things - as long as they're exactly like the old ones.

James Baldwin: Quote: Change
People can cry much easier than they can change.

Oliver Goldsmith: Quote: Change
People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy after.

Robert Kennedy: Quote: Change
Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.

Lisa Alther: Quote: Change
That's the risk you take if you change: that people you've been involved with won't like the new you. But other people who do will come along.

Okakura Kakuzo: Quote: Change
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.

Unknown author: Quote: Change
The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.

For those who are willing to invest in their future.....might I suggest this....

http://www.writeexpress.com/l/g/learn-spanish-box.jpg

[LamontCranston]

Anyone know if the US - Mexico border is precisely surveyed and settled?

No disputes on either side over it's entire length?

It'd be quite something if a thing like a 1,400 mile fence was built in the wrong place and some judge orders it torn down... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[usmc1]

Parts of it are delineated, I believe, by the Rio Grande river. If that is factual, and if that river, like most, changes its bed from time-to-time and over time, then yes the US/Mexico border is probably not entirely precise.

On the other hand, and I don't know what treaties or international bodies govern this, I usspect that with satellite mapping and GPS the issue probably has more clarity than in earlier years. That's to say that there is now a means of stating and measuring specific spots on the earth rather than referencing an imaginary line along certain latitudes, longitudes and parallels.

But, all that aside, I'm betting the fence does not get built in its entirety.

[alfredr]

Good discussion, everyone.

They say Spanish is easier for a speaker of English to learn than vice-versa.DoctorSurferDude suggests one method, called Instant Immersion.

Or you could join the Peace Corps and get total immersion in another culture and get to know how they live. I can almost guarantee your view of the world will be changed.

[LamontCranston]

You are correct, sir...
On the other hand, and I don't know what treaties or international bodies govern this, I usspect that with satellite mapping and GPS the issue probably has more clarity than in earlier years. That's to say that there is now a means of stating and measuring specific spots on the earth rather than referencing an imaginary line along certain latitudes, longitudes and parallels. ...but getting that written down in an international treaty is a different matter.

But, all that aside, I'm betting the fence does not get built in its entirety. I'm betting they don't build any of it.

And instead of illegal immigrants, I'd like the news media and gov't officials to speak of "illegal Mexicans". That's what that problem is, right?

And isn't it really then a California problem, rather than a United States problem?

And if the California legislature didn't grant so many free benefits to such people, it wouldn't be such a big problem, right?

So instead of talking about illegal immigration the national problem, let's talk about the California is out-of-money problem.

[Sanslines]

Here is my take on this topic - that of illegal immigrants. Nationally, we know fully well that we take advantage of illegal aliens. We know that our economy could not function without the exploitation of their cheap labor. For a variety of reasons, Americans (for the most part) will not do the back breaking hard work for the low wages that the illegals will do. Many of the illegals come from much worse conditions in their home countries and so find the ability to work in this country a 'step up' from what they know at home. It is truly sad that we as a nation lecture the rest of the world on human rights and yet we still exploit people at home. As for illegal versus legal, it is not fair at all to those immigrants who enter this country legally by going through the torturous and lengthy process called 'legal immigration'. By allowing immigrants to bypass the legal process, we make a mockery of our laws. If we start to break one law because we feel that it is unfair, then why not break any or all laws? The so called Mexico-USA wall is only a token symbol of our government addressing the illegal immigration policy. This wall will accomplish nothing except waste a great deal of taxpayer money. A better solution would be to stop unofficially marginalizing and exploiting the illegals and come up with an proper legal immigration policy that will address this problem. Immigrants have always come to this country for a better way of life. They should be allowed to do so with an intelligent LEGAL procedure that does not make a mockery of our legal processes.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Select Collection of Quote: Change

Confucius: Quote: Change
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change
Charles Kettering: Quote: Change
People are very open-minded about new things - as long as they're exactly like the old ones.

James Baldwin: Quote: Change
People can cry much easier than they can change.

Oliver Goldsmith: Quote: Change
People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy after.

Robert Kennedy: Quote: Change
Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.

Lisa Alther: Quote: Change
That's the risk you take if you change: that people you've been involved with won't like the new you. But other people who do will come along.

Okakura Kakuzo: Quote: Change
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.

Unknown author: Quote: Change
The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.

For those who are willing to invest in their future.....might I suggest this....

http://www.writeexpress.com/l/g/learn-spanish-box.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick observation. The photo shows a highlighted photo of Mexico and refers to Spanish. Are we talking about learning Mexican Spanish or Spanish Spanish as taught by the home country of Spain? I am not trying to be facetious but here in the USA we think that we speak English. However we speak our own version of English called American English. Our language has a number of differences between English as taught in the home country of England.

[LamontCranston]

it is not fair at all to those immigrants who enter this country legally by going through the torturous and lengthy process called 'legal immigration'. By allowing immigrants to bypass the legal process, we make a mockery of our laws. I sometimes think that laws and procedures that grow out of them are intentionally difficult when *they* don't really want to enforce them. Sure it's on the books, but looking the other way is common.

When our kids were young we hired a nanny for a while. I tried to figure out and file the domestic help paperwork and pay her legally. Very hard, thick instruction booklet, many different forms and agencies, and when I fell behind on quarterly tax payments, the IRS sent nasty letters right away.

So I stopped. I gave her a raise and paid her under the table. Never heard a thing from any gov't agency. I couldn't help thinking that's what they wanted all along...

[DoctorSurferDude]

European countries know their neighbors' languages....why don't we know ours?

So....I'm reminded of this joke from grade school...remember this one?

There were these three farmers that wanted to win the state fair contest for having the largest hog. They decide that they should stick a cork in the pigs butt and feed him for a month before the fair. The only problem was that none of them wanted to be the one to stick the cork in. So they bought a monkey and trained him to stick corks in bottles. After a week or two of this, they stick the monkey in the pen with the pig and a cork, and after a minute, the monkey did what he was supposed to do. The farmers fed the pig for a month and sure enough, they won first prize. Once they got home, they realized they still had to take the cork out. So they trained this same monkey to take corks out of bottles. They stuck the monkey in the pen with the pig, and the farmers woke up three days later in the hospital with a reporter sitting next to them. The reporter asked the first farmer, "What is the last thing you remember?" "crap flying everywhere," the farmer replied. The reporter asked the second farmer the same question and got the same response. When she got to the third farmer and asked him what he could remember, he started crying. The reporter asked, "What's the matter?" The farmer replied, "The last thing I remember is the look on the poor monkey's face as he tried to stick the cork back in."

-Swollen Pig = American Economy
-Farmers = Our ever so ethical govornment
-Cork = our southern border
-Crap = Illegal Mexicans....and sadly they are treated like that

I believe it is time for this fat pig of a country to pay a toll....we are so spoiled we can't even seem to share...huh?

As far as statistics go.... does anybody here actually believe in an unbiased press?? That LA Times article seems very racist to me. Whatever statistics it loosely claims are a reflection of this country, and not any ethnic subgroups. I feel like we are repeating the 1940's civil injustices all over again....making racial generalizations, using the skewed press to confuse the public, and blaming a people for problems in this country rather than looking at the most ugly problem of them all.... Did this country learn nothing? Could our people be so blind?

For those who so keenly see a big fence as a solution for a social problem....I have two questions....

1. When was the last time you had a 10 minute conversation with an illegal immigrant in their language?

2. During that conversation, what did they say when you asked them their story and why they were here?

http://www.ontheroadin.com/miscellasneouspictures/newfencingborder_small.jpg http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/9904/nato.timeline/content/07.berlin.wall.jpg

[DoctorSurferDude]

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-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door. http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/statue%20of%20liberty.jpg

[Pete Knight]

I regret to say that I have travelled to many European countires and have been unable to hold a conversation in the mother tounge of that country, BUT I have always managed to speak to the locals because they are able to speak to me in fluent English.
There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of Europeans speak better English than I speak their language (I can manage a bit of German, enough to order beer, and food!).

I do make an attempt to learn the language of the host nation, enough to order the essentials (Beer.), but its just too easy to let them speak to me in my mother tongue.

As for the immigration issue, we are currently being plagued by Eastern Europeans and North Africans after our social security checks, so there is a lot of ill feeling to illegal immigrants in the UK at the moment.

Illegals aside, we have a massive influx of Polish and other new EC member country citizens after the better earnings to be found here, they can earn enough to live here AND send a enough home to keep their families, but they put British people out of work.

We are only a teeny weeny island, we just can't cope with the current influx, there are vast numbers of illegal immigrants held in detention at a huge cost to the UK tax payer, our constitution doesn't allow us to ship them straight back like you do in the US of A.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

Pete,

I am very aware of the current huge influx of Polish immigrants to the UK. Manchester is overloaded with them. Go to any Tesco's, Sainsbury's or Morrison's and you will find them working double shifts in such jobs as fish mongers and for a mere pittance of a wage. Many live together in large numbers in single family housing where they can find the housing. Even with the high cost of living in the UK, they are still able to survive and do find a means to send money back home to support their families back in Poland. Life is still hard in Poland - just ask any miner who works in Silesia.

[Sanslines]

This past Summer I spoke with a Mexican-American contractor in San Diego. He mentioned that he will only hire Mexican workers - legal or not. He claims that he has had too many problems with lazy American workers who complain, file lawsuits, go on frivolous disability (paid for by CA taxpayers), and create other problems for him. He says that he can find an endless supply of Mexican and South American workers just by going to the entrance of Home Depot or other DIY stores. He pays $150 to $200 per day cash to his workers. Even paying such a wage, he claims that Americans will not work in construction. Is $150 to $200 per day cash too low a wage to entice American workers? Are American workers too lazy or are such jobs as construction beneath most American worker's dignity as some claim?

[LamontCranston]

My great-grandmother came from Poland through Ellis Island in 1906. Now it's 100 years later and her decendents have been marrying, having children, starting businesses, paying taxes, building schools and churches, buying homes, voting, playing baseball, and generally enjoying, defending, and contributing to the American way of life.

Immigration isn't bad -- then or now. And neither are people in other countries with other customs and languages. The more the better, really.

It's the crushing government programs and the idea that employers are rewarded with profits for paying lower wages that's the problem.

If you come and work... good for you. I'll help.
If you come to collect a check and demand things... get the heck out. Here's a boot.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Select Collection of Quote: Change

Confucius: Quote: Change
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change
Charles Kettering: Quote: Change
People are very open-minded about new things - as long as they're exactly like the old ones.

James Baldwin: Quote: Change
People can cry much easier than they can change.

Oliver Goldsmith: Quote: Change
People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy after.

Robert Kennedy: Quote: Change
Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.

Lisa Alther: Quote: Change
That's the risk you take if you change: that people you've been involved with won't like the new you. But other people who do will come along.

Okakura Kakuzo: Quote: Change
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.

Unknown author: Quote: Change
The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.

For those who are willing to invest in their future.....might I suggest this....

http://www.writeexpress.com/l/g/learn-spanish-box.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick observation. The photo shows a highlighted photo of Mexico and refers to Spanish. Are we talking about learning Mexican Spanish or Spanish Spanish as taught by the home country of Spain? I am not trying to be facetious but here in the USA we think that we speak English. However we speak our own version of English called American English. Our language has a number of differences between English as taught in the home country of England. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using the CD-ROM courses you usually learn one of two versions of Spanish....Latin American Spanish and the version of Spanish spoken in Spain. I've used the Rosetta Stone version of Latin American Spanish...it's OK, but their usage of people speaking different dialects may confuse some.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Pete,

I am very aware of the current huge influx of Polish immigrants to the UK. Manchester is overloaded with them. Go to any Tesco's, Sainsbury's or Morrison's and you will find them working double shifts in such jobs as fish mongers and for a mere pittance of a wage. Many live together in large numbers in single family housing where they can find the housing. Even with the high cost of living in the UK, they are still able to survive and do find a means to send money back home to support their families back in Poland. Life is still hard in Poland - just ask any miner who works in Silesia.

Thats so true, and as someone commented, they are willing to do the jobs that the lazy, greedy British (non)workers are unwilling to do, its sometimes easier to pick up a social security check than work for a pittance.

There are tradesmen coming from Poland and doing a better job for the same money as their British counterparts, the big difference is the Polish guys think they are earning megabucks compared to back home. There are lots of British employers who are taking advantage of the situation too, sometimes unfairly.

Those that come to work legally, and do a good job aren't the problem, the real problem are those that come here for the social security checks, and/or to work in the "black economy" and avoiding taxes.

A rise in street crime is directly attributed to man of these foreign nationals, try spending some time people watching in Oxford Street, there you'll see the gangs of former eastern block citizens picking pockets or shop lifting.

Its getting out of hand, and we are only a little island, you can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:


........Its getting out of hand, and we are only a little island, you can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

Pete Knight

This is true and you also have many citizenship and other obligations to former colonial possesions from the days of the British Empire. This complicates the situation in England exponentionally and there really is not much that can be done about former agreements and treaties with the colonies.

[Bob S.]

Doc:"European countries know their neighbors' languages....why don't we know ours?"

Canada is our neighbor and we know their language http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Bob S.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Bob S.:

Canada is our neighbor and we know their language

Bob S.
Mais bien sur!

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Doc:"European countries know their neighbors' languages....why don't we know ours?"

It's no longer just something among neighbors--the largest number of people who use "our language", now live, not in the U.S. but in
India--an estimated 350 million people.
www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s1298284.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s1298284.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population

By the way, to put things in perspective for the people who feel crowded here in America, the U.S. is only the 172nd most densely populated country in the world (out of the 230 countries and territories recognized by the United Nations).
Still feel too crowded? Some places you might like to immigrate to: Greenland (#230), Falkland Islands (#229), Western Sahara (#228),
Mongolia (#227), French Guiana (#226).

Peace,
Kevin

[alfredr]

It's late in the day, maybe, to bring this up, and maybe it should be a separate topic, but this kind of goes along with this discussion:

Today being the day it is, would the appropriate way to remember be to round up a few Japanese-Americans and lock them up?

Seems as though that's what some people in our country would like to do, only now it's Mexicans and it doesn't matter if some are from other countries, they all look alike anyway, just like all them Asians.

However, it seems as though most of the people here don't have anything against the immigrants, but with the illegality of the immigration.

Here in Georgia, a county just today declared English to be their official language and another one yesterday made it illegal for a landlord to rent to undocumented people.

Remember Pearl Harbor!

[Jay473]

I don't have problems with immigrants what so ever. Though I don't like the fact that 90% of all immigrants don't speak English therefore they need translators in the banks, stores, and special labeling on their cereal boxes on how to eat the cereal inside.

I belief that if you want to live in the United States learn enough English to get by. Also most immigrants from Europe that come to live in the United States took the time to go to their embassy and get proper paper work while Mexican immigrants just hop the fence.

Also if you want to deport immigrants deport the once that deserve it. Some immigrants bust their butts all day in a job that nobody wants for minimum wage just to pay for their kids education here.

Deport the once that attack women, deport the once who shoot or attack police officers, deport the once that have such long record it takes 45 minutes to print it out, deport the once that commit crime in their own country, deport the once that carry Uzi's and rob and kill, deport the once that sell drugs near are middle schools, and deport the once that run the drug businesses!!

Keep the hard working men and women who bust their chops to put food on their families table,
Keep the once that go to work from 6am- to 5 am and 11pm- to 4 am just to pay for their kids education and for their kids worm home.

[Naturist Mark]

I don't have problems with immigrants what so ever. Though I don't like the fact that 90% of all immigrants don't speak English

Are you sure about that number? I know quite a few immigrants (legal) and every one of them knows some English and every single one of them (other than the ones already fluent) is learning more English every day. It's pretty hard for adults to learn a new language - how many have you mastered? But these people are making the effort. It has been my pleasure to see many of them earn US citizenship - too bad most of us native born citizens never had to earn it.

Is it possible that I have only encountered that special 10%?

Also most immigrants from Europe that come to live in the United States took the time to go to their embassy and get proper paper work while Mexican immigrants just hop the fence.

Over half of illegal immigrants enter the US legally - and overstay their visas.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Today being the day it is, would the appropriate way to remember be to round up a few Japanese-Americans and lock them up?


Alfredr,

I know that you are being facetious and so please don't take this the wrong way. The Japanese-American internment during WWII consisted of interning American CITIZENS of Japanese descent. I don't think that anyone advocates locking up or persecuting American citizens, whatever their eithnic background is - ie Mexican American, Japanese American, Cuban American, etc. The main issue today is that we have many individuals from all over the world who are bypassing our immigration laws and entering our country illegally. The present situation turns a blind eye to this and makes a mockery of our immigration laws. We really need to have a national debate and decide just what kind of imigration program that we want to have and work to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not fair to the illegal immigrants (for they have no protection under our laws and are subject to exploitation), not fair to those who enter this country through the present torturous legal processes to establish legal residence or citizenship, and not fair to our country or citizens.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Today being the day it is, would the appropriate way to remember be to round up a few Japanese-Americans and lock them up?


Alfredr,

I know that you are being facetious and so please don't take this the wrong way. The Japanese-American internment during WWII consisted of interning American CITIZENS of Japanese descent. I don't think that anyone advocates locking up or persecuting American citizens, whatever their eithnic background is - ie Mexican American, Japanese American, Cuban American, etc. The main issue today is that we have many individuals from all over the world who are bypassing our immigration laws and entering our country illegally. The present situation turns a blind eye to this and makes a mockery of our immigration laws. We really need to have a national debate and decide just what kind of imigration program that we want to have and work to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not fair to the illegal immigrants (for they have no protection under our laws and are subject to exploitation), not fair to those who enter this country through the present torturous legal processes to establish legal residence or citizenship, and not fair to our country or citizens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, except that there are those who are arguing that people born in the United States of parents whose parents are here without proper documentation should be denied citizenship.

But, yes we need a national dialogue and constuctive policies and laws which are part of a hemisphric solution.

I do not think that anyone, except the most extreme, would argue against strict border enforcement given the present state of things in the world.

But, truthfully, five years after 9/11, I am certain the infiltration through our borders by "terrorists" has already happened. A back pack making it through in Arizona, a suitcase in N. Dakota, a gym bag on a ship in Long Beach and otehr components coming through in drugs(which we also seem incapable of stopping) and BINGO you got the SUM OF ALL FEARS!

That is my concern, not some poor schmuck trying to get some bucks together slipping in to El Norte.

[Jay473]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't have problems with immigrants what so ever. Though I don't like the fact that 90% of all immigrants don't speak English

Are you sure about that number? I know quite a few immigrants (legal) and every one of them knows some English and every single one of them (other than the ones already fluent) is learning more English every day. It's pretty hard for adults to learn a new language - HOW MANY HAVE YOU MASTERED? But these people are making the effort. It has been my pleasure to see many of them earn US citizenship - too bad most of us native born citizens never had to earn it.

Is it possible that I have only encountered that special 10%?

Also most immigrants from Europe that come to live in the United States took the time to go to their embassy and get proper paper work while Mexican immigrants just hop the fence.

Over half of illegal immigrants enter the US legally - and overstay their visas.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To your question how many languages I mastered....
Only 4 want me to name them?

[Bob S.]

Jay:"Though I don't like the fact that 90% of all immigrants don't speak English"

How many immigrants do you know? How can you tell? Have you asked them? I would say that probably the vast majority of people who don't speak English in the US are more then likely immigrants, but not vice-versa. Most immigrants do know enough English to get by.

usmc:"You're right, except that there are those who are arguing that people born in the United States of parents whose parents are here without proper documentation should be denied citizenship."

Now that is totally wrong. To do that would be to violate the 14th Amendment. Of course, they would say that they are merely interpreting it differently, but there is no way around the idea that the child is born in the US and whose parents and the child him/herself are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and state where the child was born.

The only way to get around this would be to add an Amendment to the Constitution.

Mark:"It's pretty hard for adults to learn a new language - how many have you mastered?"

I have mastered pig-Latin and Gibberish. Do they count?

Bob S.

[DoctorSurferDude]

If the world were a sandbox....who would the USA be?

.....I'm going to go with the obese kid in the corner who hoardes all the toys, eats the most food, kicks the most sand at the babies and generally has a bad time sharing because they are used to having everything they want done their way, every time.

Am I off?

[Jay473]

how many immigrants do I know.....Ilived in Chicago so all the people I know were immigrants...

[usmc1]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
If the world were a sandbox....who would the USA be?

.....I'm going to go with the obese kid in the corner who hoardes all the toys, eats the most food, kicks the most sand at the babies and generally has a bad time sharing because they are used to having everything they want done their way, every time.

Am I off?

Yeah, I think so. If you'll look around the playground you'll see kids playing and laughing, older kids watching out for littler kids, kids standing up to bullies, divvying up their change so each of them can get soemthing from the ice-cream truck, kids talking and dreaming about what they're going to be.

Yeah, a lot of those kids in that metaphorical sand box have lost their way, and your characterization of selfish, over-fed, acquisitive bratishness is right on the mark for many....but, certainly not all.

Shamefully, we adults have allowed the brats to become our symbol and representative. Some of us are now actively engaged in the process of reversing that, and restoring those values of fairness and decency, inherent in all humans, which once made this nation the beacon of hope for the entire world.

Nixon, Reagon, and the Bushes with their philosopies of pragmatic selfishness, militarism, and cynical attacks on human decency were not able to extinguish those values.

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by Jay473:

I belief that if you want to live in the United States learn enough English to get by.

Also if you want to deport immigrants deport the once that deserve it.
Deport the once that attack women, deport the once who shoot or attack police officers, deport the once that have such long record it takes 45 minutes to print it out, deport the once that commit crime in their own country, deport the once that carry Uzi's and rob and kill, deport the once that sell drugs near are middle schools, and deport the once that run the drug businesses!!



Deport the once? That 'have such long record it it takes 45 minutes'...? Are middle schools? Uzi's? What do these Uzis possess?

Looks like you've got some work to do on mastering english. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Dave

[NudeAl]

Illegal immigration is such a touchy subject these days.

My main problem with it is that it is illegal. My father immigrated legally to this country and became an American citizen. I feel like all the ones here illegally are a slap in the face to him and those who go through the proper channels and immigrate here legally. I also dismiss the claim that the illegal's do jobs that no American would do, they do however take those jobs away from working class citizens who have in fact done those jobs for years by working for wages that no working class family could get by on. By under paying the illegal's or paying them under the table they also undermine social security which is like robbing the working men and women of this country twice. I know that the drive to do something about the problem is there but to many big businesses are politically connected and are pressuring the government in Washington to do nothing to rock the boat. I am in favor of legislation that punishs those who hire illegal workers simply because we need to ensure that our citizens are looked after that should be the priority here. We need immigration reform, we need enforcement but that would require our elected officials to actually do something so I don't look for any changes in the fear future. I would like the Democrats, who will control both the House and the Senate soon to make this a priority and take on the issue.

We'll see, when all is said and done a lot more gets said than gets done.

[kphoger]

some of my best friends have been immigrants. i've known a few undocumented ones, but most entered the country legally.

i have no problem with immigration, nor with people speaking only spanish (or chinese in san francisco, or what have you). i see immigration as a simple fact of demographics: people have always moved from place to place, country to country, depending on the economy and everything, and now is no different. language evolves, as it has always done, and to try to stop this kind of thing with legislation is not only nigh impossible, but even pointless.

i'm a spanish major, i've been to mexico ten times, and i've lived and worked with many latin americans over the years, so bear with me if i'm too excited about this topic. i'll paint a picture:

a young man comes from nicaragua to america. after a while, he calls his brother and tells them about the life here: minimum wage is more than $5 an hour, and the work is better, but things are really expensive and i have no free time. his brother thinks, "$5 an hour? that's incredible!" so he tells the rest of the family, leaving out the part about having no time and how expensive everything is. i've met plenty of immigrants who wish they had never moved to america. but, this family doesn't hear that side of the story, so they decide to move to america.

the family moves to nogales, arizona. in nicaragua the father was a professor at the local college, and one of the brothers has a college degree in business. but, in america, their degrees aren't worth anything, so the father gets a job washing dishes at a local restaurant, and the brother works temp jobs doing manual labor. they don't speak a lick of english, but nogales is more than 90% spanish-speaking, so they get by just fine. each person's boss and coworkers speak fluent spanish and poor english, nearly all the customers are the same way. we sit here in our white neighborhood and say that not speaking english is holding them back, keeping them in poor jobs with no real prospects. but, that's not what's keeping them back at all. they could manage a restaurant or be supervisor in a warehouse just as easily as anyone else, because all the employees would likely speak spanish.

realistically, learning english would be of little benefit to them, just as learning english would be of little benefit to the citizens of nogales, mexico, just across the border.

i also disagree with the idea that immigrants are stealing americans' jobs. by that reasoning, my daughter will be "stealing" someone's job when she becomes old enough to enter the workforce. as far as the marketplace is concerned, one more person is just one more person; it doesn't matter what country the person was born in. when the population increases, for whatever reason, jobs are created. if that weren't true, the economy would crash every time the population went up.

in my opinion, the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration is just paperwork. i of course respect those who go through all the hoops, but i also understand it when people go around the system. if your children were malnourished, your spouse worked in hazardous conditions for only part-time pay, and your drinking water were contaminated, you might do exactly the same thing. i probably would.

you can call me unpatriotic, i don't care, but it doesn't matter to me what country someone lives in: if their family is starving, they need a job more than i do. if immigrants' presence in this country depress the wages, but it puts food on their table and shoes on their feet, it's worth it. i feel the same way about industry moving overseas and selling sweatshop merchandise. sure, the shirt you bought from wal-mart was probably made in southeast asia for pittance wages, or maybe in a new york city chinatown sweatshop; but that employee who sewed the stiching might otherwise have become a prostitute, turned to selling drugs, or developed a life-threatening illness. should i not feel just as much compassion for foreigners as i do for my neighbor?

i've crossed the mexican border illegally. four round-trips in a rowboat, and i waded across the river once. if i were to cross into mexico illegally, get a job, and start a family there, would that be so bad? there are plenty of people in mexico who do that, some from europe and some from america and canada. yet i haven't seen the same discrimintation toward them as i see here toward illegal immigrants. why is that?

[Bob S.]

Jay:"Ilived in Chicago so all the people I know were immigrants..."

So are you telling me that everyone in Chicago is an immigrant? That no one in Chicago was born in the US? That's news!

Bob S.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

By under paying the illegal's or paying them under the table they also undermine social security which is like robbing the working men and women of this country twice.NudeAl[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I completely understand this point so I have to say I think the real situation is more complex. There are some instances where people who aren't in the U.S. legally are receiving gov't benefits/services (I think this was discussed in Naturist Mark's earlier post) but basically they can't legally qualify for Soc. Sec. payments, and the flip slide of the coin is that many illegal employees aren't just being paid cash under the table: they end up getting Social Security contributions deducted out of their payroll taxes like legal employees (and they aren't currently expected to receive benefits back when they are of retirement age or if they become disabled.)

This situation was reported on in a widely discussed article by Eduardo Porter, an economics reporter for the New York Times:
"Illegal Immigrants are Bolstering Social Security with Billions", April 5, 2005 (N.Y. Times).
Here's a short quote that gives the gist of the article:
"While it has been evident that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus--the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into the Social Security Administration's projections."

http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/2005/illegal.htm

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Jay473:
To your question how many languages I mastered....
Only 4 want me to name them?

Thats great, but not everybody has your easy ability to learn new languages. My brother has been in Jordan for 4 years, and while he can usually make himself understood, he is by no means fluent in Arabic. He keeps trying though. He does have to be creative in how he says things he told me. Instead of left, he says 'not right', as an example.

I work in construction here in CA and as such you can guess around whom I usually work. I would say that 90% of them at least try and make themselves understood. I wish I could speak Spanish, or at least understand more than a few words. Since I do live in CA, and it has such a rich Spanish heritage, I think CA at least should be officially bi-lingual. All government documents are in Spanish or English now anyway. Just like Canadian documents are French or English.

Qikdraw

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Since I do live in CA, and it has such a rich Spanish heritage, I think CA at least should be officially bi-lingual. All government documents are in Spanish or English now anyway. Just like Canadian documents are French or English.

Qikdraw[/QUOTE] I've lived in California all my life and from what I've observed that makes total sense to me. Of course when I talk to many people who visit San Francisco, Chinatown is usually one of the two or three parts of the city they plan to visit. So considering how important tourism is to the economy I think we would suffer if we become less open to other cultures, languages and immigration.

While we've also gotten on the subject of language as well as immigration, I think one of the saddest facts when you look at the whole pf North, Central and South America is the realization that just four
"European immigrant" languages Spanish, English,
Portuguese, and French have more or less supplanted all the native American Languages and cultures. So when I hear people continue to insist that immigrants learn English I'd prefer to express my admiration for some of the people attempting to preserve some of the older American languages:
http://www.native-languages.org/
Peace,
Kevin

[alfredr]

Yes, the problem is that the immigration is illegal, not legal. A major factor in that is our current laws make it very difficult to come here to live and work legally.

Not to take anything away from the many immigrants, current and from past generations, your ancestors and mine, that came here legally through proper channels and all, but the ones coming illegally don't have an easy time of it either. I don't think recognizing that fact makes a mockery of those who managed to immigrate legally. It is a hard process either way.

There was a song out a couple years ago, I think, "Tres Veces Mojado" about how people coming from farther away than Mexico even, have to cross multiple borders illegally and are subject to ill treatment all along the way, especially by "authorities" and the "coyotes" who are smuggling them through.

To doctordurferdude: Your 'bully in the sandbox' metaphor sounds a lot like "The Ugly American" (I know book titles should be underlined, but I don't know how to do that on a computer.) a book from the late 50's, I think, that I also believe influenced the establishment of the Peace Corps by President Kennedy. And we still look the same to much of the world very often.

To earthpassenger: I can identify with your admiration for those who still speak indigenous languages; my wife spaeks two, English is her fourth language, but those who only speak an indigenous language are often marginalized and discriminated against. It is only from a developed point of view that we can look back at what we have lost. At the time, it is seen as a hindrance to development.

And to everyone picking on Jay473: Go easy on him. It may be typing and editing that he isn't so good at or didn't take time for. Mistakes still manage to get by me sometimes, and I try.

[DoctorSurferDude]

I think a lot of the problem has to do with labels, special words and selfish attitudes.

Some thoughts...

- I was born here, which by default makes me a "citizen", which is really a bunch of bull honkey because there are probably people who would appreciate this country more than I do but are denied the right to call themselves citizens.

- Why don't we use the term "resident" instead of citizen. I may reside here, but I can reside anywhere....my status in life has nothing to do with some card with a crook govornment's stamp of approval on it, I'm a PERSON not a subject to some king, I am who I am no matter where I am or where I go.....I am a resident, I reside. I don't cite, and citizen is some crazy word invention that means nothing really.

- I'm a resident of the planet earth....my home is not limited to imaginary borders on a map, my family is not limited to my gene pool... America just happens to be where I'm from, lucky me. But I don't own this land.

- Who speaks Navajo? Cherokee? Pueblo? Why the heck to we speak English here? That is not the native tounge....it is the tounge of the invaders with ghost faces.

- It takes a lot of backward thinking to presume that English should be the deserving language of this republic. If you are not going to speak Navajo, then why not speak Spanish, at least they were here before the English.

- Mexicans are American Indians....rezoning and relabeling a people is an old govornmental trick deployed by....huh...the Nazis? The big wall guarded with guns doesn't ring a bell?? Don't be fooled....they are part of a people that were here LONG before any europeans.

- How narrow is the sight of the naive? Who is a fool enough to think that green paper or a fence entitles a person to own land that never belonged to the person who sold it to them in the first place? If the blinders are really THAT effective, then I'd like to offer up for sale the state of Nebraska. I don't own Nebraska, but I'll certainly take $10,000 for it...and after I've sold it, you can feel free to put a big fence around it with armed guards, kick out all the native Nebraskans and shoot at them if they try to get back in....while you are at it, change the language to Norweigian and speak down on anybody who talks in English while they are there, you can say thngs like "they should really learn Norweigian" and shake your heads....why not name it mini-America?

[Naturist Mark]

.

[kphoger]

Not to take anything away from the many immigrants, current and from past generations, your ancestors and mine, that came here legally through proper channels and all, but the ones coming illegally don't have an easy time of it either. I don't think recognizing that fact makes a mockery of those who managed to immigrate legally. It is a hard process either way.

yes. imagine, if you will, that you and your wife live in india. you find out you're going to have your second child, and for a number of reasons (which all have to do with your children) you decide to move the familiy to america -- to live the american dream, which we all so desperately want the world to admire and strive for. so, you start the legal process. by the time all the paperwork and money are processed, and by the time your name reaches the top of the list, your "newborn" is now 18 years old, and your other child has already left home to start her own life and family. so you move to america, which you chose to do for your children, and you find yourselves with the children already grown up and out of the house, and now you're a world away from all your family and friends.

now imagine how it would have played out if you'd figured out how to do it on an expired student visa. better, probably, don't you think?

[naturalmanwa]

yes. imagine, if you will, that you and your wife live in india. you find out you're going to have your second child, and for a number of reasons (which all have to do with your children) you decide to move the familiy to america -- to live the american dream, which we all so desperately want the world to admire and strive for. so, you start the legal process. by the time all the paperwork and money are processed, and by the time your name reaches the top of the list, your "newborn" is now 18 years old, and your other child has already left home to start her own life and family. so you move to america, which you chose to do for your children, and you find yourselves with the children already grown up and out of the house, and now you're a world away from all your family and friends.

now imagine how it would have played out if you'd figured out how to do it on an expired student visa. better, probably, don't you think?

There is no excuse for breaking the law, no matter how melodramatic a story one comes up with. It just makes it hard for the ones who go thru the process legally. We are all immigrants except for the descendants of the ones who ran around naked shooting arrows in each others's asses. They also had to come from somewhere else if you believe the creation account and the Bible.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by naturalmanwa:


We are all immigrants except for the descendants of the ones who ran around naked shooting arrows in each others's asses.

Now, I assume you are aware--since you are a silver member-- that this is a naturist forum
and many of the people who comment might have a higher than average opinion of "running around
naked" so perhaps your comment was totally facetious. Others might simply call it crude and racist. And are you implying that none of your ancestors ever used any form of projectile on the above-mentioned, or any other, portion of the human anatomy?

Peace,
Kevin

[hm0504]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by naturalmanwa:


We are all immigrants except for the descendants of the ones who ran around naked shooting arrows in each others's asses.

Now, I assume you are aware--since you are a silver member-- that this is a naturist forum
and many of the people who comment might have a higher than average opinion of "running around
naked" so perhaps your comment was totally facetious. Others might simply call it crude and racist. And are you implying that none of your ancestors ever used any form of projectile on the above-mentioned, or any other, portion of the human anatomy?

Peace,
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make good points earhpassenger; that said, personally I do not think naturalmanwa necessarily intended to be racist though I imagine he might want to reselect his choice of words.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

I think the purely legalistic response to illegal immigration--that because it is obviously illegal it is undeniably wrong-- is inadequate.
True, many people who try to legally enter this country may find it harder because others have already done so illegally. This would be most tragic especially if it were a case of someone trying to come here not simply to find employment but first of all to escape political persecution in their native country. (By the way, however, the Real ID ACT which was signed into law last year {after being voted down and then tacked onto another appropriations bill}, with the support of people in the anti-immigrant lobby, such as CNN's Lou Dobbs, contains provisions which might make it even more difficult to legally attain asylum.)
But still we have long-standing interests and obligations to our most immediate neighbors that make the situation more complicated. We have traditionally relied on immigrants (or temporary workers) from Mexico when we have felt a labor shortage in our country. The "Bracero" program was what it was called during World War II-- this is the program that the current Guest Worker concept is partly modeled on. This offers a legal pathway for people who have been in the U.S. illegally for a certain number of years.
So I think there is an acknowledgment that there is a need for workers in this country who have been working here illegally. Many Americans say that Americans would like to work some of these jobs at higher wages. But are those same Americans going to be as enthusiastic about the corollary to that: that they will then
very likely have to pay higher prices for some goods and services.
So while there is the law and more than a few politicians standing against the illegal immigrants there are many employers
saying that, under the status quo, Americans need their labor whether they like it or not.
And this is the reason why immigrants are here in the vast majority of cases: To work or to join family members in a household where somebody is working. Not just to come and collect gov't benefits with no strings attached.
So this is a situation that is complicated and more than just legalistic.
Another complication at least one or two people have referred to is the effects of NAFTA.
In many peoples' opinions this is a case where American business has gained an advantage over Mexican business--Americans have been able to engage in "corn dumping" in the Mexican economy while Mexican farmers have suffered and wages have declined in that sector of the Mexican economy in particular.

http://www.newfarm.org/international/pan-am_don/aug04/tepotzetlan.shtml
http://www.organicconsumers.org/chiapas/nafta040504.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/cornscradle022802.cfm

So, I think that while a lot of immigrants are in a kind of economic/legalistic limbo, the purely legalistic answer that it's just plain wrong because it is illegal is not the whole picture that we need to be thinking about.
Peace,
Kevin

[nacktman]

After reading this thread I noted that no one has yet to note the one simple fact about immigration (a few have hinted at it but none have out and out said it).
ALL immigrants are illegal from the point of view of those already there in places where those emigrating wish to go.
There was an earlier thread dealing with 'boat people' that delt with this nicely, but the debate on that thread dried up.

This time the 'issue' is being used as a wedge in public opinion by those seeking to retain their percieved power - the events of November 7th, 2006 did not awaken all unfortunately - and too many are still falling for the smoke and mirrors that spin and dazzle at the dog and pony show so that they think they see the faint hope that they can continue to commit rapine and pillage this nation and the world.

People migrate, the air contains Oxygen, the sea tastes salty, no one understands the mind of a woman - some things are constant - it's better to accept this and move on with your life or you'll not have a life to go on with.

[usmc1]

Yep, what he said.

Consider this. Our ancestors all were connected to and descended from hominids who evolved and immigrated out of Africa. Had there been frontiers and borders and laws back then, we'd all still be crammed into that valley in Africa setting in front of our caves sucking on bones and gnawing on roots.

The problem is not the immigrants or immigration. The problem is a dismal lack of honesty about what is going on in this hemispere. The Bush's recent purchase of a 97-thousand acre ranch in Paraguay, ironically a post WWII Nazi refuge country, could give one a clue.

Here, take this test. Without Google or some other search, tell me all you know of Chiapas, Subcommandante Marcos, Carlos Fuentes, or the Zapatistas.

That is another clue.

Now, some of you are no longer clueless!

[NudeAl]

I think the purely legalistic response to illegal immigration--...-- is inadequate.

So we can pick and choose which laws we want to obey now? I'll try that next time I'm in court.

- Why don't we use the term "resident" instead of citizen.

I agree. There are many who reside here who don't deserve to be citizens. Citizenship implies an obligation to take some responsibility for the society you are living in. You should have to earn this right rather than merely being given it at birth.

I may reside here, but I can reside anywhere..

Try leaving your passport at home next time you travel abroad and see how widely accepted this point of view is.

..my status in life has nothing to do with some card with a crook govornment's stamp of approval on it, I'm a PERSON not a subject to some king, I am who I am no matter where I am or where I go

Again, tell that to the immigration official at the next coutry you visit, see if he shares this enlightened view.

- I'm a resident of the planet earth....my home is not limited to imaginary borders on a map,

See above

- Who speaks Navajo? Cherokee? Pueblo? Why the heck to we speak English here? That is not the native tounge....it is the tounge of the invaders with ghost faces.

Sometimes refered to as the founding fathers of this country? You mean the guys that wrote that dusty old constitution thing?

- It takes a lot of backward thinking to presume that English should be the deserving language of this republic.

Especially if you don't consider the Consitution or the Bill of Rights important documents or ideals worthy of preserving.

If you are not going to speak Navajo, then why not speak Spanish, at least they were here before the English.

Most of California already does.

- Who is a fool enough to think that green paper or a fence entitles a person to own land.

Most, but not all, Federal Judges.

I must have grown up in another country or perhaps another time. I really don't mean to offend but the above ideas seem totally alien to me. I know of no other country that is as supportive of immigration as ours. There are others that allow it of course but they have much more stringent regulations about who they will allow into their country and they enforce them.

Many here seem to be offering the opinion that we live in one of the most repressive and dictorial countries in the world. That is not my experience quite the reverse. Infact I think we still live in one of the freest countries around. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Kevin:"Name a major city in California and it has a Spanish name"

California is based on a spanish word. It was also discovered by Spanish explorers in the mid 1500s and was part of Mexico until the 1800s.
Bob S.

California was only part of Mexico for about 25 years. It's heritage is Spanish. Mexican culture has only played a part in California since the middle 20th century.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Jay:"Ilived in Chicago so all the people I know were immigrants..."

So are you telling me that everyone in Chicago is an immigrant? That no one in Chicago was born in the US? That's news!

Bob S.

Heh, heh! I was wondering about that too!

[Liam]

Originally posted by nacktman:
After reading this thread I noted that no one has yet to note the one simple fact about immigration (a few have hinted at it but none have out and out said it).
ALL immigrants are illegal from the point of view of those already there in places where those emigrating wish to go....

Eh? I don't understand this at all. What do you mean?

[alfredr]

"People running around naked shooting each other in the ***" Can't we at least get past Christmas before starting on Valentine's Day?

"I lived in Chicago, so all the people I know were immigrants..." Chicago is the largest Polish city outside of Poland. Maybe second only to Warwaw. Yes, no one was born there.

Illegal immigration exists because legal immigration is set unrealistisally low and our country is still seen as the land of opportunity.

We can't keep them out just by not allowing them in, we can't keep them out at the borders, we can't keep them out by sea. Let's get some realistic and reasonable laws that permit immigration.

[usmc1]

For the clueless, yet another clue!

Texas Report: Immigrants Help Economy
Dec 15 5:13 PM US/Eastern

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas

A report by the top financial officer of Texas claims illegal immigrants are more a boon to the Lone Star State's economy than a drain, adding another layer to the immigration reform debate.
Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn found that illegal immigrants not only contributed more than $17 billion to the state's economy in the last fiscal year, but that they also pay more than enough in taxes and fees to cover the services they receive.

The report _ billed as the first comprehensive analysis by any state financial officer _ is being hailed by immigrants' rights groups and panned by foes who question its methodology and contend it was politically motivated.

Strayhorn just lost a bitter battle for governor after running as an independent and has been accused of manipulating state data to make Republican Gov. Rick Perry look bad. Nevertheless, her findings could inject new life in the debate over a national guest worker program, which has stalled despite support from President Bush.

There are an estimated 1.4 million illegal immigrants living or working in Texas, more than any state but California.

Estimates of their impact on the Texas economy have varied widely.

Strayhorn's report said they added $17.7 billion to the gross state product in fiscal year 2005 and produced $1.58 billion in revenues by paying taxes and fees and by playing the lottery. They received $1.16 billion in state services, the report said.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports tougher border security and an end to illegal immigration, estimated illegal immigration costs Texas $3.7 billion a year. The conservative Lone Star Foundation came up with a similar number in a June report.

In her report, Strayhorn said her estimates differed from the federation's for several reasons. She did not, for example, count the cost of educating the American-born children of undocumented parents.

Calculating the impact of illegal immigrants is "at best an educated guess," she said in the report.

Adrian Rodriguez, a vice president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said Strayhorn's report backs up his group's long- held assertion that immigrants help the economy.

"We already know ... that an economic benefit exists, it's just been difficult to convey that with the media because of the frenzy from people on the other side of the fence _ no pun intended," he said.

But Jack Martin, special projects director for the federation, said Strayhorn's report is "a bit irresponsible" because it doesn't consider the fact that if illegal workers weren't in the jobs they are in, those jobs would be held by legal workers, possibly at higher wages.

Still, Bill Hammond, the president of the Texas Association of Business, said Strayhorn's findings support his group's assertion that immigrants are an essential part of the state's economy. The influential business lobby group wants Congress to pass a guest worker program.

"If somehow these people were to be bused back home tomorrow, our economy would shrink by some 17 billion dollars and that's bad news for every Texan and every business in the state," he said.

[nacktman]

Liam, what I mean is that to those already living in an area always look on those emigrating to 'their' area as illegal - unwanted- un-needed - etc.

Human nature and all ...

Imagine what the Pasquetant thought of the Puritans (ok, so they thought of them like we do - vile and nasty mean-spirited folk, but that's beside the point) when they first rowed to shore.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NudeAl:
I think the purely legalistic response to illegal immigration--...-- is inadequate. (EarthpassengerKevin)

So we can pick and choose which laws we want to obey now? I'll try that next time I'm in court.[QUOTE]


Here's my complete first sentence once again: "I think the purely legalistic response to illegal immigration--that because it is obviously illegal it is undeniably wrong--is inadequate."
I don't think this is the same thing as saying that it is undeniably, one hundred percent right and anybody should go ahead and try it (that's the assumption some people might make after reading your retort, NudeAL).
I think most people can give examples of situations where something can be legal but not undeniably moral, and the reverse situation where something is illegal but not undeniably evil (and many people are hesitant to believe that a person should be judged a good or bad person simply after she or he has done some action that can be considered moral/legal or immoral/illegal). And I think many people have considered the possibility that most of the people who work here while they are not legal residents very likely have fewer of the kinds of options in life that the average American has. If you think it's enough for you to say that's illegal and that's that you might simply be tuning out much of the debate.

I have heard the opinion expressed that if they had more options many immigrants would prefer to remain in their native country and not have to try to work in a country where they don't know the language and are stuck in low skilled jobs. I'll bet that's probably right a lot of the time. Still I've met more than a few immigrants that seemed to be happy to be here in America.

So if I say I think there are reasons to have some serious worries about illegal immigration I think the responsibility is to be shared among
the American business community and American consumers who continue to expect no significant price increases in the goods or services they use and whose expectations of upward mobility mean there has to be someone to take their place below them as they advance in their careers. Those are at least a couple of reasons why it's not just a matter of pointing the finger at the workers and the people who knowingly employ them (when they aren't legal residents). I also mentioned "corn dumping" and NAFTA, which in many people's opinions, has caused an increase in immigration.

So this is why I think it is a complex issue and to continue to mostly scapegoat the immigrants themselves eventually crosses the line and becomes just plain bigotry--as in the case of Lou Dobbs or the Minutemen.

Peace,
Kevin

[Liam]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Liam, what I mean is that to those already living in an area always look on those emigrating to 'their' area as illegal - unwanted- un-needed - etc.

Human nature and all ...

Imagine what the Pasquetant thought of the Puritans (ok, so they thought of them like we do - vile and nasty mean-spirited folk, but that's beside the point) when they first rowed to shore.

Yes, that was obviously your meaning. I was just surprised that you would misuse the term "illegal". I hasten to add that my surprise only came after reading so much in this thread of people who are willing to abandon the law at their whim.

Since I appreciate humor (even of the perverse kind) I didn't take any offence. I was just startled as a horse at your illegal snake on this bush and thorn ridden trail we seem to be traveling here.

I might add that my Sioux great grandmother (paternal) did the sensible thing and married my white upper class (more money than class) great grandfather.

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Jay:"Ilived in Chicago so all the people I know were immigrants..."

So are you telling me that everyone in Chicago is an immigrant? That no one in Chicago was born in the US? That's news!

Bob S.

Heh, heh! I was wondering about that too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't see why. I saw nothing in the original post that inferred everyone in Chicago is an immigrant... are you fellows saying you believe that any one individual could possibly "know" every person in the huge metropolis of Chicago?

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Liam:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nacktman:
Liam, what I mean is that to those already living in an area always look on those emigrating to 'their' area as illegal - unwanted- un-needed - etc.

Human nature and all ...



Yes, that was obviously your meaning. I was just surprised that you would misuse the term "illegal". I hasten to add that my surprise only came after reading so much in this thread of people who are willing to abandon the law at their whim. Liam

I noticed a poll in one of the wikipedia articles on immigration. It seems that about 75% of Americans prefer to use the term "illegal
alien" and about 25% prefer "undocumented worker". Everybody has reasons for preferring
one term over the other, but there's much more to the debate than just the argument over terminology.

Peace,
Kevin

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

I think if some people are surprised to see that some people who comment in this thread are more or less sympathetic or even outright supportive of people who do something which is considered patently illegal, it may be partly connected to the fact that this is a website devoted to promoting a condition/activity, nudity, which is also undeniably illegal in most situations except of course in the privacy of one's home or on the premises of legal nudist resorts, and on legal nude beaches.
If you have been paying attention to the photo of the day with any regularity, you may have noticed photos of the "World Naked Bike Ride." Now, to many people, public nudity of this kind is something that might even be more objectionable than the act of illegally crossing the border of another country in order to work for a living. (I suddenly can't help recalling the scene from the documentary on Spencer Tunick when the fundamentalist stops in front of all the naked people and tells them all to repent!!) But since many naturists are trying to change peoples' minds in that regard should it really be surprising to find support for people changing peoples' mind about something else (illegal immigration) that the average person (very strongly, in some cases) objects to?
Though, as I hinted in my post just before my previous one, I'm not advocating simple anarchy or the immediate rejection of the law.
True, there's an obvious difference: social nudity is a pleasurable, leisure activity and where naturists find themselves in illegal territory,
or in legally ambiguous situations (such as
on nude beaches which are not officially legal) they dismiss the objections as needlessly puritanical while people who are not inclined to agree with them might call them frivolously eccentric or other worse names. In the case of
the non-legal resident many of the arguments against it can be read in this thread but to me it seems, first of all, to be a case where it is someone who is most likely disobeying the law out of necessity--to escape from poverty--(though I think many naturists would say their activity is fulfilling a need to some greater or lesser degree, as well.)

Peace,
Kevin

[masshg3]

Wow... These posts are far more insightful than anything else I've heard or read. There are many, many, valid points for and against... Thanks to you all!

If I can offer my opinion and try to make my own sense of things.... using 1492 or 1620 and the events surrounding exploration and settlement of the 'new world' are kind of a stretch... I mean, yes, those who make this argument do have a point. However, is using history the correct way to go about this? Because slavery was acceptable, should we use that argument and allow slavery or even segregation now? What about women voting? I don't want to anger anyone, just that there are plenty of wrongs in our (the world's) past.

My wife went through about 2.5 years of immigration paperwork, hearings, examinations, etc. to get to the U.S. These immigrants, much like the Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are are valuable to us. I'm sure there are some illegal immigrants that are valuable too and who do contribute to our society. But, what are they doing to our society? There are Chinatowns and Little Italys all around us, yes, but those were legal immigrants... I see more illegal immigrants on welfare, breaking laws, living in poverty, and doing nothing to advance their lives or contribute to our society. I think it's sad that the U.S. is allowing these immigrants to get driver's licenses, in-state tuition, etc. And I also believe it's sad when I am given an attitude because I don't speak Spanish or Portuguese.

I guess, based upon my experiences and observations, I feel most angered by the fact that the illegal immigrants don't respect the U.S. and don't appreciate the opportunities provided by them.... Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, but think of one thing: The legal immigrants from the past own restaurants, construction companies, and other businesses. As illegal immigrants, what can they own? What can they do but live in a welfare state? They can not do anything legally! I'm not in favor of amnesty unless there are more controls placed on our borders. The problem will not be solved until the borders are secure and only legal immigrants are allowed to live, work, and pursue their dreams in America. Allowing illegal immigrants to remain in our society will ruin the fabric of the U.S.A.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by masshg3:
I think it's sad that the U.S. is allowing these immigrants to get driver's licenses, in-state tuition, etc. And I also believe it's sad when I am given an attitude because I don't speak Spanish or Portuguese.
Many non-legal residents do get some of the gov't benefits that people have mentioned but in alot of cases they would have to get fake documents to do so. But as I indicated, with the news clipping from the New York Times a few postings past, a lot of non-legal workers end up paying taxes and getting social security deducted (which they are unlikely to receive back as retirement benefits). And alot of them probably aren't
aware how they could get any benefits at all.
There's a lot of controversy about it but I think a majority of economists still believe that Americans basically benefit to some degree from the work that Immigrants do here in America (this is taking into consideration the work of those who are not legal residents and this is still taking into consideration the benefits/services that many immigrants receive from the government. Alot of this debate is centered around interpretations of a study on immigration published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1997).
I think the evidence is that people who are employed (but not legally) do have some impact on the wages that poor Americans hope to earn--and this is most likely if you are talking about Americans who haven't graduated from High School.
But if you speak English you still have a leg up, as far as the job market in America is concerned, compared to the immigrants who can't speak much English. This is basically the reason why many people have said that non-legal workers are most likely to compete against other non-legal workers in the job market, more than they do against any one else.
And there are many other things that can contribute more toward lowering the wages of the average American worker: legally outsourcing jobs to other countries, legally importing goods outside of the country instead of producing them here in America, or the declining influence of labor unions, for instance.
And as far as not speaking Spanish, I can hardly speak a word of Spanish but I don't think that has significantly hindered me from getting along with people who do or who don't even speak any more English than I speak Spanish-whether they are from Mexico, Spain, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, or Venezuelan-American--just to think of some of the Hispanic people I've met here in America.
There's still no shortage of people who speak the English language here in America, so if you have decided to speak only English for the rest of your life it's more than likely that you'll be able to basically enjoy the rest of your life here in America without having to worry too much about that.
(And it's not too likely that you'll meet alot of people who expect you to know Portuguese--maybe if you've ever been in Brazil or Portugal.)
Peace,
Kevin

[Pete Knight]

Whilst there are parallels with our countries immigration problems, the big diiference that seriously affects Britian is the size of our lttle island, so we have to have some sort of control otherwise we'll sink under the weight.

There are other names used to discriminate between types of immigrant, a great many of those coming here illegaly are "economic migrants" who are coming here for the better earnings, and/or social security.

The other is "asylum seekers" of whom we have more than our fair share, and when you consider that it takes more than two years to consider their case, and they get free accomodation and state hand outs during this period, our economy just can't stand much more.

Bear in mind that many of the "Immigrants" from outside the EC have travelled through several EC countries to get to the UK, why don't they want to stay in France, or Germany, Italy, Spain? If you want to see the scale of the problem, just google Calais or Sangatte, and look at the BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/destination_uk/default.stm) web page.

There is free movement within the EC, and citizens of the newer member states in the old eastern block are flocking to Britain for the better wages whilst supporting a family back home. Whilst I'm happy to acknowledge that some of these immigrants bring something to the country, pay taxes etc. there are a great many who only come for the benefits, and bring crime with them. The instatnce of street crime has risen in the UK, most of the muggings and pick pocketing is carried out by immigrants, often taking advantage of their own kind with Brothels and slave trade, yes it does exist even in the 21st century.

A concerned citizen

Pete Knight

[alfredr]

First off. I would like to welcome masshg3 to clothesfreeforums. Bievenido.

Now the arguing can begin.

Illegal immigrants can own cars and businesses and can even buy houses. You can get a Tax ID number from the IRS that allows you to pay taxes even though you are not legally allowed to work. I don't know quite how that works.

I do know from talking to one, that he could not buy health insurance because he did not have a valid Social Security number. So since only the very rich can afford to pay all their own health care if someone gets sick in the family, his family has to go back to the ER which is overloaded by all the other people who don't have health insurance.

What do you think happens when you deny them a driver's license? They're going to stay home and collect a welfare check? No, they drive without a license and go to work to try to earn a living and take their chances. Have you ever known anyone (legal resident) who lost their license or had it suspended and didn't drive at all for the term of the suspension?

In-state tuition: If the family, child in question , has lived here for the time required to qualify for in-state tuition, why shouldn't they be allowed to attend college to better themselves and be a benefit to society also? In establishing the land-grant college system, President Lincoln spoke of the "right to rise." At least if I've got my facts straight. That is a part of the American dream, the American way.

...breaking laws, living in poverty, and doing nothing to advance their lives or contribute to our society... Those same accusations were made against the Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. in their time and they were legal immigrants. They had their mobs, mafias, gangs also.

Your wife knows how difficult it is to get here legally. My argument is that the legally allowed level of immigration is so small and the system so difficult and the need for immigrants is so great, that the void is filled the other way, and don't think they have an easy time of getting here either. We are a very strong magnet for "economic migrants" as Pete Knight referred to.

On to Pete Knight: Can we blame some of this on globalization of the economy? We want to be able to have our companies take their jobs (our jobs) to countries where labor is cheaper so we can turn around and import these cheaper consumer goods and live a better, more comfortable lifestyle in our home countries, but in those other countries, the standard of living is falling farther behind ours, and we have to work harder anyway to afford our lifestyle because our wages aren't rising because we are having to compete with all those low-wage countries.

That was probably difficult to understand, but so is world economics.

As Ross Perot said in campaigning against NAFTA, "a race to the bottom." Or maybe he said there would be a great sucking sound as all the jobs headed south of the border?

Free trade, but keep all your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free at home.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Kevin:"Name a major city in California and it has a Spanish name"

California is based on a spanish word. It was also discovered by Spanish explorers in the mid 00s and was part of Mexico until the 1800s.
Bob S.

California was only part of Mexico for about 25 years. It's heritage is Spanish. Mexican culture has only played a part in California since the middle 20th century. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

California, Nevada and Utah and parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming were part of the independent nation of Mexico for 38 years--between 1810, when Mexico declared independence from Spain, and 1848, when Mexico was forced to cede the territory (as well as a disputed portion of Texas) to the United States as a condition for ending the American occupation of Mexico City. The Mexican American
War was started after an incident in the disputed region of Texas. The U.S. had offered
Mexico $15,000,000 for the territories before the war and Mexico refused. (That converts to $298,310,309 {2005}--I'm not that savvy about real estate values but I assume that would buy a few acres in the heart of downtown Los Angeles or SAn Francisco today). The U.S. paid that amount for the territory after the war. Additional portions of Arizona and New Mexico were bought from Mexico as part of the Gadsden Purchase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation

"Mexican culture has only played a part in California since the middle 20th century."
That sounds fairly accurate as I think of the
Mexican American neighborhoods I have spent the most time visiting here in California, East Los Angeles and the Mission District in San Francisco. However there are many reminders of the older Spanish heritage, such as the missions in California, so I'm not exactly sure how clear the dividing line really is.
For all but ten years between 1850 and 1980, the Census Bureau included all Mexican Americans in the category "White." The hispanic category was started in the 1980s. So that might make it difficult to make totally precise statements about the size of the Mexican American population in the past. (The demographics of modern Mexico are 60% "Mestizo" --mixed European ancestry and Native American, with perhaps as much as another 30% being basically Native American and the rest are of European ancestry plus about a million American ex-patriates.)

Peace,
Kevin

[Liam]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
California, Nevada and Utah and parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming were part of the independent nation of Mexico for 38 years--between 1810,

The history of California is quite distinct from the rest of the Mexican possessions. California was Mexican for only 25 years. Even then most of the administrators were Spanish. During the short period of the California Republic, most of the Spanish administers were remove from office but were usually able to keep most of their land. That wasn't always the case, but happened more often than one would now expect.

A note: wikipedia is not to be entirely relied on sometimes.

That sounds fairly accurate as I think of the Mexican American neighborhoods I have spent the most time visiting here in California, East Los Angeles and the Mission District in San Francisco. However there are many reminders of the older Spanish heritage, such as the missions in California, so I'm not exactly sure how clear the dividing line really is.

Until the middle of the 20th century the Mexican culture was amazingly slight in California as there was little migration from Mexico to California. The old Spanish families were very strong and many remain so. The ones I know do NOT appreciate being confused with Mexicans. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif The Spanish did bring some Mexican foods (ingredients) to California as they traveled from Mexico, but their diet was quite different and almost entirely Spanish. Yeast breads, beef, olive oil, wine and dairy products formed the backbone of California "Rancho" cooking. California Rancho cooking still is of importance here. You are close to Santa Maria so you should know the BBQ there. It is CA Rancho cooking. Mexican foods and other cultural influences did not arrive until the large influx of field workers in the 20th century.

Other interesting influences in California culture are 1) little influence from native peoples unlike in Texas, Arizona and especially New Mexico 2) The almost immediate flooding of California over a short period of time by people of European heritage 3) Northern California was a Russian possession for quite a while and still shows some influence from it 4) In the 19th century there was a huge influx of Portugese and Italians for the fishing industry which had an indelable influence on CA culture (especially foodwise). Even with all these influences, Spanish is still the backbone of California culture.

Peace,
Kevin

Indeed! Peace!

[Sanslines]

Illegal immigrants can own cars and businesses and can even buy houses. You can get a Tax ID number from the IRS that allows you to pay taxes even though you are not legally allowed to work. I don't know quite how that works.

Immigration is a very complicated subject that covers a very wide range of job classifications. Most of our discussions here have concerned illegal immigrants who come and work the lowest or dirtiest jobs in this country. Many do not pay any taxes or assorted fees for if they did, then they probably would not work those jobs if they say how little money was left over after all of the various deductions. The real question is why don't Americans want to work in so many fields? Why are so many of our nursing jobs filled by women from the Phillipines? Why are so many of our doctors from India and Pakistan? Why are so many of our engineers from Asian countries such as China? One of the only professions that I know of that has specific protections to keep foreigners from working in this country is the legal field ie lawyers. Perhaps some answers to both legal and illegal immigration problems may come from answering the question "why won't we hire Americans to do these jobs and encourage Americans to work in these fields?" What prevents Americans from wanting to work in these fields? Perhaps the real reason that Americans will not work in so many fields is because companies want cheap labor and will not hire the more expensive American workers.

[missouriboy]

Yesterday while reading a three-year-old magazine I came across a sentence appropriate to this thread. The article was not about immigration per se, but about a whole other panoply of natural human social behavior. The sentence... Open borders are incompatible with a continuing and growing welfare state or progressive taxation, but both have very powerful political support. I also recently read this philosophical adage elsewhere: "If there's no solution, there's no problem." I disagree with that adage, and instead subscribe to: "Be sure to read the problem."

Too many times, people attempt to find a solution when they don't yet know what the problem really is, and such solutions only make the problem worse.

Perhaps the sentence quoted above bears a clue to the real basic problem?

[usmc1]

Perhaps, but most probably not!

[Naturist Mark]

Illegal immigrants can own cars and businesses and can even buy houses. You can get a Tax ID number from the IRS that allows you to pay taxes even though you are not legally allowed to work. I don't know quite how that works.

And that Tax ID number looks just like a Social Security number - and most employers use it to pay social security taxes into a non-existent account.

That isn't an accident. It was designed from the beginning to benefit the federal government from the collection of taxes on illegal wages, and for the collection of Social Security contributions that cannot be claimed. No matter how blistering the politicos blast illegal immigration - they created an infrastructure that supports its and benefits from it. Illegal immigration is great for business, and for the politicians those businesses support - it provides cheap labor and keeps wages for legal workers low.

-Mark

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Well, I think the harder you look at it the debate about how much immigration affects whose wages is basically a ping pong game that's still in progress--and if you have a high school diploma immigrants very likely deserve some credit for a modest increase in your earning power--because they are working jobs you know you don't really want.
For anybody who still can't get enough of the immigration studies here's one more summary.

http://www.tcf.org/print.asp?type=NC&pubid=1275

(Some of those articles are in newspapers I can't afford to subscribe to, but the Dallas Fed study is easily accessible--but as for me personally my evening reading for the foreseeable future is going to be a book called
"Primer Curso de Espanol" by John M. Pittaro and
Alexander Green.{bought for ten dollars at a used bookstore in downtown San Luis Obispo}).

As for why more Americans don't work in the fields--or next to nobody in the industrialised world no more, anybody ever heard of something called the machine?
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3783

Paz y Adios Amigas y Amigos!
Kevin

[usmc1]

Sounds to me as though Kevin is "broke in paradise".

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Perhaps, but most probably not! The intellectual statement I quoted flatly asserts: "Open borders are incompatible with a ... welfare state."

Anyone else have an opinion on that?

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Why are so many of our nursing jobs filled by women from the Phillipines? Why are so many of our doctors from India and Pakistan? Why are so many of our engineers from Asian countries such as China? One of the only professions that I know of that has specific protections to keep foreigners from working in this country is the legal field ie lawyers. Perhaps some answers to both legal and illegal immigration problems may come from answering the question "why won't we hire Americans to do these jobs and encourage Americans to work in these fields?"

All that basically sounds to me like shutting
everyone out of the country but members of the Sons/Daughters of The American Revolution! That leaves me out and I think most of the people I've ever met in America.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Sounds to me as though Kevin is "broke in paradise".

If you know California like I do it's more like the song that goes "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot"!

Peace, Adios, Arrivederci, Au Revoir, Khoda Hafez!
Kevin

[usmc1]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Sounds to me as though Kevin is "broke in paradise".

If you know California like I do it's more like the song that goes "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot"!

Peace, Adios, Arrivederci, Au Revoir, Khoda Hafez!
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I know...I lived in SF for awhile, my acting coach is in Santa Monica, But
San Luis Obispo is or was beautiful.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by usmc1:


Yeah, I know...I lived in SF for awhile, my acting coach is in Santa Monica, But
San Luis Obispo is or was beautiful.

Still is beautiful but compared to the urban centers its's really sparsely populated--which is one reason why it's tough for me to feel in sync with people who might live in a similar place and still complain about feeling crowded by new people here in America.
I guess I quoted the Joni Mitchell song "Big Yellow Taxi" because I've long felt that the Califronia life-style is more dominatd by the personal automobile than any thing else. Joni Mitchell wrote the song after they tore down the
Garden of Allah, a famous apartment complex whose guests included people like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Harpo Marx, Sergei Rachmaninov, etc. etc. In its place they put up a bank.
That kind of sums up an aspect of American society to me. Tearing something unique down and putting up something totally mundane and ordinary in its place. You don't have to be standing in Oakland staring at some anonymous neighborhood you could be in a cookie cutter strip mall or a monotonous housing tract and still say something like Gertrude Stein said about the city she came from: "There's no there there."
So, I think when people come from any where else whether it's Mexico City, Hong Kong, Taipei, Sicily, Dublin, Paris, Tehran, Cairo, Kabul, the former Saigon (we've had a town named Little Saigon in southern California for many years now), and they bring some of their own architecture, cooking, their views of the world they make the
U.S. a little less bland, and less homogeneous.

Peace,
Kevin

[usmc1]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:


Yeah, I know...I lived in SF for awhile, my acting coach is in Santa Monica, But
San Luis Obispo is or was beautiful.

Still is beautiful but compared to the urban centers its's really sparsely populated--which is one reason why it's tough for me to feel in sync with people who might live in a similar place and still complain about feeling crowded by new people here in America.
I guess I quoted the Joni Mitchell song "Big Yellow Taxi" because I've long felt that the Califronia life-style is more dominatd by the personal automobile than any thing else. Joni Mitchell wrote the song after they tore down the
Garden of Allah, a famous apartment complex whose guests included people like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Harpo Marx, Sergei Rachmaninov, etc. etc. In its place they put up a bank.
That kind of sums up an aspect of American society to me. Tearing something unique down and putting up something totally mundane and ordinary in its place. You don't have to be standing in Oakland staring at some anonymous neighborhood you could be in a cookie cutter strip mall or a monotonous housing tract and still say something like Gertrude Stein said about the city she came from: "There's no there there."
So, I think when people come from any where else whether it's Mexico City, Hong Kong, Taipei, Sicily, Dublin, Paris, Tehran, Cairo, Kabul, the former Saigon (we've had a town named Little Saigon in southern California for many years now), and they bring some of their own architecture, cooking, their views of the world they make the
U.S. a little less bland, and less homogeneous.

Peace,
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the words of that famous American social critic and working class philosopher, Hank Hill,
"Ah-Yep!"

[kphoger]

i used to live in the chicago suburbs. i grew up in a small farm town in kansas, and my roommate grew up in santa ana and mexico city. i moved away because everything was so fast. he liked living there because everything was so slow.....

Still is beautiful but compared to the urban centers its's really sparsely populated--which is one reason why it's tough for me to feel in sync with people who might live in a similar place and still complain about feeling crowded by new people here in America.

[DoctorSurferDude]

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4118/bethlehembgrdpn7.jpg

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by masshg3:
As illegal immigrants, what can they own? What can they do but live in a welfare state? They can not do anything legally! I'm not in favor of amnesty unless there are more controls placed on our borders. The problem will not be solved until the borders are secure and only legal immigrants are allowed to live, work, and pursue their dreams in America. Allowing illegal immigrants to remain in our society will ruin the fabric of the U.S.A.


Funny....I was under the impression that the fabric of this country was founded by illegal immigrants....

http://www.unitstudy.com/pilgrims%20meet%20indians.jpg

[tiger79]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Funny....I was under the impression that the fabric of this country was founded by illegal immigrants.... I've heard they were just package tourists who overstayed their welcome. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by masshg3:
As illegal immigrants, what can they own? What can they do but live in a welfare state? They can not do anything legally! I'm not in favor of amnesty unless there are more controls placed on our borders. The problem will not be solved until the borders are secure and only legal immigrants are allowed to live, work, and pursue their dreams in America. Allowing illegal immigrants to remain in our society will ruin the fabric of the U.S.A.


Funny....I was under the impression that the fabric of this country was founded by illegal immigrants....

http://www.unitstudy.com/pilgrims%20meet%20indians.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Words of wisdom!!!!

[Sanslines]

All that basically sounds to me like shutting
everyone out of the country but members of the Sons/Daughters of The American Revolution! That leaves me out and I think most of the people I've ever met in America.

I am not quite sure what you mean? The point that I was making is that in so many cases, it seems that fewer and fewer Americans are working in certain fields and more and more foreigners are replacing them. In some cases, the foreigners are hired as more or less cheap, indentured servants to replace Americans who command higher salaries and have rights as full fledged citizens. Should not the playing field be equal for all and should not older Americans still have rights as workers rather then be pushed aside due to age discrimination (that in many cases is nearly impossible to prove) for either foreigners ( who can be hired for less ) or younger people ( who in many case are more expensive then those that they are replacing ) ? Why can't we admit that we as a nation purposely hire illegal aliens as cheap labor with no legal rights so that we can exploit them? Why is it so impossible to decide who we want to enter this country and then grant those who are allowed entry some kind of guest worker legal status where they have legal rights?

[Liam]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I am not amused. The drawing is a fantasy depiction of Israel and has no connection to the words you place with it. Those words are an ideal realized by many over the years. It was realized by those who obeyed the laws and entered in a legal manner. Did I miss something Doc? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:

Great Words of wisdom!!!!

I disagree Mr. Nuts. It was mildly humorous but completely without any content.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All that basically sounds to me like shutting
everyone out of the country but members of the Sons/Daughters of The American Revolution! That leaves me out and I think most of the people I've ever met in America.

I am not quite sure what you mean? The point that I was making is that in so many cases, it seems that fewer and fewer Americans are working in certain fields and more and more foreigners are replacing them. In some cases, the foreigners are hired as more or less cheap, indentured servants to replace Americans who command higher salaries and have rights as full fledged citizens. Should not the playing field be equal for all and should not older Americans still have rights as workers rather then be pushed aside due to age discrimination (that in many cases is nearly impossible to prove) for either foreigners ( who can be hired for less ) or younger people ( who in many case are more expensive then those that they are replacing ) ? Why can't we admit that we as a nation purposely hire illegal aliens as cheap labor with no legal rights so that we can exploit them? Why is it so impossible to decide who we want to enter this country and then grant those who are allowed entry some kind of guest worker legal status where they have legal rights? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I am not quite sure what you mean.." (Sanslines)
I admit that My "sons/daughters of the American Revoltion" comment was a somewhat smart-alecky response to your post, but I still find that post both clumsily anti-Asian and basically (and un-realistically) anti-immigration altogether, so I think it was an appropriate, even if exaggerated, response.
To share just a small part of my personal background on this subject, the last time I received any health care it was when I had a root canal done about five years ago by a Chinese-American dentist (recommended to me by a non-Chinese American friend of mine) who is equally fluent in both Cantonese and English. His assistant during portions of the procedure was also Chinese and a speaker of both languages as well. I can only say good things about them as health care workers. So, I see no reason why any one should hesitate about going to qualified health care workers regardless of their ethnic background.
I've objected to racial bias of that sort in most of my posts. I also don't think you can
blame immigration (or illegal immigration) as the most significant cause of many of the problems you and some of the other people have commented on in this thread. So I am very much inclined to agree with alfredr that many of the subjects people have touched upon fall under the more comprehensive subject of "globalisation of the (world) economy."
I think that immigration has been a very positive influence in American society--and I think that also applies to more than a few people who are not currently legal residents in the U.S. So, at least on one point I agree with you that they should be in a situation where they are much less likely to be exploited in this country and have legal rights.

Peace,
Kevin

[Sanslines]

I admit that My "sons/daughters of the American Revoltion" comment was a somewhat smart-alecky response to your post, but I still find that post both clumsily anti-Asian and basically (and un-realistically) anti-immigration altogether, so I think it was an appropriate, even if exaggerated, response.

My post basically asks why more Americans are not working in fields such as nursing, medicine, engineering, etc. I have not blamed anything on immigrants and am certainly not anti immigrant. I stated that from what I see, many of these occupations are full of foreign workers and I asked why more Americans are not working in these fields. I am against a lack of an intellegent immigration policy. As my post states above, I am against illegal immigration because in so many cases illegal immigrants are exploited, have no protections or rights under our laws, and forfit their rights to claiming benefits that they worked for and contributed to. I am also against older american discrimination. What is wrong with an intelligent immigration policy that openly admits that we need immigrants, allows them into this country under some kind of program, and gives then rights, protections, and benefits from programs that they contributed to? Are you against this? I certainly am not. What is wrong with also taking into consideration the rights of Americans? Do not Americans have a say as to what occurs within their own country without being called 'racists'? Also no one is claiming that there should be no immigration. However, are you saying that we should just open the doors and allow anyone and everyone in from all over the world regardless of any consequences? Maybe we should but we as a nation need to be able to openly and honestly discuss any and all aspects of immigration without anyone screamin 'racial bias' at the drop of the hat. Don't you agree? Why aren't more americans working in fields such as science, math, engineering, medicine, etc? Why are so many from overseas drawn to these fields? Don't you also wonder why? How can it be construed as racism when I ask why certain groups (such as women from the Phillipines working in nursing - and this is fact) are working in these fields ans Americans are not? What I stated is from my observations and if the mere mention of what I observe around me is considered too 'racist' to even say, then God help us all when it comes to discussing the development of immigration policy.

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by masshg3:
As illegal immigrants, what can they own? What can they do but live in a welfare state? They can not do anything legally! I'm not in favor of amnesty unless there are more controls placed on our borders. The problem will not be solved until the borders are secure and only legal immigrants are allowed to live, work, and pursue their dreams in America. Allowing illegal immigrants to remain in our society will ruin the fabric of the U.S.A.


Funny....I was under the impression that the fabric of this country was founded by illegal immigrants....

http://www.unitstudy.com/pilgrims%20meet%20indians.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Words of wisdom!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? What is it that's either funny or wise about having misimpresssions? What was the nature of immigration laws at the time, to make the Pilgrims "illegal"?

[usmc1]

Careful MoBoy, you're about to paint yourself into a rhetorical corner.

[nacktman]

What was the nature of immigration laws at the time, to make the Pilgrims "illegal"?

Oh, the law of the people already inhabiting the area had about none may live there save members of their tribe, maybe ... dunno, watcha think?

BTW, that's puritans not pilgrims ... just another misnomer purpetuated by the illiterati.

Funny....I was under the impression that the fabric of this country was founded by illegal immigrants....

Yep, you betcha, sure was!

Though luckily the picture used to illustrate the point only represented the unwanted minority of those emigrating to this land, else this nation would be fu(ked up worse than it is now and that is a truly horrendus mental picture to contemplate.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Sanslines:

I am also against older american discrimination. (I'm not arguing against you on that point.)EArthpassengerK

What is wrong with an intelligent immigration policy that openly admits that we need immigrants, allows them into this country under some kind of program, and gives then rights, protections, and benefits from programs that they contributed to? Are you against this?

(I think everything in my posts should indicate that I definitely agree with you about some kind of program like that. But as I wrote I think there are many other problems that we need to worry about (such as U. S. trade policy) and we can't simply expect to solve many of these problems by just focusing on immigration. ) EArthpassengerK

...we as a nation need to be able to openly and honestly discuss any and all aspects of immigration without anyone screamin 'racial bias' at the drop of the hat. Don't you agree?

(I called the post "clumsily anti-Asian" because many of the people you mentioned are very likely as "American" as anyone else needs to be as far as many of their friends, neighbors, patients, their birth certificate and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, etc. are concerned--in addition to having been born in or having ancestors from those or other countries.)EArthpassengerK

Why aren't more americans working in fields such as science, math, engineering, medicine, etc? Why are so many from overseas drawn to these fields? Don't you also wonder why? How can it be construed as racism when I ask why certain groups (such as women from the Phillipines working in nursing - and this is fact) are working in these fields ans Americans are not?

(There are plenty of people of many, many different backgrounds working in those professions in the U. S., not just the people you referred to. As I wrote in the last comment, many of them are very likely "Americans" too--they just might be a "Hyphenated"-American: Filipino-American, Italian-American, African-American, Irish-American, Iranian-American, Chinese-American, etc., etc. You didn't seem to be allowing for the likelihood of that.) EarthpassengerK


Peace,
Kevin

[kphoger]

sanslines, you're not the only one disappointed in how many foreigners are in high-profile jobs here in the states. those "left behind" in the mother countries often feel betrayed: they spent their time and money teaching and training the students, and then the students leave and practice their trade somewhere else. it's like taking the cream and leaving the milk. i think we benefit from it at the detriment of the mother countries.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
Huh? What is it that's either funny or wise about having misimpresssions? What was the nature of immigration laws at the time, to make the Pilgrims "illegal"?

It is an abstraction....a case in point....a simplification.

If you want to argue about the economical impact or whatever, that is fine... I suppose whether or not the mexican workers cost "you" or benefit you depends on how much fruit you eat on a daily basis and whether your house is built in the 1970's or the 2000's. That is all circular arguments, because YES they cost us and YES we benefit from them.....the rest is details that "cannot fully be calculated" by our society. So I avoid getting into that debate.

What I find IRONIC is that if the Native Americans would have welcomed the pilgrims like we welcome the mexicans....this country never would have existed. Then of course we go onto steal it from them...to kill them for land and ostracize them...and how you call this country your own and try to keep out the natives to the south?? How ironic...how hypocritical of us as a country.

If the statue of liberty had not welcomed our ancestors, this country would not be where it is today....we'd just be a bunch of farmers. Our country is founded on immigrants. What made them legal is that they signed their names on a roster and swore to "be american". But now it takes 2-5 years or more for a Mexican who wants to be an american to do so....it's silly, again, hypocritical. Have we become to big to recognize our own principles of freedom and liberty? Are we distracted by our imperialism or our fear? I can't decide....

Here is a song....
You think you own whatever land you land on
The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim...

You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew

[Liam]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
It is an abstraction....a case in point....a simplification.

My I add a couple of comments Doc? I like simplification. I need it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif I tend to be pretty basic.

If you want to argue about the economical impact or whatever, that is fine... I suppose whether or not the mexican workers cost "you" or benefit you depends on how much fruit you eat on a daily basis and whether your house is built in the 1970's or the 2000's. That is all circular arguments, because YES they cost us and YES we benefit from them.....the rest is details that "cannot fully be calculated" by our society. So I avoid getting into that debate.

Good! I don't have any firmly held opinions on the subject. I do have a firm dislike of people entering and staying in this country illegally. Well, not the people exactly, but the fact that they break the law.

What I find IRONIC is that if the Native Americans would have welcomed the pilgrims like we welcome the mexicans....this country never would have existed. Then of course we go onto steal it from them...to kill them for land and ostracize them...and how you call this country your own and try to keep out the natives to the south?? How ironic...how hypocritical of us as a country.

The sins of our fathers eh? Not exactly an enlightened idea. I left your entire paragraph complete, but there are a couple parts of it I find interesting.

"What I find IRONIC is that if the Native Americans would have welcomed the pilgrims like we welcome the mexicans....this country never would have existed."

I think not. They would have been overwhelmed eventually. Small groups of Spanish overwhelmed much larger groups of indigenous peoples elswhere in North and South America. This country would have been British based in any case.

"Then of course we go onto steal it from them...to kill them for land and ostracize them..."

There is no doubt that many horrible things happened to the indigenous people with the arrival of Europeans. The same happend with the arrival of the English in my country. Let us not forget the many Africans brought to this land as slaves as well.

Still, your use of the word "steal" is inharmonious. If the British did not settle what is now U.S. soil, someone else would have. Even if somehow no Europeans settled in the Americas and the indiginous peoples were left alone it is unrealistic to imagine they would be left alone to fight and kill each other. Which they would have done. North America was not an idylic place. Killing, even genocide was well established before the arrival of any Europeans.

"...and how you call this country your own and try to keep out the natives to the south??"

These natives to the south. Just who would those be? Mexicans are, to a large part, a mixture of cultures, races and ethnicities. There are large groups of indigenous people in Mexico but all of them live in a bi-cultural environment. Do you think a certain bi-culture, race mixture, or other ethinic identifier should be used, or just open it to anyone who was born to the south?

If the statue of liberty had not welcomed our ancestors, this country would not be where it is today....we'd just be a bunch of farmers. Our country is founded on immigrants. What made them legal is that they signed their names on a roster and swore to "be american".

Well, not all of us. My parernal line entered what is now the U.S. in 1646. Another in my paternal line entered some time before that; whenever the Sioux and their ancestors got here. None of them signed anything. My maternal line started arriving here, some of them anyway, in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The ones who stayed did sign up and eventually became citizens. We all didn't enter this land the same way.

But now it takes 2-5 years or more for a Mexican who wants to be an american to do so....it's silly, again, hypocritical. Have we become to big to recognize our own principles of freedom and liberty? Are we distracted by our imperialism or our fear? I can't decide....

How long do you think it took my 19th century and later relatives to get into the country leagally? It wasn't quick and it wasn't easy. There was no infrastructure in place to assist them either. I think that at the moment, the biggest source of attack against our principles of freedom and liberty come from our own Federal Government and not from the people. Fear may have something to do with the problem with illegal immigration for some people, but I do not feel that is the case overall. As to "Imperialism"! It is, excuse me my friend, a silly thing to entertain. One could make a case in wildly loose suppositions to extract such a thing, but only for the reason to complicate and cause trouble. Besides, this gets us back to the "sins of the fathers" again. It is, to me, morally wrong to hold anyone guilty for something someone else did many years ago. We should remember though.

Here is a song....

Um, well..... I have no poetry in my soul Doc. I've been the butt of many a joke in Ireland. I have a degree in Music, but the words never get to me. <sigh>

Anyhoo, my dear Doc, this was supposed to be simple. It ain't. I'm getting confused! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Careful MoBoy, you're about to paint yourself into a rhetorical corner. My intention was to clarify the issue by eschewing rhetoric in favor of literal interpretation. The two terms, immigration laws and illegal immigrants, are so tightly related logically and linguistically that 'rhetoric' doesn't even enter into their comparison.

My point is only that the latter cannot pre-exist the prior, and that attempting to compare prior legal immigration to later illegal immigration only confuses the debate. The topic is 'Illegal Immigration' and I posit that waxing nostalgic about historical legal immigration is not helpful toward understanding the problems of the present-day situation.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

This is still the controversy over the illustration of the Native Americans and the European settlers on Dr. Surfer Dude's post?
I personally thought that the Dr.'s post just referred to the basic principle that has applied to settling this continent: as long as the costs of transportation are covered, once you're here you're "American"--despite what the locals might say!

Peace, Feliz Navidad, Happy Hanukah, Feliz Ano Nuevo, Saal-e now Mobarak!
Kevin

[usmc1]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Careful MoBoy, you're about to paint yourself into a rhetorical corner. My intention was to clarify the issue by eschewing rhetoric in favor of literal interpretation. The two terms, immigration laws and illegal immigrants, are so tightly related logically and linguistically that 'rhetoric' doesn't even enter into their comparison.

My point is only that the latter cannot pre-exist the prior, and that attempting to compare prior legal immigration to later illegal immigration only confuses the debate. The topic is 'Illegal Immigration' and I posit that waxing nostalgic about historical legal immigration is not helpful toward understanding the problems of the present-day situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One does not eschew rhetoric by engaging in it while calling it something else.

Rhetoric is nuetral (a term describing the art, skill, craft of persuasion), you seem to regard that it has negative connotation. That is not correct.

The rehetorical corner in which you have insisted on painting yourself is simply this:

All immigrants can be determined to be "legal" or "illegal" depending on one's point of view. Your example of "Puritans" as legal immigrants misses this point. England and those religious and political refugees whom we call "Puritans" certainly regarded their invasion and occupation of aboriginal land as "legal".

Those aboriginal people had codes, systems of self-governance, and belief systems by which they lived and conducted their affairs. Among those were how, and by whom, the land was used. The "Puritans" did not share those, and in fact, were unwelcome squatter-immigrants and survived only because of the pity of the natives, not the grade-school dogma of aboriginal kindbess, generosity and welcome sharing that pervades our collective memories.

They certainly contributed nothing in the way of language, craft, religion or culture to the existing civilization upon which they inflicted themselves. And, with very rare exceptions they, and those who followed, made no attempt to assimilate, let alone understand those of the people's upon whom they were intruding.

Thus,ultimately, by force of arms, the "illegal immigrants" from England, and the rest of Western Europe, prevailed.

In your black and white (literal) world in which abstractions are not considered, I guess one would assert that illegal is always illegal. So it does become valid, even within the confines of your narrow definitions, to compare other earlier instances of illegal immigration to later cases, if for no other reason than to make the comparison to underscore the hypocrisy of today's immigrant haters.

[usmc1]

For the knotheads who see the "illegal aliens" as criminals, welfare cheats and a drag on society. A name, one of many, of a very successful "Illegal Alien"

Cesar Millan.

[harveym]

Interesting article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/opinion/27hogeland.html?th&emc=th

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
This is still the controversy over the illustration of the Native Americans and the European settlers on Dr. Surfer Dude's post?
I personally thought that the Dr.'s post just referred to the basic principle that has applied to settling this continent: as long as the costs of transportation are covered, once you're here you're "American"--despite what the locals might say!


Thanks for noticing Kevin...

Immigration is a fundamental principle of this country. All of us can trace our roots back to immigration. What has changed is that the oil which once greased the gears of growth and innovation in this country is now being thickened and made sticky with all the paperwork and nonesense required to come into this country. In my opinion...if you make it to this country and decide to call it home, then I don't care if you are legal or illegal, if you speak english or not. If you are here and have hope, then you are an American to me.

My own roots are Mahican, Peruvian, Irish and German/Dutch. So basicly my people killed my own people http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif My Native American roots were here before written history, my European roots came over in the 1800's when all it took was a signature in the log book on Ellis Island. My Peruvian root came over in 1961 with Green Cards, which replaced the signature at Ellis Island allowing immigration through various routes. Neither of my grandparents ever mastered conversational english.

Let me try and summarize the history of the Green Card. First of all it's the only way I know of that a person can obtain "legal" status in this country without being a citizen (and you can't easily become a citizen if you are not living here...si?) Formerly, as I mentioned before, it was just a signature in the log book at Ellis Island. Then it became a piece of paper that went through various transformations and colors. Finally in 1940 under the Alien Registration Act it became known as the Green Card. A person who came into this country and wanted to stay could easily register themselves at their local post office, classifying their intentions and recieving a green card if their intentions were to stay. Fast forward 60 years...

- Green Cards are now given out on a freakin Lottery basis
- Only 55,000 "winners" a year obtain their Green Cards
- Certain Countries are NOT included in this "Game"
- Mexico is excluded...no Mexican can obtain a Green Card

My family from Peru decided to become official citizens in the 1990's, although it was not required to be "legal", it was something they wanted to do. ....it took them FIVE YEARS before they could be sworn in, and that is after living here for 30 years.

How do you suppose a Mexican who cannot obtain anything beyond a work visa (if they are lucky) can manage to navigate that paper trail? Do you think they can afford to fly up here whenever the immigration office decides to call them up to wait in line for 4 hours to obtain more paperwork so they can wait another 2 years before hearing anything? The whole process is worthy of the slang term for cow pies...

I also implore you, if you have the time, to navigate the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (http://www.uscis.gov) website. Please see if you can find a way to obtain legal resident status without a Green Card. Now picture navigating that website without having english as your first language, and without being rich enough to afford a computer or internet.

I did find a very American loop hole....called "Investor Visa", which allows investors to obtain legal residence if they invest $1 million dollars in US enterprise! So that is all pretty ethical of course...

[DoctorSurferDude]

Liam...we seem to get caught up on definitions...

We don't live in a democratic society, we live in a Republic. Because we don't vote for the decisions our govornment makes...we don't even vote for our president. It is all very indirect, the only thing we vote for is our local representatives, they do all the rest of the voting, they disregard public opinion all the time....and they simply wish to keep the public apeased. How does this relate to Immigration? ....think about who told you immigration was so "bad", who published the numbers, who ran the surveys....hmm.

Democracy: a form of government in which the people hold the power

Republic: a form of government where ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials or delegates to a legislative assembly instead of directly through the people.

Totalitarianism: a government in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which are involved in the political process.

Facism: a political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.


It is a progression.....we slipped past the first part a long time ago...


Imperialism.... Lenin called it "the merging of bank capital with industrial capital to create finance capital" It is basically the mature bloom of capitalism (the dominant economic system in the world) and currently there is no better model for imperialism than the top of the capitalist food chain, the United States of America.

Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Sometimes maintaining econimic dominance requires maintaining a gradient....and sometimes maintaining a gradient requires putting up a big fence or wall. It is not about safety, it is about money, it is always about money...

[hm0504]

The U.S. is BOTH a republic and a democracy (and with the above definition of republic, republics are necessarily democracies).

Requiring that the term "democracy" be only used to describe organizations where all the people vote on everything all the time is next to absurd.

[Naturist Mark]

We don't live in a democratic society, we live in a Republic.

Ackkkkk!

That's an old line from the John Birch Society. And untrue.

A republic can be a democracy or not - most nations are republics - which technically means that that source of sovreignty is the people (or the consent of the people), not a monarch or diety or oligarchy.

The United States is not a direct democracy like ancient Athens, but IS a representative democracy (at least officially - some of our recent elections have been of dubious character). The US is also a republic.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Canada, for example, is both a democracy and a constitutional monarchy. And according to DSD's definition, also a republic.

[Naturist Mark]

- Mexico is excluded...no Mexican can obtain a Green Card
...
How do you suppose a Mexican who cannot obtain anything beyond a work visa (if they are lucky) can manage to navigate that paper trail? Do you think they can afford to fly up here whenever the immigration office decides to call them up to wait in line for 4 hours to obtain more paperwork so they can wait another 2 years before hearing anything? The whole process is worthy of the slang term for cow pies...
...
I did find a very American loop hole....called "Investor Visa", which allows investors to obtain legal residence if they invest $1 million dollars in US enterprise! So that is all pretty ethical of course...

Here's another loophole: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> WASHINGTON: The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks, including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and put more immigrants on a faster track to U.S. citizenship if they volunteer, according to Pentagon officials.
...
The idea of signing up residents who are seeking U.S. citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/military.php) [/list]

-Mark

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We don't live in a democratic society, we live in a Republic.

Ackkkkk!

That's an old line from the John Birch Society. And untrue.

A republic can be a democracy or not - most nations are republics - which technically means that that source of sovreignty is the people (or the consent of the people), not a monarch or diety or oligarchy.

The United States is not a direct democracy like ancient Athens, but IS a representative democracy (at least officially - some of our recent elections have been of dubious character). The US is also a republic.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Democrats won the last round of elections--but we're stuck with a mess created by the Republicans--so the description sounds accurate enough to me!

Salaam
Kevin

[Liam]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Liam...we seem to get caught up on definitions...

Doc, I don't know why you addressed this post to me. Not a single item in your post responded to my post in the slightest.

[Liam]

Originally posted by usmc1:
For the knotheads who see the "illegal aliens" as criminals, welfare cheats and a drag on society. A name, one of many, of a very successful "Illegal Alien"

Cesar Millan.

The worth of an individual or the contribution an individual makes no difference to the distinction of legal and illegal immigration. It is a matter of law. If that law is good or bad can certainly be debated, but legal and illegal still have meaning.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
For the knotheads who see the "illegal aliens" as criminals, welfare cheats and a drag on society. A name, one of many, of a very successful "Illegal Alien"

Cesar Millan.

The worth of an individual or the contribution an individual makes no difference to the distinction of legal and illegal immigration. It is a matter of law. If that law is good or bad can certainly be debated, but legal and illegal still have meaning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they don't. Not in the way you infer, as absolutes.

If they had the sort of meaning you infer, Richard Nixon would have done time.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Liam...we seem to get caught up on definitions...

Doc, I don't know why you addressed this post to me. Not a single item in your post responded to my post in the slightest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes....I got a little caught up. I intended to speak about "imperalism" and why the USA fits under that category. But then by the end I found other stuff, and forgot to take your name out.

Thanks for dissecting http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
The worth of an individual or the contribution an individual makes no difference to the distinction of legal and illegal immigration. It is a matter of law. If that law is good or bad can certainly be debated, but legal and illegal still have meaning.

No they don't. Not in the way you infer, as absolutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Written law is of necessity absolute. Justice in the form of appeal in court and legislature is not absolute. Justice cannot be conducted in absolutes. These are two different concepts....related, yes...but separate.

If they had the sort of meaning you infer, Richard Nixon would have done time.

I infered nothing. I stated that there is immigration law. I also mentioned that there was reason to debate the law in the interest of justice. Law is NOT immutable. Where law is inflexable, there is no justice. But...law is law until it is adjudicated by courts or legislature.

The case of Richard Nixon is an example but not in the way you mean. What you seek is revenge not justice. Presidents legally have the power of pardon. President Ford pardoned Nixon in accordance to law. If this was the correct thing to do can be debated. The question of "Was justice served?" can also be debated. But the law is, in your words "absolute".

Nice attempt to twist my words, By-the-way! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
Doc, I don't know why you addressed this post to me. Not a single item in your post responded to my post in the slightest.

Yes....I got a little caught up. I intended to speak about "imperalism" and why the USA fits under that category. But then by the end I found other stuff, and forgot to take your name out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, heh! I know the feeling. Just be careful with the "imperalism" thing. It is easy to look askance upon the past while seeing through the eye glasses of today with lenses ground using personal biases. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Thanks for dissecting http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

My pleasure. When I was taking anatomy many years ago, my professor refered to me as the butcher! My dissecting technique was......well, not elegant. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by Liam:
...be careful with the "imperalism" thing. It is easy to look askance upon the past while seeing through the eye glasses of today with lenses ground using personal biases. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif


I'm looking with askance upon the things I see in the present. Sure I think there are lessons we should learn from our past, and I am disappointed when I see that a majority of the population prefers to wear blinded shades instead of glasses. (not implying you do).

This is a different subject, and I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but we live in a nation that extends it's political influences and exercises it's stength world wide for financial gain (aka economic stability). Gulf War, Middle East occupation, Mexican border wall, etc. it is all for power and influence....and the bottom line is always the bottom line....MONEY. A careful dissection will always reveal that.

I'm not sure why you think I'm biased....is it biased to have a lineage that includes a people who the country was stolen from, the people who stole it, and a south american family who immigrated in a way that would now be considered "illegal". I have 3 sides of the coin to examine in my hand. I think of myself as a neutral...an uncommon position.

BIAS -
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair : there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants | the bias toward younger people in recruitment | [in sing. ] a systematic bias in favor of the powerful.

That is a direct copy/paste from the Oxford dictionary....is it fair to implicate the majority of americans as being biased towards mexicans? Or is that unfair...wait...who is being fair anyways...fair doesn't count in this land, it is not our moral fabric.

[alfredr]

Just getting caught up on reading this thread and thinking about what's been going on here.

Labels, names of things, defining our terms. Isn't it interesting how communication would be impossibe without words, but words get in the way of communicating? Words we all use and all think we understand and that everyone else understands the way we do. But we often have an understanding that doesn't completely agree with someone else's. And there's the rub.

And then there is the occasional typo or missed punctuation and tone of voice or facial expression don't come across here either. Is it any wonder we argue, even when we are mostly in agreement?

I am reminded of a discussion in "Alice In Wonderland" ,I believe with the mock turtle, about a thing's name, what it is called, and what it really is.

The "green card" is what it's called, but its name is "Permanent Residence Card" and what it really is, is not green. Thanks to DocSurf for the link to INS which is not its name either. They talk of pink versions and white versions.

Democracy and Republic are probably similarly confused with many layers of definitions and understandings. I imagine the founding fathers had very similar discussions about what they mean and how they apply to the American Experiment. And our two main parties use those terms which adds another layer of meanings to them.

But what it really is, is "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Can we agree on that? Although with the low voter turnouts and apathy, we may be losing some of that.

I would suggest that "imperialism" has gone beyond national interests and that economic imperialism is in the hands of multi-national corporations or other entities, although it is hard to argue that they are all in cahoots about ruling the world or controlling the whole economy or that they could even if they wanted to.

"Illegal" meaning something that is done when there is a law against it. So, what kind of law? Written law, nautral law? There was no law against those kids in Brattleboro, Vermont last summer taking their clothes off in the parking lot, so it wasn't illegal; there are laws against crossing into the US without proper documentation and visas, so that is illegal.

I think most of us here could agree that that is not desirable. We may not agree why it is not desirable. We may not agree what should be done about the fact that people will do that. We may not agree about why people do that. But I think we can agree that it would be better if everyone who came to the US would do so with documentation and proper visas.

I also have seen general agreement that the great majority of immigrants contribute more to our country than they take. Every group has its bad apples, but probably no worse than any of those groups already here.

Take a look at the Immigration Service website that DocSurferDude provided a link to. The difficulty of getting admitted legally contributes to people crossing illegally. This is one place reform needs to happen to reduce illegal immigration.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
The worth of an individual or the contribution an individual makes no difference to the distinction of legal and illegal immigration. It is a matter of law. If that law is good or bad can certainly be debated, but legal and illegal still have meaning.

No they don't. Not in the way you infer, as absolutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Written law is of necessity absolute. Justice in the form of appeal in court and legislature is not absolute. Justice cannot be conducted in absolutes. These are two different concepts....related, yes...but separate.

If they had the sort of meaning you infer, Richard Nixon would have done time.

I infered nothing. I stated that there is immigration law. I also mentioned that there was reason to debate the law in the interest of justice. Law is NOT immutable. Where law is inflexable, there is no justice. But...law is law until it is adjudicated by courts or legislature.

The case of Richard Nixon is an example but not in the way you mean. What you seek is revenge not justice. Presidents legally have the power of pardon. President Ford pardoned Nixon in accordance to law. If this was the correct thing to do can be debated. The question of "Was justice served?" can also be debated. But the law is, in your words "absolute".

Nice attempt to twist my words, By-the-way! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Liam, you are wrong. There are no “absolute” laws using any of the most common definitions of “absolute”.

• perfect or complete or pure;

•complete and without restriction or qualification

•not limited by law

•expressing finality with no implication of possible change

•without conditions or limitations

•something that is conceived to be absolute; something that does not depends on anything else and is beyond human control

•not capable of being violated or infringed

Laws are subject to review, interpretation, modification, revocation and outright repeal.
Absolute means pure or complete and unqualified and final without conditions or limitation.

Laws are never complete and unqualified and final; as they are subject to review, interpretation, varied application, conditions, limitations, modification and improvement or repeal.

Therefore, laws are not “Absolute”.

No one twisted your words; nor are there shaggy bears hiding in your closet or boogey men under your bed.

[Sanslines]

Just as an aside here to the concept of 'absolute law': The Supreme Court Justices are constantly reviewing, interpreting, evaluating, clarifying, and expanding laws. Judges and lawyers are also constantly using the law as a guide when either argueing or deciding cases as each case is unique. Laws are constantly changing and in many cases are updated to the current times. Hence, in general, laws can not be applied blindly and without question. If laws were truly 'absolute' , then we would have no need for most of the legal system that we have.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
The worth of an individual or the contribution an individual makes no difference to the distinction of legal and illegal immigration. It is a matter of law. If that law is good or bad can certainly be debated, but legal and illegal still have meaning.

No they don't. Not in the way you infer, as absolutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Written law is of necessity absolute. Justice in the form of appeal in court and legislature is not absolute. Justice cannot be conducted in absolutes. These are two different concepts....related, yes...but separate.

If they had the sort of meaning you infer, Richard Nixon would have done time.

I infered nothing. I stated that there is immigration law. I also mentioned that there was reason to debate the law in the interest of justice. Law is NOT immutable. Where law is inflexable, there is no justice. But...law is law until it is adjudicated by courts or legislature.

The case of Richard Nixon is an example but not in the way you mean. What you seek is revenge not justice. Presidents legally have the power of pardon. President Ford pardoned Nixon in accordance to law. If this was the correct thing to do can be debated. The question of "Was justice served?" can also be debated. But the law is, in your words "absolute".

Nice attempt to twist my words, By-the-way! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm assuming "absolute" in this context refers to the possibility of having "absolute" certainty whether or not someone is in fact in violation of that law--despite whether you agree with the law.
For instance if the posted speed limit on the freeway is 55 miles per hour and I am driving 56 miles per hour I am absolutely not obeying that law. IN the case of someone who works in this country while not being a legal resident--both that person and the person who employ him or her
are certainly in violation of the law.
But where the "ABsoluteness" starts to fade away regarding the subject of illegal immigration is not only the question whether the law is truly just and serves a good purpose but also whether the immigrant who migrates is likely to receive punishment greater (In proportion to who he/she is) than the person who illegally employs him/her.
And to get back to the ethical discussion of immigration both legal and illegal--as I wrote earlier-- I think there is more to it than
the "legalistic" picture (that the law says it is illegal and therefore wrong). I think the big picture is that immigration fits into many Americans expectations of both upward mobility--where they advance further in their careers and need more people to work below them for less money-- and their expectation that they
should be able buy the same products and services for low prices. Many people who are able to say these expectations are being met are
the people who would probably have to admit that they do benefit from immigration.
And I think that's the bigger picture. On the one side there's the law saying No NO NO the immigrant is illegal. But there's the employer and the consumer that wants the labor and the result of the labor saying Yes Yes Yes. And the picture gets more complex when you take into consideration the philosophy of the relation of the Free market economy to American society. Basically, the relationship between the buyer of a good and service and the producer or provider is a consentual relationship and the same goes for the relationship between the the employee and the employer. Essentially they expect the government to stand aside.
So this is why the ethical picture is a complicated one and why the law may say no absolutely but American society may be sending a much more mixed message--to the immigrants themselves--that is anything but absolute.
And I expect that the big picture will stay complicated in spite of any stricter immigration policy that might get adopted in the future. So I doubt there will be a simple solution of larger problems simply by focusing on immigration to the U. S. "Big picture" solutions would have to address both world poverty and world population growth.
Open borders are what we should want when we want to live in a free country alongside other free countries.


Peace
Kevin

[Liam]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
I'm looking with askance upon the things I see in the present. Sure I think there are lessons we should learn from our past, and I am disappointed when I see that a majority of the population prefers to wear blinded shades instead of glasses. (not implying you do).

Thanks, but I think you are mistaken about the vision of the majority. The view they see may be a different one that you and I see, but it isn't about the ability to see. We all see things differently (biases from many life experiences or even flat ignorance) and draw different conclusions.

This is a different subject, and I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but we live in a nation that extends it's political influences and exercises it's stength world wide for financial gain (aka economic stability). Gulf War, Middle East occupation, Mexican border wall, etc. it is all for power and influence....and the bottom line is always the bottom line....MONEY. A careful dissection will always reveal that.

I am fully of the opinion that this country has an undue and unhealthy influence by those who only have money as a goal. This country is rife with corruption and greed. As we have seen with the currant administration, the money-power group can influence most the public.

I think it has little to do with how the average American citizen sees illegal immigration. It isn't money, it is about the inevitable change in the U.S. culture. Most people see that as a threat unless immigration is controled.

I'm not sure why you think I'm biased....

I didn't say I thought you were biased! I mearly warned you of the possibility of it and to take it into account. As I mentioned above, I think we all have biases in our life; it is inevetable. Using that bias as a fact is a problem. Thinking without taking biases into account (yours and other's) will lead to inaccurate conclusions.


is it biased to have a lineage that includes a people who the country was stolen from, the people who stole it, and a south american family who immigrated in a way that would now be considered "illegal". I have 3 sides of the coin to examine in my hand. I think of myself as a neutral...an uncommon position.

This is a common story. It is of no importance to the discussion at this point. You also bring up things that I responded to earlier. Repeating a thing doesn't make it so. The only new thing here is the tie-in to "bias". This paragraph may seem a little harsh, but re-wording it didn't seem to help. Sorry Doc. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

That is a direct copy/paste from the Oxford dictionary....is it fair to implicate the majority of americans as being biased towards mexicans? Or is that unfair...wait...who is being fair anyways...fair doesn't count in this land, it is not our moral fabric.

I am not discussing fairness and unfairness. That is a different issue from legal and illegal. It should be discussed though and the law changed if needed. Fairness does count in this country I think. It certainly should anyway.

[Liam]

Originally posted by usmc1:
No they don't. Not in the way you infer, as absolutes.

You are being argumentative just for the sake of being contrary. You are not responsive to my meaning in the slightest. I am sure you enjoy this type of word play. I don't.


No one twisted your words; nor are there shaggy bears hiding in your closet or boogey men under your bed.

You are being condescending here. It does not look good on you.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Just as an aside here to the concept of 'absolute law': The Supreme Court Justices are constantly reviewing, interpreting, evaluating, clarifying, and expanding laws. Judges and lawyers are also constantly using the law as a guide when either argueing or deciding cases as each case is unique. Laws are constantly changing and in many cases are updated to the current times. Hence, in general, laws can not be applied blindly and without question. If laws were truly 'absolute' , then we would have no need for most of the legal system that we have.

You sum up precisely what I said. Thank you.

[Liam]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
I'm assuming "absolute" in this context refers to the possibility of having "absolute" certainty whether or not someone is in fact in violation of that law--despite whether you agree with the law.
For instance if the posted speed limit on the freeway is 55 miles per hour and I am driving 56 miles per hour I am absolutely not obeying that law. IN the case of someone who works in this country while not being a legal resident--both that person and the person who employ him or her
are certainly in violation of the law.
But where the "ABsoluteness" starts to fade away regarding the subject of illegal immigration is not only the question whether the law is truly just and serves a good purpose.....

Exactly so. USMC brought the idea of absolutes into the conversation. I gave my understanding of the connection of absolute and law. You have said it nicely where I was clumsy.

And to get back to the ethical discussion of immigration both legal and illegal--as I wrote earlier-- I think there is more to it.....

At this point I leave the discussion. While I agree that a discussion of immigration needs to be conducted, I have no really clear opinions on it. My only concern so far has been that I feel breaking a law freely is not the eithical way to change a law. It should be discussed and changes, if needed, made by legislation.

Breaking the law and supporting those who do the law breaking while calling the law-abiding names and charging them with all sorts of hateful anti-social behaviors is unethical.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
I'm assuming "absolute" in this context refers to the possibility of having "absolute" certainty whether or not someone is in fact in violation of that law--despite whether you agree with the law.
For instance if the posted speed limit on the freeway is 55 miles per hour and I am driving 56 miles per hour I am absolutely not obeying that law. IN the case of someone who works in this country while not being a legal resident--both that person and the person who employ him or her
are certainly in violation of the law.
But where the "ABsoluteness" starts to fade away regarding the subject of illegal immigration is not only the question whether the law is truly just and serves a good purpose.....

Exactly so. USMC brought the idea of absolutes into the conversation. I gave my understanding of the connection of absolute and law. You have said it nicely where I was clumsy.

And to get back to the ethical discussion of immigration both legal and illegal--as I wrote earlier-- I think there is more to it.....

At this point I leave the discussion. While I agree that a discussion of immigration needs to be conducted, I have no really clear opinions on it. My only concern so far has been that I feel breaking a law freely is not the eithical way to change a law. It should be discussed and changes, if needed, made by legislation.

Breaking the law and supporting those who do the law breaking while calling the law-abiding names and charging them with all sorts of hateful anti-social behaviors is unethical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Liam,

Gandhi, King, Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Adams all changed laws by breaking them. That is a company of men whom I respect...lawbreakers each and every one.

Furthermore, as to our disagreement, it was you not I, who introduced the notion that laws are "absolute" to the thread.

You've done this same thing in other threads: throw out some sort of unfounded opinion and when the weight of the proof builds against your opinion you cut bait and head for shore.

It just appears to me that you don't think things through all the way before you throw out an idea or opinion.

Then of course, I might be wrong and you really do believe that all laws are perfect as written and should be obeyed without question or challenge.

[missouriboy]

"Illegal" meaning something that is done when there is a law against it... ; there are laws against crossing into the US without proper documentation and visas, so that is illegal. Thanks, alfredr.

Illegal is the antonym of Legal. Not of Moral. Or of Traditional. Or of Customary.

You are right that without consistent meanings for ordinary words, understanding becomes stifled, and three-page threads grow to 8 (or more). This thread is now about linguistics, not Illegal Immigration.

Thanks again.

[usmc1]

The thread is not about linguistics. Part of the discussion has to do with certain words being tossed about without thought as to their meaning.

Now, here's more history of Mexican immigartion:

The United States and Mexico share one of the longest international borders in the world--1,951 miles in length. The history of Mexican migration to the United States involves sharp shifts between periods of labor shortages, when employers aggressively recruited cheap Mexican labor, and periods of intense anti-Mexican sentiment, when many Mexicans and even Mexican Americans were deported or pressured to leave the country.

Until the 1920s, the Mexican border was basically open. Mexicans were specifically excluded from the immigration quotas of 1921 and 1924 that radically reduced immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Convinced that cheap Mexican laborers were indispensable to southwestern agriculture, Congress imposed no limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, though it did establish a patrol along the Mexican border and imposed an eight dollar head tax and a ten dollar visa fee. In 1929, the federal government required Mexicans to obtain visas in order to enter the United States. During the late 1920s, professional labor contractors and border-crossing experts helped immigrants avoid the head tax and the expense of a visa and bureaucratic delays at the border.

During the Great Depression, when dust bowl farmers from Texas and Oklahoma poured into California, Mexicans were unneeded. Between 1929 and 1935, more than 415,000 Mexicans were expelled and thousands more left voluntarily. The legal pretext for deportation was that many Mexicans lacked proof of legal residency (even though no visa had been necessary prior to 1929).

World War II created another labor shortage. The Mexican and United States governments established the Bracero Program, a system of labor permits for temporary workers, which lasted until 1964. In the early 1950s, however, rising unemployment led to mass roundups and deportations. This wave of "repatriation," known as Operation Wetback, sent more than one million Mexicans to Mexico in 1954. The Immigration Act of 1965, which established immigration quotas for the countries of the Western Hemisphere, had the ironic effect of encouraging undocumented entry into the United States. Bitter over the demise of the Bracero Program in 1964, the Mexican government refused to restrict emigration. In addition, the quotas for Mexicans were far lower than the demand for Mexican immigrants in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service industries.

During the 1980s, the United States responded to public anger about undocumented immigration by adopting the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (the Simpson-Mazoli Act), which prohibited the hiring of undocumented aliens and proclaimed an amnesty for those who had been in the country continuously since 1982.

That was history.

Now an editorial comment. The text of the speech given by Texas Congressman, John Calvin Box, which appears below, is an ironic precursor to to today's rants about legal and illegal worker migrants.

In this speech delivered in the House of Representatives in 1928, Congressman John Box calls for restrictions on Mexican immigration.

Year 1928

Text: "Every reason which calls for the exclusion of the most wretched, ignorant, dirty, diseased, and degraded people of Europe or Asia demands that the illiterate, unclean, peonized masses moving this way from Mexico be stopped at the border....

The admission of a large and increasing number of Mexican peons to engage in all kinds of work is at variance with the American purpose to protect the wages of its working people and maintain their standard of living. Mexican labor is not free; it is not well paid; its standard of living is low. The yearly admission of several scores of thousands from just across the Mexican border tends constantly to lower the wages and conditions of men and women of America who labor with their hands in industry, in transportation, and in agriculture. One who has been in Mexico or in Mexican sections of cities and towns of the southwestern United States enough to make general observation needs no evidence or argument to convince him of the truth of the statement that Mexican peon labor is poorly paid and lives miserably in the midst of want, dirt, and disease.

In industry and transportation they displace great numbers of Americans who are left without employment and drift into poverty, even vagrancy, unable to maintain families or to help sustain American communities....

The importers of such Mexican laborers as go to farms all want them to increase farm production, not by the labor of American farmers, for the sustenance of families and the support of American farm life, but by serf labor working mainly for absentee landlords on millions of acres of semiarid lands. Many of these lands have heretofore been profitably used for grazing cattle, sheep, and goats. Many of them are held by speculative owners.

A great part of these areas can not be cultivated until the Government has spent vast sums in reclaiming them.... Their occupation and cultivation by serfs should not be encouraged....

Another purpose of the immigration laws is the protection of American racial stock from further degradation or change through mongrelization. The Mexican peon is a mixture of mediterranean-blooded Spanish peasant with low-grade Indians who did not fight to extinction but submitted and multiplied as serfs. Into that was fused much Negro slave blood. This blend of low-grade Spaniard, peonized Indian, and Negro slave mixes with Negroes, mulattoes, and other mongrels, and some sorry whites, already here. The prevention of such mongrelization and the degradation it causes is one of the purposes of our laws which the admission of these people will tend to defeat....

To keep out the illiterate and the diseased is another essential part of the Nation's immigration policy. The Mexican peons are illiterate and ignorant. Because of their unsanitary habits and living conditions and their vices they are especially subject to smallpox, venereal diseases, tuberculosis, and other dangerous contagions. Their admission is inconsistent with this phase of our policy.

The protection of American society against the importation of crime and pauperism is yet another object of these laws. Few, if any, other immigrants have brought us so large a proportion of criminals and paupers as have the Mexican peons."

More editorial comment,

If you read this post carefully you will find that the "laws" changed many times (weren't absolute), and were not based on moral imperatives, but rather, on economic needs and sometimes blatent and wretchedly ignorant racism.

One thing I really found intriguing was that up until 80 years ago, there were very few restrictions on the free movement of Mexicans into the U.S..

As a matter of fact, there are undoubtedly some of those "illegals" passing over land in the United States once owned by their grandparents or great-grandparents.

Personally, I suspect that those who are villifying undocumented migrant workers have a whole lot more in common with Representative Box than they would care for us to know.

[kphoger]

i frankly don't care whether an immigrant has proper documentation or not, just as i don't care whether someone drives 55 or 56 down the highway. laws are based on morality, but let us not actually confuse the two so much that we base our concept of right and wrong on what is legal and illegal: murder is wrong not just because it's illegal. would anyone be so twisted as to say it is my moral obligation to use the right half of a crosswalk?

i frequently break the law. i drive above the posted speed limit, i don't come to a complete stop at stop signs, and i sometimes don't bother grabbing my license before getting in the car. i've even been seen using the wrong half of a crosswalk, if you can believe it. i trespass on railroad property by walking the tracks, and a few times have disregarded DNR ordinance by skinny dipping at state parks. why is no one as upset by that as they are at the fact that undocumented immigrants cross the border illegally? i've crossed the border illegally eight times (four round-trips), but no one gets upset about that.

the law is not our moral standard. when i break a law, i know there might be consequences, and the severity of those consequences often determine whether or not i break the law. the chances are amazingly slim that driving 56 down the highway will bear any consequences, rolling through a stop sign slightly more, trespassing in a rail yard slightly more, you get the idea. immigrants make a similar judgment in deciding to cross the border illegally. there are risks, and there are benefits to crossing illegally; they weigh the two sides and make a decision, same as i do when deciding whether or not i should skinny dip at the beach.

people, in this country especially, are so controlled by the law that they fail to make their own moral distinctions, relying instead on what the government says.

[missouriboy]

One thing I really found intriguing was that up until 80 years ago, there were very few restrictions on the free movement of Mexicans into the U.S. Bingo. What other major social trend began happening at about the same juncture in our history?

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I really found intriguing was that up until 80 years ago, there were very few restrictions on the free movement of Mexicans into the U.S. Bingo. What other major social trend began happening at about the same juncture in our history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Well here is as much extra background (in addition to USMC's summary above)as I am able to find on the subject on the internet today:

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/mexican6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm)

Paz y Feliz Ano Nuevo,
Kevin

[alfredr]

Sounds like Illegal 'emigration.'

Y Feliz Ano Nuevo y Properidad a Todos.

[alfredr]

I hate it when my fingers can't spell.

That's supposed to be "Prosperidad a Todos"

Lets throw in "Muchas Oportunidades Para Estar Desnudo" also.

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I really found intriguing was that up until 80 years ago, there were very few restrictions on the free movement of Mexicans into the U.S. Bingo. What other major social trend began happening at about the same juncture in our history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>! (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/8360035264?r=2780013564#2780013564)

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I really found intriguing was that up until 80 years ago, there were very few restrictions on the free movement of Mexicans into the U.S. Bingo. What other major social trend began happening at about the same juncture in our history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>! (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/8360035264?r=2780013564#2780013564) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt illegal immigrants are coming to the US to get Welfare and Social Security benefits they aren't eligible for.

They are coming for jobs.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

If illegal immigration was not a problem prior to our becoming a welfare state, and now it IS a problem after becoming a welfare state, what other event would you say has caused this topic's effect? "Cause and Effect" is a valid way to analyze trends, is it not? When there is a definite effect, the cause can usually be discovered. I've suggested one; if you doubt it, please offer a more plausible one.

It was some intellectual political philosopher who stated, "Open borders are incompatible with a welfare state," not me. I only happened across it and reported it.They are coming for jobs. Of course they are. Some of them. But obviously, not all of them. If all of them were coming to be productive, then there wouldn't be any problem. Would there?

I try to see the big picture...

[usmc1]

Specifically and precisely, WTH is a "welfare state"? and when did the United States become one?

[nacktman]

A "welfare state" is a deluded fantasy only found within the cranial bones of the neo-con, usmc1, and is used to scare little neo-con tykes into going to bed at night with tales of "the 'welfare reciepent' will get you if you don't watch out". http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[Naturist Mark]

If illegal immigration was not a problem prior to our becoming a welfare state, and now it IS a problem after becoming a welfare state, what other event would you say has caused this topic's effect? "Cause and Effect" is a valid way to analyze trends, is it not? When there is a definite effect, the cause can usually be discovered. I've suggested one; if you doubt it, please offer a more plausible one.

You are confusing correlation with causation. If I note that the maple tree in my backyard grows larger every year, and the national debt grows larger every year, I don't conclude that my maple tree causes the national debt.

In the case of illegal immigration - it became 'problem' long before the so called welfare state. It became a problem in the 19th century when it was decided that too many Irish or Papists were coming to America. Or when too many Chinamen, or too many olive skinned mediterraneans were arriving. Now its too many meskins. The "problem" has always been about racism - or its ethnic equivalent.

From the mid 20th century, and especially in the last 30 years illegal immigration has been a deliberate practice quietly endorsed by the very same economic elites who pander to the racism of the common man in denouncing it. It is part of a long term strategy to destroy the middle class (for many reasons) and consolidate power for the aristocracy.

Illegal immigration from Mexico has done just that for both the US and for Mexico. It drive American wages down, shrinking our middle class, while it also deprives Mexico of many of its most industrious go getters - people who would otherwise create a thriving Mexican middle class.

Why?

Because middle classes are dangerous. They produce educated populaces who demand good government and fair economic practices. They produce revolutions (nearly every revolution in history has occurred in a nation with a new or rapidly growing middle class). They often produce democracies. That is bad for the long term health of aristocratic economic elites. They look at history and note that the most stable societies over long periods of time are aristocracies with large poor masses and a small wealthy ruling class.

Our government and our industrial leaders have nurtured illegal immigration as just one part of the plan to turn America into a serfdom. The plan is well along.

Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss)
Today's Immigration Battle (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-21.htm)
Dobbs: Middle class needs to fight back now (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/10/Dobbs.Oct11/index.html)
The Slow Death of the Middle Class (http://www.alternet.org/story/41305/)
Killing the Middle Class (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_thom_har_061031_killin g_the_middle_c.htm)
SustainableMiddleClass.com (http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/site-map.html)

-Mark

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Specifically and precisely, WTH is a "welfare state"? and when did the United States become one?

There's alot of welfare to be gotten from the U.S. gov't. There's billions in federal subsidies for fossil fuels R&D, there's R&D for pharmaceuticals which gets handed over by the N.I.H. in sweetheart deals for obscenely successful drug companies while the gov't and the president refuse to negotiate better drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees, there's subsidies for wealthy farmers who don't need a dime of it, etc. But if you really want to make a living out of it you'll need to be good friends with a Congressperson or two--which is rarely the case for most undocumented workers.
Undocumented workers are busting their *sses as hard as anyone ever did in this country. And as Naturist Mark pointed out it's very difficult for illegal immigrants to get much in the way of gov't help. And, as Eduardo Porter's N.Y. Times article (in one of my earlier posts) pointed out, many undocumented workers are actually doing the reverse of receiving welfare: they are getting a significant part of their earnings deducted by their employers and contributed to Social Security (but they are not at all likely to get any of it back). So there's not much point in blaming our economic worries on people who can do much less about their own economic problems than most Americans.

Any real improvement in the situation will have to involve creating a more fair relationship with our neighbor Mexico. Under the current situation American business and plenty of American consumers basically are able to exploit the situation to enjoy all the advantages.

As nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described the aftermath of NAFTA for Mexico:

"NAFTA was not really a free trade agreement. America retained its agriculture subsidies. NAFTA pitted the the heavily subsidized U.S. business sector against peasant producers and family farms in Mexico. U.S. farmers export many of their products into Mexico at costs far below those of the local market, driving down prices for local farmers. America also continued to use what were effectively non-tariff barriers to keep out some
of Mexico's products."
"These policies hurt rural livelihoods. One-fifth of Mexico's workers are employed in the agricultural sector, and 75 percent of Mexico's poverty is found in rural areas. While some large Mexican agribusiness sectors have expanded their exports, much of Mexico's rural sector is in crisis. Local farms are threatened by cheap imports from the United States, falling commodity prices and reduced government support. Four-fifths of the population of rural Mexico lives in poverty, and more than half are in extreme poverty."


As I wrote at least a couple times before, merely focusing on immigration (legal and illegal) is not focusing on the big picture which is what relation the U.S. is going to have with the rest of the world and what more is going to be done about poverty both inside and outside our borders. Stricter immigration might slow down some trends for a little while--while also aggravating the main problem at the same time. But the real problem will still be with us. As someone else summarised the situation (the report of the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development appointed by the United Nations Secretary General {June 26, 2001}):

"In the global village, someone else's poverty very soon become's one's own problem: of lack of markets for one's products, illegal immigration, pollution, contagious disease, insecurity, fanaticism, terrorism."

Paz,
Kevin

[alfredr]

Naturist Mark, I have to disagree with your statement about the most stable societies having large lower classes and a small upper class.

Possibly if you are talking historically, looking back over the millenia, it might be, but my observation has been that in this century, a large middle class, and a reasonable hope for upward mobility by the lower class, is what makes for a stable society. And maybe it is the hope that hard work will get you ahead that is the biggest factor.

My analogy is that a few rich people trying to keep a large mass of poor down is like trying to contain a chemical reaction in a bag. If you try to hold the bag closed tightly, it will blow up in your face, but if you loosen your grip and let off some of the building pressure, you can hold on to more of what you've got for longer.

Much of the drive pushing illegal immigration is rising expectations around the world. No one is satisfied with being poor anymore with so much consumer goods being pushed at them. And the probablity of being able to achieve that level of consumerism is very low in your home town or even in the big city of your country.

Of course, the solution involves world-wide development so that no one feels they can't make it reasonably close to home. And that, of course, doesn't bode well for the environment if everyone has a right to the same level of consumption that we here in the developed world enjoy.

Almost contradictory goals, aren't they? But both are tied to population. How many people can the earth support and at what level? Like my uncle says, "It's not so much the cost of living as the style of living."

[Sanslines]

Any real improvement in the situation will have to involve creating a more fair relationship with our neighbor Mexico. Under the current situation American business and plenty of American consumers basically are able to exploit the situation to enjoy all the advantages.

How can you create a 'more fair' relationship with corrupt Mexican governments that know fully well how many of their citizens live in extreme poverty? There is a major reason that so many Mexicans are coming in such huge numbers day after day to this country. That reason is called a job that pays something. They are leaving behind hopelessness, extreme poverty, and destitution. The Mexican government prefers to blame the problem of legal and illegal aliens on the USA rather then accept responsibility for the conditions that exists in Mexico that create this problem. On this side of the border, we take advantage of this situation. It is also unfair to put the entire blame on American corporations. Has anyone been to a Southern California Home Depot lately and seen the group of Mexicans wait by the entrance for someone in a pickup truck to stop by and hire them for the day??? The person in the pickup truck is usually a one man contractor who is looking for construction day labor. Other individuals who stop to hire may be a homeowner who needs a day laborer to have his lawn or garden tended. The individuals who hire the day laborers could care less about the big national picture. All they want are hard workers who are willing to do the hard physical work for the wage that they are willing to pay.

[usmc1]

What Kevin said.

Plus this. It will take an open and honest hemisperic approach to solve and resolve all the political and economic problems which contirbute to the mass migration of workers from the south.

Gee, I wonder if our saber-rattling administration will find the will to initiate, engage, or participate in such an approach?

[Sanslines]

Possibly if you are talking historically, looking back over the millenia, it might be, but my observation has been that in this century, a large middle class, and a reasonable hope for upward mobility by the lower class, is what makes for a stable society. And maybe it is the hope that hard work will get you ahead that is the biggest factor.

Another way to look at this is in our own recent history. Back in the 1950's, any able bodied man (and in some cases women although women did not yet have the equal workers rights that they have today) was able to find a meaningful job that paid enough to raise a family. It was widely believed that hard work was the path to getting ahead. The middle class was doing very well in the 1950's as people had hope and job opportunities.

Taking the 1950's as an example, it was shown that a large middle class, hope in the future, and meaningful job opportunities formed part of the backbone of a stable society.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by alfredr:
Naturist Mark, I have to disagree with your statement about the most stable societies having large lower classes and a small upper class.

It isn't really my belief either - I WANT to live in a society that is primarily middle class and I WANT it to be responsive to the will of the populace (that 'responsiveness' is considered instability by the elite).

But the Straussians and their philosophical progeny in the Dominionist and Neocon camps DO consider a large middle class as the enemy of stability - in particular they look in horror at the social and political upheavals of the 60s as the result of the middle class prosperity of the 50s and 60s - and they propbably have a point, the conscience of the nation might never have been moved if the majority were consumed with daily survival, the civil rights and environmental movements would never have gained purchase. Not to mention all the damn hippies.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If illegal immigration was not a problem prior to our becoming a welfare state, and now it IS a problem after becoming a welfare state, what other event would you say has caused this topic's effect? "Cause and Effect" is a valid way to analyze trends, is it not? When there is a definite effect, the cause can usually be discovered. I've suggested one; if you doubt it, please offer a more plausible one.

You are confusing correlation with causation. If I note that the maple tree in my backyard grows larger every year, and the national debt grows larger every year, I don't conclude that my maple tree causes the national debt.

No, I'm not confusing anything, I'm seeking the cause. Note that my passage you quoted contained the word if. I suggested a cause and asked you to suggest a more plausible alternative, which you did. But I still believe there is merit in the philosophy that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state. It can make outsiders believe nirvana awaits here, even if they don't find it when they get here. Then we're stuck with them.

In the case of illegal immigration - it became 'problem' long before the so called welfare state.

I didnt know it was illegal back then...

It became a problem in the 19th century when it was decided that too many Irish or Papists were coming to America. Or when too many Chinamen, or too many olive skinned mediterraneans were arriving. Now its too many meskins. The "problem" has always been about racism - or its ethnic equivalent.

From the mid 20th century, and especially in the last 30 years illegal immigration has been a deliberate practice quietly endorsed by the very same economic elites who pander to the racism of the common man in denouncing it. It is part of a long term strategy to destroy the middle class (for many reasons) and consolidate power for the aristocracy.

Now there's a cause I certainly agree with and can relate to: the planned destruction of the middle class. It looks like excessive immigration of poor folks can, like NAFTA, be just one more spoke in the giant wheel of spokes being played to foment that destruction.

Illegal immigration from Mexico has done just that for both the US and for Mexico. It drive American wages down, shrinking our middle class, while it also deprives Mexico of many of its most industrious go getters - people who would otherwise create a thriving Mexican middle class.

Why?

Because middle classes are dangerous. They produce educated populaces who demand good government and fair economic practices. They produce revolutions (nearly every revolution in history has occurred in a nation with a new or rapidly growing middle class). They often produce democracies. That is bad for the long term health of aristocratic economic elites. They look at history and note that the most stable societies over long periods of time are aristocracies with large poor masses and a small wealthy ruling class.

Our government and our industrial leaders have nurtured illegal immigration as just one part of the plan to turn America into a serfdom. The plan is well along.

Yes. The "Global Plantation" of a two-class society, under a one-world government. Those who think that will make a better world are either 1) the current "elite" who work to keep it that way (because it will be better for them), and 2) the starry-eyed dreamers who think it'll be better, but who will ultimately end up in the lower class, laboring on the plantation to support the luxury of the elite. The latter are what Lenin praised as "useful idiots."

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mark, thanks for being one who speaks to the message, rather than always seeking to assassinate the messenger.

[missouriboy]

As for America being a welfare state, NO, of course not, what was I thinking? There never was any Great Society War on Poverty, with AFDC and almost-free housing, or anything like that. And people can NOT go to just any emergency room and get their babies delivered for free, and get formula, diapers, and all the other accoutrements of child care whether they pay or not, and of course if they don't have money their kids can't go to school, or day care, or clinics, or any of that stuff that they don't have in Mexico either.

Sheesh! What was I thinking?

[nacktman]

Well put Kevin. Although, it seems to have fallen on some deaf ears, very well put.

This whole 'immigration issue' is naught but the raison du jour given by the neo-cons as to why they have no clue as to how and why the world works, so that they can soothe their miniscule minds ... tomorrow it will be gay marriage, proper healthcare, jews, etc., ad infinitum.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
As for America being a welfare state, NO, of course not, what was I thinking? There never was any Great Society War on Poverty, with AFDC and almost-free housing, or anything like that. And people can NOT go to just any emergency room and get their babies delivered for free, and get formula, diapers, and all the other accoutrements of child care whether they pay or not, and of course if they don't have money their kids can't go to school, or day care, or clinics, or any of that stuff that they don't have in Mexico either.

Sheesh! What was I thinking?

I have no idea of what you were thinking.

Listing a few peeves certainly does nothing to answer the questions as to what specifically is a "Welfare State", and exactly when did the Untied States become one?

But, on an even larger level, so what if the United States were a Welfare State, why would that be a bad thing?

[missouriboy]

Listing a few peeves certainly does nothing to answer the questions as to what specifically is a "Welfare State", and exactly when did the Untied States become one? I never sought to do anything to answer your questions, since I bear no obligation of responsibility for your difficulty with the definitions of ordinary words.

[nacktman]

Since there seems to be confusion as to the definition of certain terms, leave us see what the dictionary tells us, shall we?

1.) WELLFARE,noun: A condition of exemption from misfortune, calamity, or evil; the enjoyment of good health; well-being; prosperity --
2.) (WELLFARE STATE),noun: A political system in which the State assumes the function of providing for the welfare of the people. --
3.) (WELLFARE WORK),noun: Organized work designed to improve the living conditions, etc., of a group in a society.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1.) This is a good thing, something all should be in at all times -- one can dream can't they?
2.) Nope, the State, isn't set up that way and if you think that it is you need to learn how the governing of the nation is actually set up, therefore one cannot use the term when speaking of the governing structure nor any of the attributes, of this nation.
3.) This is a good thing, something all should be involved in at all times -- one day you could be in the particular group benefiting from such work.

MoBoy, I believe you are the one confused as to the meaning of ordinary words on this thread, therefore the above is posted for your edification along with all others similarly confused as to the meaning of "wellfare state".

[hm0504]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
As for America being a welfare state, NO, of course not, what was I thinking? There never was any Great Society War on Poverty, with AFDC and almost-free housing, or anything like that. And people can NOT go to just any emergency room and get their babies delivered for free, and get formula, diapers, and all the other accoutrements of child care whether they pay or not, and of course if they don't have money their kids can't go to school, or day care, or clinics, or any of that stuff that they don't have in Mexico either.

Sheesh! What was I thinking?

I would certainly agree that turning America into a state just like Mexico would certainly help solve the illegal immigration problem!

[David77]

Welfare State?

Each of the 50 states of our nation assumes some responsibility to aid in the welfare of their indigent residents by setting up a state department with a name such as, "Department of Human Services", "Illinois Department of Public Aid", "Missouri Department of Welfare" etc.

They determine need for financial assistance to "Families with Dependent Children", "Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled", "Aid to the Aged", "Aid to the Blind", they grant food stamps which is now sometimes called "link card", and "medical cards" to secure medical attention and to have prescriptions filled, usually without any charge.

Sometimes, under the same department heading, is the "Child Welfare" unit which deals with child abuse, neglect, as well as adoptions. There is also the state Department of Vocational Rehabilitation.

However, aid in the form of a financial grant to the unemployed - <u>but employable</u> - single man or woman is not very forthcoming in most states; but if it is granted, this aid to single childless persons is usually a function of the local municipal, county, or township government.

Usually the seperate Department of Housing deals with the housing for the financially indigent in the form of rent subsidies based on the amount of the person's income, amounting up to 30% of that person's income.

Most all these state programs are partially funded by federal matching funds.

In addition to the government programs administered and (partially) funded by the 50 states, you must add the federal social security "insurance" programs (SSA) which benefit the aged and disabled, and the federal govemnments SSI program benefitting financially needy disabled persons who are not eligible for the SSA programs, but this later program is not any type of insurance program that was paid into.

Thank God for private agencies such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and many, many more organizations which help when needed.

[usmc1]

David, thank you for a thoughtful, erudite and factual response. I'm signing up for your course next semester.

My dissertation will make the case that what you've described is a minimal humanitarian safety net for the patrons and clients of those services and agencies, and not the workings of a welfare state.

Whereas, in a true modern welfare state, the state assumes PRIMARY responsibility for the individual, not just safety nets for the unfortunate.

[Naturist Mark]

I think I read somewhere that the US is supposed to be a welfare state. Oh yeah. (http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3080#7640)

-Mark

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I think I read somewhere that the US is supposed to be a welfare state. Oh yeah. (http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3080#7640)

-Mark

Brilliant!

[alfredr]

Are you refering to the phrase, "promote the general welfare"? What were those people thinking?

[alfredr]

About the large lower class, small middle class, ruling upper class being a stable society, that requires being able to keep the rabble from being roused, a virtual impossiblity these days.

Unfortunately, the rabble can be roused by people who no more have their interest in mind than the rulers they would replace and they end up no better off than before, as depicted in one of the Young Indiana Jones shows where the peasant complains that both sides stole his chickens in the first revolution and in the counter-revolution and in the current revolution, both sides were stealing his chickens.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any real improvement in the situation will have to involve creating a more fair relationship with our neighbor Mexico. Under the current situation American business and plenty of American consumers basically are able to exploit the situation to enjoy all the advantages.

How can you create a 'more fair' relationship with corrupt Mexican governments that know fully well how many of their citizens live in extreme poverty?

There's corruption on both sides of our border--by corruption I mean when the trade regime is working to the benefit of the wealthy and politically connected more than for the overall benefit of both countries. And I think the consensus is that the trade structure is still overwhelmingly benefitting American businesses more than the rural sector of Mexico's economy. The Mexican government knows about the poverty in their country but the U.S. is still the wealthier country and should be able to acknowledge that it has more room to manuever and make changes. Judging by the way they voted in the last presidential election it seems that a slim majority of Mexico's voters are more "urbanized" in their expectations and they still are willing to remain somewhat optimistic about trade between our countries--but then they aren't too much different from the average American voter! All the more reason to stop taking the "us vs. them" viewpoint every time. (Kevin)

There is a major reason that so many Mexicans are coming in such huge numbers day after day to this country. That reason is called a job that pays something. They are leaving behind hopelessness, extreme poverty, and destitution.

But I've cited some opinions on the effect of NAFTA on the agricultural sector and the point was that many of these jobs were jobs that were in Mexico before NAFTA. And many of us (yourself included) have also pointed out a few times that these immigrants are being welcomed eagerly by American employers. There is a lot of debate about this but there are still many good arguments that this could be working somewhat to the benefit of the American economy overall--it can depend on whom you're talking about; the people most likely to have their wages affected by low-skilled immigrants are people without a high school diploma or without similar vocational training-- so I still don't think it is possible to say that this immigration is only occurring to the detriment of American society. (Kevin)

The Mexican government prefers to blame the problem of legal and illegal aliens on the USA rather then accept responsibility for the conditions that exists in Mexico that create this problem. On this side of the border, we take advantage of this situation. It is also unfair to put the entire blame on American corporations.

I don't blame them entirely but they are the ones that many of the relevant politicans have been most willing to listen to when it comes down to the details of trade policy. (Kevin)

Has anyone been to a Southern California Home Depot lately and seen the group of Mexicans wait by the entrance for someone in a pickup truck to stop by and hire them for the day??? The person in the pickup truck is usually a one man contractor who is looking for construction day labor. Other individuals who stop to hire may be a homeowner who needs a day laborer to have his lawn or garden tended. The individuals who hire the day laborers could care less about the big national picture. All they want are hard workers who are willing to do the hard physical work for the wage that they are willing to pay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the people who hire those workers are looking for workers who are eager to do the work they want done. If the workers are not legal residents then both parties are probably aware there could be legal consequences. And hey, there really is nothing preventing the average American worker from standing alongside of the day laborers if they really want to do work for those employers, as many anti-immigrant debaters have insisted. And this is still a free enough country that you still don't have to hire day laborers to work on your own house or your own lawn if you really don't want them to--so there might not be too much reason to continue complaining about it. (Kevin)

Paz,
Kevin

[fred950]

Originally posted by alfredr:
About the large lower class, small middle class, ruling upper class being a stable society, that requires being able to keep the rabble from being roused, a virtual impossiblity these days.

Unfortunately, the rabble can be roused by people who no more have their interest in mind than the rulers they would replace and they end up no better off than before, as depicted in one of the Young Indiana Jones shows where the peasant complains that both sides stole his chickens in the first revolution and in the counter-revolution and in the current revolution, both sides were stealing his chickens.

Does the name 'Louis XVI' ring a bell to you for any reason?

[Naturist Mark]

Does the name 'Louis XVI' ring a bell to you for any reason?

Good example - the French Revolution - like the American Revolution - occurred during a time of rapid increase in the middle class. It wasn't really the starving peasants told to eat cake who led the revolution, it was a middle class growing confident in their own abilities rebelling against aristocratic rule. That is the reason Leo Strauss prescribes systematically misleading and lying to the 'rabble' in order to keep them compliant: Noble lies and deadly truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Noble_lies_and_deadly_truths). A tactic the neocons have embraced with spectacular results.

-Mark

[DoctorSurferDude]

Here are some statistics....

300,000,000 = population of USA
12,000,000 = number of illegal immigrants living in the USA
850,000 = number of illegals entering US each year
750,000 = number of naturalizations US processes yearly

5% = US jobs held by illegal immigrants
25% = number of farm jobs held by illegals
17% = number of janitorial positions held by illegals
14% = number of construction jobs held by illegals
12% = number of food service jobs held by illegals

Toys R' Us held a contest, awarding substantial cash prizes to the first babies born in the new year...

Baby #1 = Chinese baby born to an illegal immigrant
Baby #2 = Baby boy born to Georgia parents
Baby #3 = Baby born to parents from El Salvador

"Continuity gives us roots; change gives us branches, letting us stretch and grow and reach new heights" ~Pauline R. Kezer

Change is good...welcome it.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Side story.... I got those statistics from an article on AOL about the Chinese baby, first baby of the new year. Upon learning that the first baby of the new year was born to an illegal immigrant, Toys R' Us decided to withdraw their offer of $25,000 and award it to baby #2 from Georgia. That did not go so well, there was a public outcry and some civil rights lawyers got involved.

Toys R' Us soon made a complete public apology and awarded the $25,000 to the illegal mother of the LEGAL baby.

[DoctorSurferDude]

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/0f/03/20070106174309990001

That's the baby and mom.

AOL Poll asked "Should the Chinese-American baby be awarded the $25,000 prize?" 204,000 people answered.
62% said "NO"
38% said "YES"

That is weird....I couldn't believe they took it away in the first place.

[usmc1]

Looks like a happy mom with a charming little baby. Lucky too, 25-large!

How is it people can villify this?

[Fresh Air]

Who doesn't have ancestors that are immigrants of this continent?

Who defined what was "legal" and "illegal"?.....the immigrants, right?

We're a nation of imigrants...America is 99% immigrants.

Vocab List:

Hypocrite
http://www.abavideonews.org/ABA352/images/main.jpg

Illegal Immigrant
http://meastpolitics.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/iraqgirl.jpg http://www.realitybasednation.com/blog-archives/3.iraq_search_sm.jpg

Needed Immigrants
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rhernand/slavery.gif

Unneeded Immigrants
http://www.michnews.com/a/Illegals%20Crossing%20Desert.jpg

Biased Ownership
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2090808/2134126/2139366/2139378/060405_BI_cartoon.jpg

[SunGod]

I cant beleive all the liberal b.s. I see here!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif Some of you people must have no sense of national pride if you are all for letting anyone in here. Its a privilage to be an American, not a freakin right. Its an honor to live here, not something to be given away! My parents are immigrants, they did it right, they had to to the paper work, greencard, wait 7 years, take the test, and got to be citizens. Is that too hard for the mexican to do? I think you will find that nobody is anti immigrant, we are anti "ILLEGAL" immigrant. You cant have millions of people, under the radar, paid in cash that is sent out of country, leeching off our ER rooms, having anchor babies, etc, etc ,etc. It hurts the economy. It destroys local culture. Its no way to live. Why cant these people be HONEST and do it the legal way? Why? Because they dont care enough about being American or our ways to do it. They just want the money and to hell with the US, to hell with our laws, language, and everything else. These criminals need to be deported. The companies that hire them need to be fined into bankruptcy. Americans need to wake up and take back our country before it sinks into the cess pool like Mexico.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/dbcde7cf.gif (http://photobucket.com/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/45qz.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/bean.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/raza.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/4453876b.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

[SunGod]

"We're a nation of imigrants...America is 99% immigrants."



hahaha, how the hell do you figure this one? Of the current 260 million+/- citizens, rightnow in 2007, are you seriously trying to say that 99% were born elsewhere and came here? Gimme a break.

[Naturist Mark]

I cant beleive all the liberal b.s. I see here!!!

Pure hyperbole. I'm sure you believe quite a bit of it, otherwise why get so worked up about it?

Is there anything I wrote about immigration that you don't believe?

hahaha, how the hell do you figure this one? Of the 260 million+/- citizens, are you seriously trying to say that 99% were born elsewhere and came here? Gimme a break.

I'm sure you understood that the writer meant that 99% are the descendants of immigrants. Only about 2.5 million Americans are of pure Native American, Alaskan Native, or native Hawaiian ancestry, plus a few from other indigenous groups in American territories. The rest are migrants and their descendants.

My parents are immigrants, they did it right, they had to to the paper work, greencard, wait 7 years, take the test, and got to be citizens. Is that too hard for the mexican to do?

Apparently so, else American corporations and politicians wouldn't have made illegal employment so easy.

-Mark

[alfredr]

Legal immigration is very difficult; quotas are very low. It is almost impossible immigrate legally. Immigration laws need to be changed to allow realistic levels of legal immigration, then illegal immigration would shrink.

Like you say, Sungod, we aren't anti immigrant, we are anti "ILLEGAL" immigrant.

Peace

[SunGod]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
[QUOTE]QUOTE]


I'm sure you understood that the writer meant that 99% are the descendants of immigrants. Only about 2.5 million Americans are of pure Native American, Alaskan Native, or native Hawaiian ancestry, plus a few from other indigenous groups in American territories. The rest are migrants and their descendants.

-Mark

The writers logic is flawed and that particular argument is irrelavent.
How does that count if they (natives) got here via the bering str8 land bridge ages ago? Doesnt that make them immigrants too? the "were all immigrants" argument just doesnt work, it is irrelavent in this day and age.
Just because immigration was good for us in the past does not follow that it must always be good for us.


Apparently so, else American corporations and politicians wouldn't have made illegal employment so easy.


Well, to that line of reasoning I would say "no excuses." If they're so "hard working" I would say to work harder on filling out paper work and learning English. I bothered to learn their language. Too much effort to do the same?

[Naked Canuck]

Well, as an ... outsider (? in an international forum), from a country that has it's own illegal immigration problem, I'd have to say that I agree with the majority of you out there. Most of you have responded very well to the various ... concerns ... voiced here.

It sure is easy to see who hasn't ever poked their head outside of his/her comfortable bubble (and even if some have traveled, they do sometimes seem to take their bubble with them - unfortunately those are often the ones who establish some negative stereotypes of their home country).

SunGod, it's easy to stop thinking after you've proven to yourself that you are right. Pushing a small part of an argument to an absurdity doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I'm sure you've heard of the two ears and one mouth anecdote - for some people, however, I think this isn't sufficient (and thus will need a new anecdote), as they may point out that they have ten fingers to type with.

[nacktman]

This "issue" is ever present ... live with it.

There has been postulated that all humans on the planet are "illegal immigrants" that we came from another planet to this one because we "so fu(ked' own home world up that we had to find another place that could support our species".
Kind of like we've done here, if you think about it.

While the above postulation may not be totally accurate its point is that humans are destroyers and movers on.
People emigrate for just such reasons: their local area is "destroyed" in some manner and they "move" on.

As to the point about language I have one question for you. How many of you speak Algonquin or Inuit? Which by the way are the languages native to the area where the vikings (the first known Europeans) landed on this land?

[SunGod]

Naked Cannuck,

Come down off your high horse amigo. The topic is illegal immigration, it is a huge problem. I'm sure your countrymen in toronto could comment if there are any who still speak English. Think what you want, but I think you and others on here must have your heads in the bubble. Maybe you dont experience it daily like I do here in Florida. Maybe you dont see the foreign rabble in your neighborhoods, your schools, your roads, your hospitals. The demands for classes in spanish by non citizens. Unlicensed drivers on the roads endangering citizens lives. You dont see the "brown pride","viva la raza" and other reverse racist propaganda thrown at people who would point out the negatives of illegal immigrants. Go ahead and accuse me of having my head in a bubble, but you'd do well to take a good hard look around.

Nacktman,

Good points. I would add to what you said by asking:
Is it not insanity to let those same people who destroyed their land of origen, to come here and destroy what we've built? I think it is.

[SunGod]

Finally found some statistics I had been looking for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: November 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--> -->By Joseph Farah
--> --> copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06

WASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.

As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.

According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.

While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
------------------------------------------------

[missouriboy]

by SunGod:
You cant have millions of people, under the radar, paid in cash that is sent out of country, leeching off our ER rooms, having anchor babies, etc, etc ,etc. It hurts the economy. It destroys local culture. Excerpt from an article about legislation to be (re)introduced in the new Congress:

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) ... would also eliminate "anchor babies" by legislatively ending the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been construed to mean that babies born of illegal aliens on American soil are "citizens" whose parents and siblings are allowed to remain...

The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to make former slaves full citizens, with voting rights. It reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." Numerous constitutional scholars say this does not confer citizenship on "anchor babies." The parents were "subject to the jurisdiction" of another country.

Note that it was "numerous scholars" who said this, not me, so don't jump my case about it. This is just FYI that the legislation IS being introduced.

[SunGod]

no worries, post wasnt aimed at any one in particular, just throwing out points for debate.

[Naked Canuck]

In the spirit of a good debate, then (since you've invited it)...


Posted: November 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--> -->By Joseph Farah
--> --> copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06


[A name, a date and a time. Too bad there isn't an actual publication source - that usually helps credibility. A quick google search yielded: http://www.wnd.com - a news site that seems to be a 1-man show (well, his wife may help out too) with this Joe doing everything - lots of work, I'd imagine, but little accountability for fact checking by design and thus not an intrinsically reliable site]


WASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.


[A 'statistic'. Great. How about a corresponding one with how many illegal immigrants were killed by American citizens. Even aside from that, a system that forces illegal immigrants to work in the shadows is bound to produce shadowy illegal immigrants. This isn't to say that the system is to blame, it's just another way of looking at the same number - if it is correct, as it is only a guess, after all]


Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.



[Woah there tiger. Remember that this was only based on a guess, which was then extrapolated to a whole year]


While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.


[oh, now it's being reported as fact, with the .... ARE murdered daily..... This is followed by another guess (apparently) for how many are being killed by drunk illegal alien (wow, that's 3 loaded words) drivers. Any chance for a corresponding stat on drunk American drivers? (killing both fellow Americans and killing citizens of other countries (illegal immigrants and visitors alike) - how about drunk Americans killing others abroad too?]


While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.


[wait, I can understand the anecdotal evidence, but ... statistical? The following 'support' doesn't even MENTION the residency status of those causing the fatal accidents - not to mention the age or level of intoxication]


A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.


[this conclusion, then, is completely baseless. It didn't even mention 'them'. Even the biggest stretch can't justify that]


King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.


[great, another statement by this so-far reputable source. Sorry, this source isn't very high on my reliability chart so far, and he doesn't even attempt to support this one with half-logic either. Find a reputable source for this, and we'll talk. This type of a 'stat' is a loaded cannon that hits everyone close to home (who wants their children victimized, after all), and flagrant (mis?) use of this is downright irresponsible]


Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.


[a REFERENCE! I love it! It's a pretty good source.
In looking her up on her website, I found the article (http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals). She writes quite rationally, and though I didn't see that it was published anywhere, I'm not inclined to disbelieve her. In your quote you forgot to mention useful numbers - probably because it's a large article, and it's much simpler to quote a little bit. It mentions that 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders. The questions then are: what percentage of Americans apprehended are sex offenders? Also, to balance these a bit, how much more likely are illegals to be apprehended simply because they are illegal immigrants?

Further, 30% of the victims are said to be illegal immigrants themselves, with the remaining 60% being American citizens. She provides further break down of the victims, and it's interesting to show that a 47% (the largest ethnic grouping) were hispanic, and 82% knew their attackers. This is interesting only if one is likely to make distinctions as to where 'these people' are coming from (and what language they speak, what color their skin is, etc...)

Anyway, that was a good source - the stats need balance - but in my opinion, a sex offender (or any other violent criminal, for that matter) only have one legitimate place of residence, regardless of their nationality - jail.

Interestingly, she also had other articles on immigrants - some including what risks they're exposed to, such as: Profiling Sex Trafficking: Illegal Immigrants At Risk. What should also disturb us is that there is a market for these girls and women
]


As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.


[and as the population of the states increases, so does the number of victims of crimes (rape, fraud, robbery, etc) perpetrated by Americans. This kind of a fact is pretty self evident, and doesn't really say anything. If the solution to the problem as you've presented it is to stop illegal immigrants from arriving, then the same logic would say to stop all population growth within the states too.]



According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.


[okay, this means they're being jailed. Why is this? It's pretty important, if this stat (I didn't bother to look up the numbers) is going to mean anything. Is it because all illegal immigrants caught are jailed until they can be deported? Is it because the justice system is in favor of justice 'for American citizens', and not so worried about that for non-Americans? Is it because the police are that much more likely to arrest an illegal immigrant (or someone fitting into that apparent profile)? Or, as you're insinuating, is it because those people are just that much worse than the average sparkling American?]


While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.


[okay, these guys are members of the frequent flyers club. It doesn't mention the nature of the crimes, but that aside, it should be side-by side with studies on American inmates if you're going to say anything with it.

Even that being said, there's been considerable discussion already within the American judicial context of the types of crimes likely to result in significant jail sentences, racial/ethnic influences in this, etc..]


"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"


[in looking up this source (http://www.congressandimmigration.com/TheDarkside_3.htm), I am not very impressed at all with Peter Wagner's support. It reads like it was written for a high-school group project. What he doesn't really factor in is the effects of globalization (yes, including Americans traveling to other countries), and the dismal state of health care for those not economically well-off in the states.
]


Now, this being said, I was only trying to show where the weaknesses and holes are in your 'statistics'. I am of the firm belief that criminals (residency aside for now, as that is under debate) should be treated as criminals, regardless of country of origin. In the interest of mutual respect and international common sense, foreign criminals are usually handed off to their home countries, if they will be recognized as criminals there - fair enough. There are many problems associated with illegal immigration, and many of the previous posts have been focused on this, both identifying the problems and pointing out ways of addressing them.

In your reply to me, I'm glad to see that you recognize that Canada has a city called Toronto. Unfortunately, that's not where I live, and every area of Canada has it's own unique racial and immigrant tensions. Fortunately, I'm beyond seeing English as the ordained language of everything - although people in and around Toronto have a legitimate reason to speak French - in many areas French was simply there before English. Given the criticisms that I stated above, your response seems to boil down to simply 'I'm frustrated at the situation around me. I'm not on top, and I can't control it!'

It's funny that there is this conflict between Spanish and English - given that those two parent nations were some of the more aggressive colonizers, with the main goal of removing the original culture of an area and replacing it with a version of their own. Now there's tension between the children.

Having lived (legally)as a visible minority in some countries where initially I could only marginally speak the language, I've developed a bit more understanding for what situation immigrants are in. Life is quite simply quite difficult when adjusting to a new culture, language, neighborhood, and job. With regards to classes being given in a particular language, I believe the American star of 'supply and demand' adequately describes and justifies that.

On a side note, I'm interested in those of you whose parents (or grandparents) immigrated to a country speaking a language they did not grow up learning. Did your parents/grandparents learn and become fluent in the new language in their lifetime? (In my experience, for many people from Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Italy, India, Korea and China, the answer is a firm NO) Then, did the children of these immigrants learn the new language and become fluent in it? (as I'm aware, YES). It's a difficult situation to just jump into another culture. Your great/grand/parents probably experienced the same thing.

I'll cut myself off here, as I likely will only say what others have previously said already, and being too long-winded often quickly deflates a debate.

[SunGod]

A 'statistic'. Great. How about a corresponding one with how many illegal immigrants were killed by American citizens. ]

----- who cares? We already know we have bad apples. It would be an interesting counter stat, but an irrelavent one. The point is we dont need more bad apples.-----

[oh, now it's being reported as fact, with the .... ARE murdered daily..... This is followed by another guess (apparently) for how many are being killed by drunk illegal alien (wow, that's 3 loaded words) drivers. Any chance for a corresponding stat on drunk American drivers? (killing both fellow Americans and killing citizens of other countries (illegal immigrants and visitors alike) - how about drunk Americans killing others abroad too?]

---extrapolations to a certain extent, but once again...we know we have drunk drivers here already and its a problem. We dont need any more. A drunk driving illegal alien just adds insult to injury.----

It mentions that 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders. The questions then are: what percentage of Americans apprehended are sex offenders? Also, to balance these a bit, how much more likely are illegals to be apprehended simply because they are illegal immigrants?

----what % of Americans are sex offenders is still irrelavent to immigration. Sad and perverse as it is. How much more likely are illegals to be apprehended, apparently not that much juding by how many are here.---

Anyway, that was a good source - the stats need balance - but in my opinion, a sex offender (or any other violent criminal, for that matter) only have one legitimate place of residence, regardless of their nationality - jail.

---agreed----

Is it because the justice system is in favor of justice 'for American citizens', and not so worried about that for non-Americans?

---- I certainly hope so, in America, Americans right's should always come first.----

Fortunately, I'm beyond seeing English as the ordained language of everything

----I dont recall deeming it the language of everything. Seeing as though I speak a few languages myself.----

although people in and around Toronto have a legitimate reason to speak French - in many areas French was simply there before English.

----agreed, but you cant say the same for the chinese or somali or arabic I see when I'm there. ----

Given the criticisms that I stated above, your response seems to boil down to simply 'I'm frustrated at the situation around me.

---- yes, as a White english speaking American I am VERY frustrated at the situation. The melting away of my countries borders, the mutating of its culture, the lack of respect for its heritage and historical language, and the hypocritical racism towards those of "European heritage."----


Having lived (legally)as a visible minority in some countries where initially I could only marginally speak the language, I've developed a bit more understanding for what situation immigrants are in. Life is quite simply quite difficult when adjusting to a new culture, language, neighborhood, and job. With regards to classes being given in a particular language, I believe the American star of 'supply and demand' adequately describes and justifies that

----- as have I which I feel justifies a certain refusal to bend on this issue as it relates to American national character and culture. I lived abroad, I had to adapt, I had to learn the language. I wasnt catered to. I wasnt given special handouts because I was a foreigner. This falls beyond the realm of supply and demand. Its about the national identity and what it means to be "American." (Or in your case "Canadian.") ----

[usmc1]

Well, well. Here it is. Unadorned xenophobia and race hatred spewed forth in an effluvia of spite, anger, fear and ignorance.

This stopped being a debate long before the pejorative, "foreign rabble" was worked into the rhetoric.

My hope is that these outbursts here provide some sort of "safety valve" against the acting out of violence in real time.

What a perfectly miserable and unhappy soul.

[Naturist Mark]

There are plenty of good reasons to be against illegal immigration - fairness to legal immigrants, concerns about the downward economic effect on wages and benefits for citizens, respect for law (and having laws worth respecting), etc.

There is no need to appeal to racist, nativist, or xenophobic fears. But that is a great way to undercut your cause.

I have no truck with those who blame brown people for ruining our culture with their foreign ways. Our culture is all about embracing foreign ways, always has been. Immigrant vigor has always been a strong element in America's success - despite some of the crap being spewed by the haters out there. It isn't the lazy immigrant who goes through the immigration grinder to come here - legally or illegally. I know a lot of immigrants, and with few exceptions they are by far highly admirable people.

We could easily solve the illegal immigration problem by ending illegal employment. Very easily done. If only our government and its corporate masters didn't so plainly want illegal employment it could be ended in a fortnight.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

As someone who has travelled around the world, I can say without hesitation that each and every culture has something positive to offer. Some cultures do indeed have more positive aspects then others but all have something of value. The trick is to realize what is of value and to incorporate that into your own culture (belief system), recognize what is harmful and reject it, and to know how to tell the difference between the two.

[SunGod]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Well, well. Here it is. Unadorned xenophobia and race hatred spewed forth in an effluvia of spite, anger, fear and ignorance.

This stopped being a debate long before the pejorative, "foreign rabble" was worked into the rhetoric.

My hope is that these outbursts here provide some sort of "safety valve" against the acting out of violence in real time.

What a perfectly miserable and unhappy soul.

No usmc1, I can just come up with a better argument then yours. Continue to keep your eyes closed and mouth open uttering the only defense you can think of "thats racist." Like curse words, its a great way to argue a point without actually putting any rational thought into ones statement.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif


btw- speaking of xenophobia, maybe this contributes:
http://media.putfile.com/AztlanRising

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

I agree with Naturist Mark that more of the burden of supporting a realistic immigration policy should be shifted to the people who benefit most directly from it--employers.
Building a big wall on the border is both ridiculously expensive and a foreign relations disaster. The basic fact is that to remain in America for any siginficant length of time you have to have a job or be rich enough to live without one. (Housing costs are spectacularly high in America compared to many other places and the cost of our heatlth care is so high it has reached a crisis point for middle-class Americans). The immigrants who can't find employers willing to hire them return to their friends and families back in their native countries. But there is ample evidence that immigration is also good for the American economy and also creates businesses where (non-immigrant) Americans get jobs too! And if you're thinking about the expected mass retirement (or semi-retirement in some cases) of the baby boom generation you might be wondering if America will soon have an even greater need for hard-working people from other countries.
As for getting care in Emergency rooms, there simply should be no country in the world where anyone can't receive vital health care whoever they are. True that's not the reality but we're not going to get to that point simply through enacting tough immigration laws. To begin with, we need to fix our own health care system here in America so many more people can get timely preventive care so they don't continue to put off dealing with health problems until the ER (where health care costs are most expensive) will take them. Improving the situation worldwide should involve working with the World Health Organization and other governments to make sure foreign aid and investments in lesser developed countries achieve the necessary outcomes. We should also make sure that Medicare (and some future "Medicare for All" program) will also cover our health care expenses when we Americans need health care overseas.

"Anchor babies"??? Get used to it folks-- they're called American citizens!( as American as the people who came over on the Mayflower, and as American as your great-great grandparents). And we all should be thinking of
ourselves as concerned residents/citizens of a place called the world. We breathe the same air as people in Bangladesh, China, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Norway, etc. etc. (even though we here in America pollute more of it than anyone else with our car exhaust and carbon emissions--hey, isn't that good enough reason for people elsewhere on the earth to call us the "undesirables", and illegalise our presence here?)
Paz, Salaam, Paix, Pace,
Kevin

[SunGod]

DUDE! Anchor babies may be citizens courtesy of the Constitution, (which should be amended to fix that problem), but you are missing why and why its a problem. When the founding fathers wrote that part they had NO IDEA millions of Mexicans & other immigrants would use it as a "loop hole" to get to stay legally in the US because they gave birth to a baby here that is now a citizen. It is a privalege that is being ABUSED.

[SunGod]

Here is a very interesting article I think relates to immigration as it is a problem to this country and others.....its a bit long but a good read.

------------------------------------------------
This is more important than a game of bridge..or golf..or a movie..or making a few more bucks!!! If you wish to follow in the footsteps of Greece..or Rome.. or The Balkans ,etc. then yawn,say Radical, roll over and go back to sleep for as far as America is concerned ,you're already dead!!!!

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context, his thoughts are particularly poignant.
Over a year ago there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in
Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and
leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked
about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal
and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it
would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The
American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and
gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat
spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United
States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too
self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard
to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and
that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit
suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or
multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can
survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing
languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual;
however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of
bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of
turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face
crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not
independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an
ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and
Corsicans."

Lamm went on: "Invent 'multi-culturalism' and encourage immigrants to
maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all
cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make
it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to
prejudice and discrimination by the White majority. Every other explanation is
out of bounds.

"We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much
effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin
Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our
own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not
by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated
ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only
tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" Lamm said, "I would
encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would
replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is
important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in
America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing
their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated,
and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations
and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic
identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all
minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority.
I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the
majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and
promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would
stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are
mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing
each other."

"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical
precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together.
Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the
same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they
worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A
common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not
strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical
conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.
"E. Pluribus Unum" -- >From many, one. In that historical reality, if
we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can
balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to
talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word
similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and
paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'zenophobe' halt discussion and
debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/ bicultural country, having established
multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow.
Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor
Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes
the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed,
don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room
knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is
being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our
educational system and national cohesiveness.
Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as
we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World
as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California
and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It
is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans
are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom isslavery,"and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply
in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster
stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and
destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Originally posted by SunGod:
DUDE! Anchor babies may be citizens courtesy of the Constitution, (which should be amended to fix that problem), but you are missing why and why its a problem. When the founding fathers wrote that part they had NO IDEA millions of Mexicans & other immigrants would use it as a "loop hole" to get to stay legally in the US because they gave birth to a baby here that is now a citizen. It is a privalege that is being ABUSED.

Dude,
To be accurate, everyone born in America is able to be an American citizen, courtesy, first of all, of her or his mother who endured the pains of giving birth just as surely as yours did. Did the founding fathers have no idea that people from "other" countries such as Mexico (a country which you know, if you have read some of the postings on North American history above, once included large portions of the current territory of the United States, such as
California, where I live) would some day come here to live or find employment?

Well, who knows? but the founding fathers, as you know, also permitted slavery because they wanted people from other countries to do work that they and many of their fellow Americans didn't want to do! So there is good reason to think that those founding fathers didn't think too differently than many modern politicians and businesspeople and they would have been overjoyed to see millions of people coming here from other countries to do wretched jobs that other Americans won't do for the same pay.

And, to be totally precise, if, like me, you were born in this country you know that American citizenship isn't actually a privilege, it's just a fact of life--we can steal a million dollars, we can murder someone and still remain American citizens (for all that that might still be worth). WE didn't have to pay a dime for citizenship, didn't have to lift a finger to get it--mom did!
Peace,
Kevin

[Naked Canuck]

SunnyG,

I like the little dancing man you put in your (third to last) post - it helped me see you as dancing around with images of your own clever intellect in your mind. It seems you like to quote big chunks rather than put it to use, though.

Anyway - after getting over how that quote beginning sounded a lot like one of those email chain letters we all grew to despise - I've decided to not spend too much time (and space) on dealing with that big cut-and-paste. Instead I'll ask a question that may be a bit more to the point.

Is America, or has it ever been (for a period of time longer than a single war) as unified as you (and others) like to believe it to be?

I know that many people like to fight for their image of America, pretending that everyone shares the same view, but I'm not so sure.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Naked Canuck:
SunnyG,

I like the little dancing man you put in your (third to last) post - it helped me see you as dancing around with images of your own clever intellect in your mind. It seems you like to quote big chunks rather than put it to use, though.

Anyway - after getting over how that quote beginning sounded a lot like one of those email chain letters we all grew to despise - I've decided to not spend too much time (and space) on dealing with that big cut-and-paste. Instead I'll ask a question that may be a bit more to the point.

Is America, or has it ever been (for a period of time longer than a single war) as unified as you (and others) like to believe it to be?

I know that many people like to fight for their image of America, pretending that everyone shares the same view, but I'm not so sure.

The answer you get should be no! Federalists versus Republicans would be one nifty example. Fur merchants versus settlers in the Northwest territory would be yet another.

America is not and has never has been the monolithic, accepting melting pot where one rises by one's boot straps. All tht stuff is fable. Unrewarded hard work and perseverance are cliches in our economic/social system.

[nacktman]

Don't know if I'd say we're not a 'melting pot' here usmc1. I think we are, and a monolithic one at that ... but I think the fire under the pot isn't hot enough to melt all the stuff dumped in it so we have a few 'lumps' in the porridge. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Immigration - shemmirgation, it will always be.
There will always be 'illegal' immigration.
There will always be those afraid of immigration.
There will always be those that exploit the 'immigration issue' to play on those fears for personal gain - as is the case here with employers using it for 'cheap' labor and politicians using it to further themselves.

Those overly concerned with this need to remove their heads from their arses and that malodorous funk they have been smelling will waft away to be replaced, oh, for kicks let's say, fresh air!

[SunGod]

NekkidC,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naked Canuck:
SunnyG,

I like the little dancing man you put in your (third to last) post - it helped me see you as dancing around with images of your own clever intellect in your mind. It seems you like to quote big chunks rather than put it to use, though.
QUOTE]

Are you a shrink? Seriously. If your not, give it a rest and just respond like a normal person. Dont spend too much time thinking about me dancing either, its creepy and contrary to that little dancing guy I'm no Emmit Smith.

speaking of DANCING! Its off topic but you all will love this! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif has nothing on this guy.

http://clip.break.com/dnet/media/content/evolutiondance.wmv


Nacktman,

I agree with you, it always will be, people will always abuse it, and some fear it. Can you agree though that changes need to be made so that it does not bring the US down to 3rd world standards, but rather it lifts it up. Changes like:

I. enforce immigration laws so people will be counted, on the radar, and required to pay the same taxes as real Americans and subject to the same laws, and the same requirements for healthcare, insurance, etc? No special treatment.

II. Corporations that encourage this modern day slavery should be fined and punished, which would lessen the demand for illegal labor, also helping to decrease it.

III. With all due respect to other cultures, a "no if's ands or butts" concept that immigrants to America must be Americans. Learn our laws, speak the English language, live like us and not like an outsider among us. Assimilate.

IV. Those found still in violation after all legal means have been made open should be deported and denied the right to come back.

[usmc1]

I can see it now. A whole new level of law enforcement and supporting bureaucracy with special courts to deal with all those failure to assimilate cases.

Your honor, we caught this here meskin riding in the back of a pick up on the way to work, and instead of a balogni with swiss sandwich he had tortillas and barbacoa with cilantro in his lunch sack.

Plus, on Sunday's, we've seen him up at the city park bar-b-cuing, playing guitars and singing them there meskin canciones songs and watching people kick soccer instead of staying home watching real football like all us rill Amurkins.

That ain't even assimilating your honor, and we want this s.o.b. dee-ported! Hail far jedge, that ain't even atryin' ta simulate.

To which the judge replies, I'm remanding this to the fieled assimilation team from the Bureau of Assimilation Enforcement and will render my sentence after they complete their report.

Since there is a thirty seven year backlog on these investigations that might be awhile.

Well your honor, could we at least hold him in jail, in pink underwear in a tent somewhere until then?

[Sanslines]

III. With all due respect to other cultures, a "no if's ands or butts" concept that immigrants to America must be Americans. Learn our laws, speak the English language, live like us and not like an outsider among us. Assimilate.


But........but........but........isn't America a collection of cultures inported from other parts of the world? Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free where people can chose how they wish to live within reason ie not harming others? If you only knew how my German neighbors down the road lived with their old world cuisine you might just run down to their house for some good old fashioned bratwurst too.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

And I can't recall the last years of my grandparents' lives without thinking of sitting in front of the T.V. set watching Lawrence Welk--born in Strasburg, North Dakota, but supposedly never spoke English till he was an adult, and never quite got rid of that "Alsace/Lorraine" German accent.
http://www.welkmusicalfamily.com/

Contrary to what you might hear from some people, the English language is hardly on the verge of extinction here in America. So, yes it's true that learning English will help you to assimilate into our society if you have decided that's what you need to do.
But you might want to follow the late Mr. Welk's
example and concentrate, first of all, on learning to do whatever it is you hope to do best, whether that's playing the accordion or anything else.
And there is need for speakers of many other languages here in America, not just English. One alternative, the fourth most common language
in America, is American Sign Language. This would allow you to communicate better with many native born Americans who cannot communicate in spoken English as most of us do:
www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/asl.asp (http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/asl.asp)

But there is no reason to assume that English should be your only choice. In states such as California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas we share so much of our heritage with our neighbors to the south in Mexico. Here in California, approximately 25% of residents can speak Spanish, so that is an excellent choice, too.
There are also some of the largest overseas Chinese communities in the world in places such as California's San Gabriel Valley, New York, and San Francisco. These are some of the most popular tourist destinations in America.
And there are so many other people with different world experiences you can meet in this country. When I studied Farsi in college I was humbled to meet so many intensely hard-working Iranian Americans who spoke my own language just about as fluently as their own while they studied dentistry, sociology, law, etc. But they often knew a third or fourth language at least, such as French, German, or Italian, if they had spent some time in those countries before they immigrated here. And many were of very mixed heritage and spoke Armenian, or Turkish or Kurdish, or some Hebrew or Koranic Arabic.
So, it's not absolutely essential to learn English just because some Americans get frustrated when they encounter someone else who doesn't speak their language. That's their own personal problem mostly.

Peace,
Kevin

[Naked Canuck]

'nuff said. Agreed (with most of you).

[alfredr]

America is not the only place where people are concerned about the erosion of their culture. France has taken steps to stop or control the Americanization of theirs. In Japan, I just heard recently, a high school is testing students on their ability to use chopsticks and found them short on those traditional skills.

Mexico, before NAFTA, used to produce 200+ films a year. Now they are down to as few as 20 to 40 some years and the three Mexican directors whose films are nominated for Oscars this year were not working in Mexico.

Globalization at its best.

Anyone who thinks America was ever one culture either grew up in a pocket where there were no 'other' influences, or they have assimilated those ethnic influences into their concept of 'America.' You need to re-examine your childhood for foreign influences: Was there no pizza, La Choy, tacos, lox, bratwurst, lutefisk(sp), etc?

Maybe, like me, one of your schoolmate's family spoke the mother tongue at home, but he or she spoke English as well as you but would still amaze you with some Italian or Dutch or German or French or Spanish or Norwegian. Maybe it wasn't until you went away to college that you realized that America wasn't as blond and blue-eyed as your hometown?

Assimilation means we take and adopt things from them too. Maybe you could list some things that aren't 'American?' I'd like to know what you think about pizza and french fries, for instance.

[Sanslines]

America is not the only place where people are concerned about the erosion of their culture.

Anyone who thinks America was ever one culture either grew up in a pocket where there were no 'other' influences, or they have assimilated those ethnic influences into their concept of 'America.' You need to re-examine your childhood for foreign influences: Was there no pizza, La Choy, tacos, lox, bratwurst, lutefisk(sp), etc?


What exactly is the American culture? Before anyone can protect 'it' they need to know exactly what they are protecting. Is the American culture the traditional Anglo Saxon and European way of doing things? What about the ever expanding Mexican and South American influences on America? I think most people don't really give any thought to what THE American culture is. They assume that who they are and what they represent is THE only American culture and anything different is foreign. These people don't seem to understand that what they represent is just as foreign to others as the others are foreign to them. The American culture will always change and adapt as the composition of the American society changes. Like it or not, we will see hispanic culture exert more influence and become a greater part of the American culture.

[Sanslines]

And there are so many other people with different world experiences you can meet in this country. When I studied Farsi in college I was humbled to meet so many intensely hard-working Iranian Americans who spoke my own language just about as fluently as their own while they studied dentistry, sociology, law, etc. But they often knew a third or fourth language at least, such as French, German, or Italian, if they had spent some time in those countries before they immigrated here. And many were of very mixed heritage and spoke Armenian, or Turkish or Kurdish, or some Hebrew or Koranic Arabic.

This is very true as in so many other countries, people are taught to learn about and accept other cultures. In America there is a fantastic ignorance and fear of other cultures. Part of our 'culture' involves brainwashing people in to believing that we are superior to others and therefore don't need to be bothered with understanding or accepting anything foreign to us.

Shades of the pre-Civil Rights Movement being seen and heard again here but this time it is immigrants from South of the Border! Bigotry and arrogance, sadly, is part of our species.

Sanslines, great statement that the American culture will always be changing as the people change. This is one of the beautiful things about the USA.

In thinking of our history, I am thankful that a lot of what was once ingrained as part of "our culture" has either been dissolved, removed, modifed, or changed. This will always occur here and that is a good thing.

Allie

[nacktman]

Let's look at 'American Culture' from a personal stand point shall we.

I am of Celtic descent, mainly Scots but a few Irish and Welsh logs are in the woodpile with a dash of Scandanavian, German, Italian thrown in to spice things up a bit.

I am also, of Native American descent, mainly Cherokee with a smattering of Creek, Catawba, Lumbee and Shawnee mixed in for flavor.

So, tell me what is my 'American Culture'?

People you need to get a life and stop worrying about people emigrating. Immigration happens ... it's like air ... it's there.
Laws and regulations are all well and good and need to be applied equally (and we all know they aren't so don't go there).
Assimilation is also well and good to a point ... no one should be forced to give up what is a part of them, and their 'culture' and 'heritage' are part of them; just as one should be expected to respect and attempt to adapt and adopt attributes of a 'new' culture and heritage and meld them with their own when in a 'new' land, even on a temporary basis, i.e., a vacation, (something most Americans fail to do when travelling), as well.

America IS a 'melting pot' or perhaps a more fitting term would be melding pot as we have taken all manner of colored glass, (read: cultures) and broken them into shards and thrown them into a long tube and spun it around and the result is some very pretty pictures and with each new colored glass added and the tube spun around the picture changes.
So sit back and enjoy the kalideoscope images that is this country and you just might learn a few things about yourself along the way.

[SunGod]

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Shades of the pre-Civil Rights Movement being seen and heard again here but this time it is immigrants from South of the Border! Bigotry and arrogance, sadly, is part of our species.
------------------------------------------------
I would imagine comparing the black civil rights movement to the current push for illegal amnesty would insult your average black American. Illegal aliens are criminals on atleast 1 count, and by the time they obtain fraudulent docs, fake SS number, and drivers licensces, its usually a handful of crimes. Black Americans in the 60's were guilty of nothing and desiring only equality. This issue has nothing to do with rights or equality, and everything to do with Americas soverignty, controling our borders (atleast as much as Mexico controls theirs) and steering our own course, not letting a flood of immigrants and the bleeding heart liberal hippies who love them direct it.

Are you serious SunGod?

What in this thread lead you to believe in any bleeding heart liberal hippies or is that the only thing you can say about those who are not into penalizing illegal immigrants?

Think you should re-read what was going on pre-Civil Rights ..... it is how people were treated, referred to, looked upon; names they were called; how is it so different with our immigrants today? It is very much about rights - human rights.


Allie

[SunGod]

I think your wrong. Its about the rights of "actual" Americans taking precendence over non Americans. I call people who arent into penalizing criminals and want to sell out their country bleeding heart liberal hippies and I see a couple on this forum.

Keep in mind also that nobody is saying these immigrants are not: human, not in need of respect, basic human rights, or anything.

What I am saying is that:

A. By being in the USA illegally, without green card, work visa, or what have you, they are in FACT and by LAW a criminal. Not on par with a murderer or rapists of course, but a criminal none the less and should be treated as such. They have no rights in this country other then basic human rights. They have no right to: vote, to claim wellfare, social security, to send their kids to our public schools, etc, etc. People need to wake up and acknowledge this.

B. As a civilized and autonomous nation, much less a SUPER POWER, we need to guard our border and keep track of who gets in. There is a signifigant security risk on the southern border. We already know Hezbollah has cells in this country and Canada. They got in here via mexico with the help of MS13 the most violent (latino) gang in the world, they simply dressed as mexicans with fake ID's and changed names. Can anyone here tell the difference between and arab and a hispanic? Skin tone, hair color, and other features are very similar, with a little practice at faking an accent and some basic spanish lessons, its game over. We have caught some of them however and thats how we know its going on. Just so your clear on what I'm saying, and it is a fact- Arab muslims (terrorists) cells, masquerading as hispanic immigrants are here in the US. Anyone else concerned?
With threats like that, not to mention language issues, culture war, bi-lingual education problems in already over crowded schools, econnomic job loss to slave labor immigrants, and countless other health issues. Do any of you realize that these people from S. America are brining in a new form of tuberculosis thats resistent to any medicine we currently have? We had wiped that out here, and thanks to unchecked immigration its back.

I dont care about whats good for the immigrant. I care about whats good for my country and its actual citizens.
Nobody I know of is anti immigrant. Least of all me, my parents are immigrants did it LEGALLY. They feel everyone else should as well, and so do I.

[Sanslines]

Black Americans in the 60's were guilty of nothing and desiring only equality.

You cannot compare today's thinking to the thinking of the 1960's. Back in the '60's, blacks were considered inferior and were subject to cruel, unjust, and ultimately what were proven to be illegal segregation laws. Back in the '50's and early '60's it was illegal for a 'colored' person to use a 'white' persons restroom. Back in the '50's, it was illegal for a black person to even sit in the front of a public bus and refuse to give up their seat for a white person until Rosa Parks stood up and challenged the law. When Emmit Till was tortured and murdered for saying 'hey baby' to a white woman, those who commited the crime were hypocritically found 'not guilty' by a racist jury that would never convict a white person for murdering a black person.

Perhaps the anger should be directed away from immigrants and back where it should be - towards a government that refuses to create a legal and comprehensive immigration policy that is enforced with no exceptions. The utter hypocrisy of illegal immigration today is that the government is fully aware that illegals are openly hired 'under the table'. The REAL illegal activities are occuring at the government level.

[SunGod]

The REAL illegal activities are occuring at the government level.

Damn right! Add to that the anti-American outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing to other countries.

[Naturist Mark]

everything to do with Americas soverignty, controling our borders (atleast as much as Mexico controls theirs)

Mexico has very little control of its borders, but it does effectively prohibit illegal employment. So the Central and South American migrants who slip past their border don't stay, they continue on to el norte where the government and industry effectively welcome their labor.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

I think the political party of the working class should be taking a stand for the working man. In other words I think that we should have someone saying that those businesses that employ illegal aliens need to be prosecuted. Also any business that earns it's income in the US should be required to keep that income in the US in our banks. It should be illegal to out source jobs overseas and then make your money off the income of the American working class then put that money into some offshore accounts in order to avoid being taxed on it.

James Webb has it about right there is a growing divide in the country. In part he says,

"The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes....."

The rest of it can be read here.

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/classstruggle.htm

[foux003]

Illegal immigration? Where i work, they will hire an immigrant before they will hire a citizen. Its union so its all the same pay rate for the equipment that you operate. My son filed a job ap. 2 years ago and he kept it current. They kept saying they wern't hiring but in that 2 years they hired many Central Americans. They all keep their citizenship in their HOME country. They all own a house and a car in their HOME country. They all get 2 or more weeks off consecutive, I being of this country can only take 1 week at a time. They get ofended because i won't speek their language. The Mexicans are taught that it is their god given right to cross into the US. A Guatamalan woman at my work told me " There are to many Americans in Guatemala" and she was dead serious. They won't hire families at my work, but there are 9 Hispanic families. Mother and daughter, father and 2 daughters, brothers all kinds of relatives and not one is American.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by foux003:
Illegal immigration? Where i work, they will hire an immigrant before they will hire a citizen. Its union so its all the same pay rate for the equipment that you operate. My son filed a job ap. 2 years ago and he kept it current. They kept saying they wern't hiring but in that 2 years they hired many Central Americans. They all keep their citizenship in their HOME country. They all own a house and a car in their HOME country. They all get 2 or more weeks off consecutive, I being of this country can only take 1 week at a time. They get ofended because i won't speek their language. The Mexicans are taught that it is their god given right to cross into the US. A Guatamalan woman at my work told me " There are to many Americans in Guatemala" and she was dead serious. They won't hire families at my work, but there are 9 Hispanic families. Mother and daughter, father and 2 daughters, brothers all kinds of relatives and not one is American.

Strictly speaking from a business perspective (and NO I do not agree with this) business (big and small) must make ever increasing profit in order to survive and grow. Have you ever watched how a company's stock is severely punished for missing a profit estimate by a penny? American business schools do excell in teaching students how to keep the bottom line growing. The bottom line is all that matters. One way to keep the bottom line growing is to hire foreign workers (both legal and illegal). The legal ones are more or less tied to the company that sponsors them and they can not just easily quit and find another job. The illegal ones will work any job that they can find. Both are beholding to the company that hires or sponsors them. If you were an employer who would you hire: 1) An American worker who may complain about conditions, not give 150 percent on the job out of fear of being fired, quit and find another job because the conditions are unbearable, or file lawsuits against the company? 2) An immigrant who is either legal or illegal. The legal immigrant knows not to complain, slack off on the job, quit or file lawsuits. The illegal ones have no say in anything and fell lucky just to be paid anything for the work they do. In both cases the company has tremendous leverage to squeeze more work with less problems then with the american worker. As such the the company makes more profit from the immigrants.

If you were an american businessman or woman, who would you hire to maximize profit? Most companies state that workers are their biggest asset but the truth is that workers are their biggest expense. When profit needs to be increased, layoffs are issued and those who are left behind are squeezed to produce even more in less time.

[oldbob]

Originally posted by nacktman:

America IS a 'melting pot' or perhaps a more fitting term would be melding pot as we have taken all manner of colored glass, (read: cultures) and broken them into shards and thrown them into a long tube and spun it around and the result is some very pretty pictures and with each new colored glass added and the tube spun around the picture changes.
So sit back and enjoy the kalideoscope images that is this country and you just might learn a few things about yourself along the way.

I think of America as stew. A stew has many different ingredients, meat, potatoes, tomatoes, and any number of vegetables. Each of the ingredients is flavored by the other but still retains its own basic characteristic.

We see this in the variety of foods we eat, music, art, literature and holidays.

Bob

[denney44]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by foux003:
Illegal immigration? Where i work, they will hire an immigrant before they will hire a citizen. Its union so its all the same pay rate for the equipment that you operate. My son filed a job ap. 2 years ago and he kept it current. They kept saying they wern't hiring but in that 2 years they hired many Central Americans. They all keep their citizenship in their HOME country. They all own a house and a car in their HOME country. They all get 2 or more weeks off consecutive, I being of this country can only take 1 week at a time. They get ofended because i won't speek their language. The Mexicans are taught that it is their god given right to cross into the US. A Guatamalan woman at my work told me " There are to many Americans in Guatemala" and she was dead serious. They won't hire families at my work, but there are 9 Hispanic families. Mother and daughter, father and 2 daughters, brothers all kinds of relatives and not one is American.

Strictly speaking from a business perspective (and NO I do not agree with this) business (big and small) must make ever increasing profit in order to survive and grow. Have you ever watched how a company's stock is severely punished for missing a profit estimate by a penny? American business schools do excell in teaching students how to keep the bottom line growing. The bottom line is all that matters. One way to keep the bottom line growing is to hire foreign workers (both legal and illegal). The legal ones are more or less tied to the company that sponsers them and can not just quit and find another job. The illegal ones will work any job that they can find. Both are beholding to the company that hires or sponsors them. If you were an employer who would you hire: 1) An American worker who may complain about conditions, not give 150 percent on the job out of fear of being fired, quit and find another job because the conditions are unbearable, or file lawsuits against the company? 2) An immigrant who is either legal or illegal. The legals ones are sponsored by the company and are beholding to the company. The legal immigrant knows not to complain, slack off on the job, quit or file lawsuits. The illegal ones have no say in anything and fell lucky just to be paid anything for the work they do. In both cases the company has tremendous leverage to squeeze more work with less problems then with the american worker. As such the the company makes more profit from the immigrants.

If you were an american businessman or woman, who would you hire to maximize profit? Most companies state that worker are their biggest asset but the truth is that workers are their biggest expense. When profit needs to be increased, layoffs are issued and those who are left behind are squeezed to produce even more in less time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



What you have described is SLAVERY !!!!!

[Sanslines]

What you have described is SLAVERY !!!!!

Business would never consider this to be slavery as any business would claim that people are not forced to work for them unless they sign a contract. If they sign a contract, then they agree to the conditions upfront.

You also need to consider the perceived problems of the older american worker from a business perspective too. It is perceived by business that older workers have less energy and get sick more often then younger workers. Thus, medical expenses for older workers would be higher then younger workers. As business is always trying to reduce costs, in many cases it is cost effective to hire younger workers and avoid hiring older workers or lay off the older workers before they get sick. With our broken health care system, the worker is really doomed until they get to the age where they are covered by medicare.

[alfredr]

I don't have "Bartlett's Book of Familiar Quotations" handy, but I think it was John Donne who said, "No man is an island, entire to himself..."

IF... each country were an island, entire to itself, there would be no need for international commerce, migration or other sorts of interaction. Each one could produce all of its needs within its borders and could develop its own culture and maintain its own culture and identity and there wouldn't be any doubts or questions about what it meant to be English or Irish or Australian or Sicilian or Hawaiian, to name a few islands. Or French or German or Chinese or Ethiopian or American.

The world is not like that. We need other people and things that they produce and they need us and things from us. And along with the things we need, we get bits of their culture and they get bits of ours and there are always people here and people there who have a problem with bits of their culture mixing with our culture and identity, whether we are us or we are them.

This perceived loss of identity/insecurity is a factor in much domestic and interrnational tension: our immigration debate, Sunni-Shiite warfare in Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism's problem with western culture's influence in their countries, etc.

Our immigration laws were not always as restrictive as they are now. We hear from people here about their parents or grandparents coming here legally and want everyone else to do the same. My question is, When did they come and which laws were in effect at the time?

Whatever the intentions were at the time our current laws were passed and whether the quotas allowed for a realistic level of immigration then or not, it was probably assumed that if people were not allowed in legally, they would stay out.

Well it didn't work that way. People kept coming and, not being allowed in legally, they entered or stayed illegally. And they are net contributors to the system (economy) and we can't keep them out and we can't round them up and we can't keep them from driving by denying them licenses either.

We need to change our laws to reflect reality and fully incorporate the ones already here into the system and allow realistic levels of immigration and we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. But we would still have a "We're losing our culture/national identity" discussion.

[naturalmanwa]

You also need to consider the perceived problems of the older american worker from a business perspective too. It is perceived by business that older workers have less energy and get sick more often then younger workers. Thus, medical expenses for older workers would be higher then younger workers. As business is always trying to reduce costs, in many cases it is cost effective to hire younger workers and avoid hiring older workers or lay off the older workers before they get sick. With our broken health care system, the worker is really doomed until they get to the age where they are covered by medicare

That is inaccurate. Many places that have younger workers have to dismiss them for not showing up or not working when they do show up. I know for a fact that most older workers are dependable and responsible.

In any business, it is management that makes the decisions that turn a profit or loss. The employees are small cogs in a big wheel.

[NudeAl]

and we can't keep them out and we can't round them up and we can't keep them from driving by denying them licenses either.

We need to change our laws to reflect reality and fully incorporate the ones already here into the system and allow realistic levels of immigration and we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. But we would still have a "We're losing our culture/national identity"

You had me right up to this point.

We can't keep them out? In other words we are not supposed to enforce the border regulations? Sorry I disagree we need stronger enforcement on the border we need more border patrol agents we need to require proof of citizenship or legal residence along with drivers license and proof of insurence whenever stopped by the police or registering a vehicle. We need to put up a fence along our borders that will be respected by those tempted to cross it. If that fails throw in a mine field and a few machine gun towers. We could change things if we had the guts to get serious enough about the problem. It seems however all we want to do is complain and do nothing. I wonder when we will will wake up and find our country is no longer ours, oh wait that already happened for me.

[Naturist Mark]

We can't keep them out? In other words we are not supposed to enforce the border regulations?

We need to protect our borders, absolutely. Even though none of the 9/11 terrorists crossed our borders illegally, we do have to do our best to prevent it from happening.

But most of the illegal immigrants in the US did NOT sneak past a border. They entered legally and overstayed their visa. Even if the borders were completely shut down and protected by 1000 mile high fences illegals would find a way to enter the US.

The only way to stop massive illegal immigration is to stop welcoming illegal employment. That could be shut down in weeks if the government had the will.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

That is inaccurate. Many places that have younger workers have to dismiss them for not showing up or not working when they do show up. I know for a fact that most older workers are dependable and responsible.

What I posted was what many businesses PERCEIVE as one of the problems with older workers. The reality is that many older workers are reliable, responsible, and seldom miss work. This reality is not what business PERCEIVES. Business claims that older workers are prone to sickness (thereby raising health and health insurance costs), demand higher wages then younger workers ( I know for a fact that older engineers DO NOT demand higher wages ), and are more bothersome then younger workers ( the only thing bothersome about older workers is that they may be more experienced in life as well as in their job and can not be so easily manipulated as many younger workers can ).

[alfredr]

I was working on a reply, but I hit a wrong key and lost it, so I will try to condense things.

NudeAl: Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China. It won't work for long. Big waste of money.

NaturistMark: Big cost to government to shut down illegal employment, bigger cost to economy. The consumer pays for everything in this world; companies pass costs along.

Let's give them documents, give them rights, give them responsiblities, integrate them into the system, let them pay taxes 'to the fullest extent of the law', let them buy health insurance, let their kids get the best education they can and better themselves for however long they are here.

What kind of documents? I don't especially like "guest worker", but maybe it will do. It should have equal rights as a US citizen/legal resident to keep anyone from being treated differently on the basis of the class of documentation they have. Maybe available for different terms, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, etc. Renewable for up to maybe 7 or 10 years, after which the citizenship/permanent resident option becomes available, but maybe not required.

The govt. should collect fees for these visas/documents, basically selling the right to enter the US and work and live here. They will pay thousands of dollars to coyotes to sneak them in, they should be willing to pay $1000 or more for a one year permit and be able to travel under much safer conditions and cheaper.

Let's tax money sent out of the US by individuals and corporations. Some sort of sliding scale so the corporation that sends a billion dollars pays a higher rate than Juan Valdez sending $5000.

No illegal workers means no illegal employment and no one getting exploited out of fear and no one not paying taxes.

Getting in cheaper and safer legally than illegally means no illegal border crossers.

[Naked Canuck]

interesting ideas, alfredr

One note,

If the US started taxing money that left the country, you can bet that a LOT of foreign investment money would disappear before this law came into effect, and many would be quite leery of acquiring this type of a penalty for investing in the US.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Originally posted by alfredr:
I was working on a reply, but I hit a wrong key and lost it, so I will try to condense things.

NudeAl: Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China. It won't work for long. Big waste of money.

NaturistMark: Big cost to government to shut down illegal employment, bigger cost to economy. The consumer pays for everything in this world; companies pass costs along.

Let's give them documents, give them rights, give them responsiblities, integrate them into the system, let them pay taxes 'to the fullest extent of the law', let them buy health insurance, let their kids get the best education they can and better themselves for however long they are here.

What kind of documents? I don't especially like "guest worker", but maybe it will do. It should have equal rights as a US citizen/legal resident to keep anyone from being treated differently on the basis of the class of documentation they have. Maybe available for different terms, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, etc. Renewable for up to maybe 7 or 10 years, after which the citizenship/permanent resident option becomes available, but maybe not required.

The govt. should collect fees for these visas/documents, basically selling the right to enter the US and work and live here. They will pay thousands of dollars to coyotes to sneak them in, they should be willing to pay $1000 or more for a one year permit and be able to travel under much safer conditions and cheaper.

Let's tax money sent out of the US by individuals and corporations. Some sort of sliding scale so the corporation that sends a billion dollars pays a higher rate than Juan Valdez sending $5000.

No illegal workers means no illegal employment and no one getting exploited out of fear and no one not paying taxes.

Getting in cheaper and safer legally than illegally means no illegal border crossers.

Perfectly stated, I agree.

They want to live here, they want to work here, they want to raise a family here, they want safety for their families and a future for their children. If we offer them citizenship, their answer will be YES! The problem is we don't offer them citizenship, because our country has sadly decided to say NO.

http://photos.freenewmexican.com/2006/03/31/30409_375x375.jpg

[alfredr]

I have a correction to make.

There would still be illegal border crossings, but they would be the drug smugglers and such. It would then be easier to know who the real bad guys are.

[naturalmanwa]

If that fails throw in a mine field and a few machine gun towers. We could change things if we had the guts to get serious enough about the problem. It seems however all we want to do is complain and do nothing. I wonder when we will will wake up and find our country is no longer ours, oh wait that already happened for me

That sounds like the Iron Curtain! Are you sure you want to live in that kind of place? I know I don't.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

It was Ronald Reagan who said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Soon we might have to say "Madame (or Mr.) American President, tear down this wall!"

Peace/Paz
Kevin

[SunGod]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

Perfectly stated, I agree.

They want to live here, they want to work here, they want to raise a family here, they want safety for their families and a future for their children. If we offer them citizenship, their answer will be YES! The problem is we don't offer them citizenship, because our country has sadly decided to say NO.


All everyone wants to talk about it the happy heart warming story of immigrants wanting to raise families here, and have a home, and a car, and security, and whatnot. Of course they want to live here, to have families here, to stay. Of course they would like (and by "like" I reference the street marches and demands) to get citizenship. Its America for cryin out loud. Sure they want to come to the US, to get the handout our sellout president has promised to our "friends" to the south. However nobody wants to ask why do they deserve to be here? What do they bring to the table? Aside from the promise of increase in crime and cheap labor I say they offer nothing. But, lets look at some of the economic reasons. We in the USA already have poor people ergo we dont need mexican or anyone else's poor people. We already have rampant illiteracy so we dont need millions of people who cant read spanish, much less ingles. We already have cheap manual labor. We dont need more guys to haul bricks around construction sites, or mow the lawn for $5 an hour, or clean toilets when we have MILLIONS out of work and on wellfare. We dont need millions more leeching off an already broken and bankrupt system, much less having anchor baby and anchor baby they cant afford to care for either. Where do the handouts end?!?!

In a perfect world, no human is "illegal" even though the symantics of that argument are laughable. In our faaaar from perfect reality, once they swim accross that not so grande river, or wash up on our Florida beaches, or what have you, they are "illegal."


http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/bean.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/sppagreement3vc.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g9/Armadaguy/1149886584_l.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SunGod:


We dont need millions more leeching off an already broken and bankrupt system, much less having anchor baby and anchor baby they cant afford to care for either.




[QUOTE]

Now, I'm sure there are a few people out there who were born on some ship anchored out in the water and the term would be correct in that case--just as most of us have had to deal with some people we can accurately call "b*stards."
But, of course, we don't use that word out in the open anymore (or in places like this forum) to describe people whose parents weren't married because we understand that a person should be
talked about first of all on the basis of who he or she is personally, and not always judged by the fact that his or her parents weren't married.
For a similar reason, it is simply common sense to allow a person to be a citizen of the country she or he was born in--simply because they just weren't born anywhere else. And when they are born in this country they are all called American citizens.

Paz/Peace
Kevin

[nacktman]

The problem with "illegal" immigrants is that they don't drive for conditions ... around here posted speed limits are a vauge suggestion with traffic moving at an average of 10mph faster than the posted limit.
It is a well known and documented fact that slower drivers cause accidents and it is well known and documented that 8 out of ten drivers that are cited for causing just such accidents who are immigrants as well are illegal immigrants.
They are afraid of being caught and deported for "breaking" the law so they drive under the limit to not "attract" attention whereby in this area they stand out like a sore thumb.
When they learn to drive for conditions there is no problem.

Now for all you paranoid ones out there got get a doctor to write you a script for Haldol and your fears will go away ... learn to embrace reality. Others have differing cultures and have a lot to offer ... learn from them. If, you think an immigrant took your job, then go out an start cleaning other people's toilets and quit belly-aching.

[missouriboy]

That sounds like the Iron Curtain! Are you sure you want to live in that kind of place? I know I don't. Any type of border fence or wall is a farce, an expensive fiasco that fixes nothing. It's nothing more than an admission of political failure.

[SunGod]

A fence system was put in use along one southern city in Cali and it dropped the illegal rate 75%+ and crime dropped, vagrancy dropped, and all sorts of other positive things happened. I will get back you all with more details and the name, I want to say San Jose or San "something" but will confirm it.

A wall is solid solution, notice I say wall and not "fence." The politicians have already failed us because politicians dont live in our world, they are not middle class, not business owners or employees, they might as well live in a differant place and time. Rightnow, there is a virtual invasion from our southern border and it must be stopped. A wall, guarded, and maintained would put a virtual end to the "unchecked flow" of migrants. Would it be expensive? Yes. Is it needed? Yes.

[Naturist Mark]

A fence system was put in use along one southern city in Cali and it dropped the illegal rate 75%+ and crime dropped, vagrancy dropped, and all sorts of other positive things happened. I will get back you all with more details and the name, I want to say San Jose or San "something" but will confirm it.

Bulls***

That might be true of a few gated communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_community) where residents have to pass through security to enter, but a 'wall' around a city is silly.

-Mark

[SunGod]

I never said it was a "wall around a city." I said a fence was put in place where a city is right on the southern border in Cali, and I also said I will get you the name so you can see for yourself.

[Naturist Mark]

I never said it was a "wall around a city." I said a fence was put in place where a city is right on the southern border in Cali, and I also said I will get you the name so you can see for yourself.

So what protects it from all the illegals in California? Their inability to hang a left?

-Mark

[NudeAl]

Here's a thought,

If you like illegal immigration you?ll love the FTAA! FTAA advocates favor open borders. Although keeping the general public in the dark as to their real plans, FTAA sponsors admit that the FTAA is intended to follow in the footsteps of the EU ? and so will lead to the abolition of meaningful national borders. National borders will become like state borders. There will no longer be an immigration problem, because there will be no more immigration ? only migration of populations at will.

It is only a matter of time if things proceed as they have been. Then what will be the value of being a citizen. Not for me I think I will fight to keep the border where it is and retain my Constitutional rights as an American citizen.

Think it sounds far fetched? Check this out.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6123.shtml

According to this article it is the responsibility of the US and Canadian governments to invest in the infastructure of Mexico in order to advance their economic developement, there by reducing the need for their citizens to come to this country looking for work. That's your tax dollars they're talking about.

"Expertos califican política migratoria de EEUU de negativa y contraproducente"

[SunGod]

hahaha funny guy,
the fence has reduced to a trickle the number of illegals crossing "at that point", which leads to an overall decrease in the amount of illegals in that location. The message is out that they are not welcome, and most are staying away and seeking greener pastures. I'll get back to you when I find the article, I read it a few months back.