What Mexico Would Do for Guest Workers

In a meeting at the Post yesterday afternoon, Mexico's Minister for Governance, Carlos Abascal, stressed the importance of creating a viable program for guest workers.

Secretario Abascal explained that in order for such a system to function as intended, Mexico would need to provide incentives for laborers to return home, including guarantees of:

* medical care
* pension
* housing
* social development programs

That makes perfect sense. My only criticism would be that setting up such incentives in Mexico sounds like more of a long-term project, while the Mexican government and at least some Senators are pushing for a guest worker program to be implemented now.

Secretario Abascal also advocated finding a solution to the problem of undocumented Mexican workers in the United States that would not provoke "any significant demographic adjustments" (words of translator). He noted that many illegal immigrants in the United States have been working here for many years, their families and friends are here, and they no longer have any meaningful ties back home.

That, too, makes sense. Sending them all back to Mexico would be unfair to the workers and their families, which would in many cases consist of both legal and illegal immigrants. If undocumented workers were to be expelled en masse, it could disrupt communities and business here and create serious unemployment problems in Mexico.

The Wall Street Journal notes that failing to provide a mechanism for illegal immigrants to get legal status means that "millions of otherwise well-behaved people who have become integral parts of thousands of U.S. communities would have every incentive to stay in the shadows lest they be deported."

We'll dive deeper into the guest worker issue later today. Debaters, any initial impressions on Secretario Abascal's ideas?

By Emily Messner |  March 24, 2006; 9:21 AM ET  | Category:  U.S. Foreign Policy
Previous: Good Idea/Bad Idea: Drafting Non-Citizens | Next: Surprising Story of the Week: Kosher China

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Emily wrote:
===========================================
That makes perfect sense. My only criticism would be that setting up such incentives in Mexico sounds like more of a long-term project, while the Mexican government and at least some Senators are pushing for a guest worker program to be implemented now.
===========================================

Yeah, it's called international welfare.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:44 AM

Not only wanting to dump their indesireables on our door (like Castro did), they also want to fill their coffers with international aide -- like they do in Africa.

And after Katrina, I wouldn't trust this government Congress/Senate/President in handing out ANY money, let alone services. As they're on the "take" as well.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:47 AM

It would seem that a panel for each approach needs to be set up, e.g. short term solutions and long term solutions.

However, it's equally clear that we need to come to a consensus on what our policies for ALL imigration should be.

Define the problem.
Define the constraints.
- Resources
- Time
- Legal
- Political
- Cost
Define approaches.
Choose appropriate approach to SOLVE the problem as DEFINED and within CONSTRAINTS
Execute

The PROBLEM is that the PROBLEM of immigration is being used for political purposes and not being evaluated as a problem to be solved. NOTHING will happen of any importance until we do they above.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 24, 2006 11:06 AM

I think asking Carlos Abascal for his advice on combating illegal immigration is ridiculous considering he has systematically done all he could to weaken Mexican labor and impede on American sovereignty regarding our own labor laws.

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 11:15 AM

Emily:
"That, too, makes sense. Sending them all back to Mexico would be unfair to the workers and their families, which would in many cases consist of both legal and illegal immigrants. If undocumented workers were to be expelled en masse, it could disrupt communities and business here and create serious unemployment problems in Mexico."

No mention of the countless communities disrupted economically, environmentally, or socially by illegal immigration in the first place. The law is frequently considered "unfair" from the perspective of those willfully breaking it. Your point?

"He noted that many illegal immigrants in the United States have been working here for many years, their families and friends are here, and they no longer have any meaningful ties back home."

I would note that he has a lot to do with that fact since he has encouraged illegal immigration both indirectly through weakening labor standards in Mexico (The Abascal Plan) and directly through Mexico's official pro-illegal immigration policies.

Why are we asking this guy for advice?

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 11:23 AM

"Secretario Abascal explained that in order for such a system to function as intended, Mexico would need to provide incentives for laborers to return home, including guarantees of:

* medical care
* pension
* housing
* social development programs"


Yeah? Once they've got all that in place can I emmigrate to Mexico instead? Guarantees of medical care, pension, and housing? That make perfect sense to you Ms Messner? Who else at the Post buy into that?

Posted by: Borg | March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

Gee the spam filter is ON again?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 11:54 AM

Will is right. Why are we asking this guy for advice? His concerns are for Mexico not the USA. Illegals are working here and sending money home while using US and not Mexican welfare resources. Why would he want them back? Its win-win for Mexico.

I'm for the legal immigrants who, like American citizens, must compete for work with the illegals. The two issues must be separated. Fighting illegal immigration means enforcing IRCA. Making legal immigration easier, such as through a guest worker program, should not be tied with how we handle illegals, such as an amnesty. If an illegal wants to be legal, let him go home and go through the normal process of getting back in legally. Nothing else will satisfy Americans.

Posted by: Sully | March 24, 2006 12:23 PM

To boil down Abascal's point to its essence, he's saying that if the USA creates a guest worker plan, Mexico will reciprocate by transforming itself into a half-way decent country. Since Mexico has never been able to do this before, why would anyone believe them now? What's different? Wasn't this the argument in favor of NAFTA? How'd that turn out?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 24, 2006 12:29 PM

Why is Abascal at the Washington Post???

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 12:30 PM

>

This is a false premise, Emily, and you should know that by now from reading the comments over the past several days. No one is advocating 'mass expulsions.' Some are saying that the effective enforcement of the law against hiring illegals would cause most of them to self-deport since they wouldn't be able to earn a living here. That's not the same thing as the images of trainloads of illegals being shipped to Mexico that you have inappropriately conjured up.

Until you start to play fair, Emily, your credibility on this topic is going to remain extremely limited.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 24, 2006 12:37 PM

"If undocumented workers were to be expelled en masse, it could disrupt communities and business here and create serious unemployment problems in Mexico."

This is a false premise, Emily, and you should know that by now from reading the comments over the past several days. No one is advocating 'mass expulsions.' Some are saying that the effective enforcement of the law against hiring illegals would cause most of them to self-deport since they wouldn't be able to earn a living here. That's not the same thing as the images of trainloads of illegals being shipped to Mexico that you have inappropriately conjured up.

Until you start to play fair, Emily, your credibility on this topic is going to remain extremely limited.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 24, 2006 12:39 PM

Why such a concern for unemployment rates in Mexico if illegals all had to return? What about the unemployment rates here in the U.S. due to the presence of illegals? I'll never understand the Left's constant pursuit of placing foreign nations and peoples above U.S. citizens. There would be no disruption here if they were all to return. I think the American people can pick up the slack.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 12:47 PM

"He noted that many illegal immigrants in the United States have been working here for many years, their families and friends are here, and they no longer have any meaningful ties back home."

Then why is it that we hear so much about the importance of remittances (i.e., money sent by immigrant workers to their families in foreign countries)? You cannot have it both ways -- either remittances are a central purpose of allowing immigrants to work here, or immigrant workers sever their ties to home and believe themselves to belong in the United States. Not both. One or the other.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 24, 2006 12:52 PM

"The Wall Street Journal notes that failing to provide a mechanism for illegal immigrants to get legal status means that 'millions of otherwise well-behaved people who have become integral parts of thousands of U.S. communities would have every incentive to stay in the shadows lest they be deported.'"

Just like with the wall, Emily, you have chosen to look at this in isolation rather than in context. In context, it looks like this: an effective enforcement regime against the hiring of illegal aliens would mean that there will be little opportunity to "stay in the shadows." The shadows of off-the-record employment would be eliminated. Thus, again, a false premise.

Please start to play fair, Emily. This is getting absurd.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 24, 2006 12:55 PM

PC Gorilla claims:
"Why such a concern for unemployment rates in Mexico if illegals all had to return? What about the unemployment rates here in the U.S. due to the presence of illegals? I'll never understand the Left's constant pursuit of placing foreign nations and peoples above U.S. citizens. There would be no disruption here if they were all to return. I think the American people can pick up the slack"


Why blaime this on the Left? In case you haven't noticed, we're in an occupation in Iraq, spending our money to 'attempt to create a democracy.' Meanwhile, N.O. is still in shambles, theres a good deal of poverty and unemployment in the US, health care and educations costs are rising while the government is cutting spending... The list goes on. Please explain to me how Iraq and our 'nation building endeavor' are not signs that it is not just the Left?

If anything, the Left is more likely to enact programs to try to help the American people. Not the other way around.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 01:00 PM

Freedom states the perfect reason for the Left's misunderstanding of Bush policy. We are trying to create a democracy in Iraq, but this will benefit the U.S. We need as many allies as we can get in SWA and making them democracies increases that probability. It's about terrorism Freedom, or are you too dumb, deaf, and blind to the truth to see that? Do you have healthcare? I know I do because I work for a living. I paid for my own education. I went through a crummy public school system in the inner city and I still obtained a degree. Just more excuses for the lazy to spout when they begin to realize they've destroyed their own lives.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 01:13 PM

Of course they would Freedom. Enacting a government program is the Left's answer to every problem.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 01:25 PM

I like to have friends that are peers, when my friends lie to me, they lose their peerage, it's simple.


look, the _occupation_ is for control.

it has no thing to do with democracy or having been attacked.

it is a staged operation, that can be tied back to WWII and the Brits handing control of some Oil Reserves to the Saudis and Kuwiatis.

Certainly when Schwartzkopf didn't take Bagdhad the first time, we, anyone on the inside knew, that the United States would be coming back....and then we were even more embedded....Turkey, Saudi, Kuwiat, Afghanistan.

it was also an operation that wasn't voted on. We the people, were not given honest information...we were lied to, apparently not for our own good.........now we're looking at a draft right...no one could have forseen that? That's about as funny as my finger up your but.

inducement:
it, was disguised as an attack by a foreign power on us....even with that


they have not been able to fabricate an Iraqi connection or WMD in all of this time, although as I understand it most soldiers over there think that there is a connection...


what they have come up with is a plan since 1997 to control a region using military force, PNAC


The fact that the president and his families have a vested interest in oil, sort of means that they would back a bunch of half-baked imperialists if it made them richer

a real strategist would have made us OIL INDEPENDENT


it's more cost effective.


two things at work here though:

greed and

men, that think that everything works better if you control it using military force.

It's always a lot easier to solve things economically if you've actually, ever, worked with something besides a gun....remember Cuba?


Kennedy's military were wanting him to start WWIII.


Maybe it's a bad idea to let the Defense Department run the country?


Why not let engineers run it? They don't think their penis/gun is everything.

why not ship in 2 million televisions and set up satellite television with I Love Lucy reruns and tobacco and coffee ads, with Aunt Jemima falafel mix?

we'll have McDonalds on every corner before next Wednesday....occupation is not a good idea, when you have a bunch of people that have been settling their disputes between them for thousands of years by wiping out the opposing tribe, comprimise is not a big thing in the ME.

Posted by: work is about allowing yourself to be seen as you are not as you wish you were.. | March 24, 2006 01:30 PM

First let me say that 2 weeks ago today my son's middle school principal was hit by a pick-up with 5 illegals in it and only 1 had a drivers license (Mexico issued). They ran a red light and T-Boned her car pushing the drivers door all the way to the passenger door. They all took off and hopped a bus to Chicago, never bothering to report the accident. She died on the scene. I recently also took a trip to a major city about 50 miles from where I live, and it has a large hispanic population. On several of the storefront windows there were signs "English spoken Here".
I realize this is a country of immigrants and yes my great-great grand parents were immigrants too, but here is the major distinction, they entered the country legally. They spent the time and energy to learn the language, and they obeyed the laws of the land, and finally took their citizenship tests and passed. These Hispanic illegals sneak across the border, knowingly breaking the law, and huge numbers of them get together and rent a place, it's not uncommon to have 15-30 of them living in a small 2-3 bedroom house or apartment. Because they have a high infant mortality rate where they come from they continue to breed like cockroaches. Because there are so many here, they can't read or speak the language, and because of this they can't get drivers licenses they just drive anyway, and they get into accidents (Now you know why your car insurance is so high). Because of the high numbers of illegals, the limited resources for the poor are being consummed by them, the money slated for your childrens education is being diluted because of their children in our public schools. Have you visited an Emergency Room at a local hospital lately? It's packed with Illegals, and because they have no health insurance, we pay for their care. In the states that haven't outlawed illegals from receiving social services, that takes away from the poor and legal americans.
Many businesses love the fact that there are so many of them here. These business owners cry to the Republicans that they can't find Americans to fill their jobs in restuarants, and hotels, and other jobs along the same lines, but do you know why they can't find Americans to work in those Jobs? Because they are greedy and don't want to pay a fair wage for what the job is worth, and they know that they can get these illegals to do it for next to nothing, that's why!!!
I for one am sick and tired of making a call and one of the first things I hear is someone giving directions in spanish, any forms that you have to fill out are in spanish. The recognised language that I was taught in school was "American English" not spanish. Spanish was an elective, we should not have to accomadate for their ignorance of our language, just as my ansestors had to do, they should be made to learn our language. If I choose to break a law, I must suffer the consequences, as should someone who is here illegally. And if you love your Latin American country (yes this means the Puerto Ricans too) so much that you need to hang your country's flag or some representation of the flag on your cars mirror why don't you go back there.
Like I said in the beginning my relatives were immigrants, but they did it legally. The reason our country sets immigration quotas is to make sure that our society can absorb and assimilate them into our country without straining the limited resources that we have to take care of our own.

Posted by: LabRat | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

PC Gorilla wrote:
"I'll never understand the Left's constant pursuit of placing foreign nations and peoples above U.S. citizens. There would be no disruption here if they were all to return. I think the American people can pick up the slack."

I agree with your premise except that the Left is placing foreign nationals above US citizens. Wasn't it Bush who praised the outsourcing of American jobs to India and how it is building up their economy? Isn't it Bush that is not enforcing immigration laws? Isn't it Bush who is proposing a way to make illegals legal? Wasn't it Bill Richardson, a democratic govenor of New Mexico, who declared a state of emergency to stop all forms of incursions along his border with Mexico?

This really is not a Left/right issue but the republicans in charge do not seem to care much more than the democrats did in the 90s. It seems only us American workers care.

Now that immigration seems to have become an election issue, American voices may be heard and acted on. There is some hope.

Posted by: Sully | March 24, 2006 01:53 PM

Sully, I agree with you completely. Too many people are trying to write this off as a Left issue, when in reality it is not. There are just as many on the Right that will do nothing. And Bush's current policies are not helping the situation.

PC Gorilla:
"It's about terrorism Freedom, or are you too dumb, deaf, and blind to the truth to see that? Do you have healthcare? I know I do because I work for a living. I paid for my own education. I went through a crummy public school system in the inner city and I still obtained a degree. Just more excuses for the lazy to spout when they begin to realize they've destroyed their own lives."

Interesting trail of thought. First, I'd like you to provide verifiable proof that Iraq was connected to 9/11, as previously suggested for going to war. Then when that falls up short, please provide verifiable proof of terrorism from Iraq that did not exist prior to the war. Then we will have a reason that I agree on.


And yes, Gorilla, I went through the public school system as well, have health care provided by my job, and all that. However, I am not blind to the current situation in America. Have you actually read anything regarding poverty? Had you, you would see that it is very difficult to move up the economic spectrum in America, and statistics suggest that the amount of social class movement indicates that it is not a problem with the people so much as a problem with the system.

And regardless for the reasons of why you think we in Iraq (I guess you must never read the news because its loudly espoused as Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Get those Terrorists) we are still there. While our country can still use work. Please explain how that doesn't counteract your statement: "I'll never understand the Left's constant pursuit of placing foreign nations and peoples above U.S. citizens." Regardless of how you try to spin it, the spending on Iraq war is something orchestrated by a republican that puts a foreign nation and its people above US citizens in N.O and other needy areas of the country. You may think this is about terrorism, but Bush claims otherwise. Bush claims its about nation building and freeing the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 02:12 PM

This: "Then when that falls up short, please provide verifiable proof of terrorism from Iraq that did not exist prior to the war," should read, " Then when that falls up short, please provide verifiable proof of terrorism from Iraq that existed prior to the war." I apologize for the typo.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 02:14 PM

I don't see why so many people see legal immigrants and illegal immigrants as completely seperate groups? I would attempt to use undocumented immigrant (because that is what they are) but I am sure that Sandy K would try and blow me up with a landmine.

Abascal's comments are perfectly valid because he is worried that a guest worker program will pull away Mexico's best and brightest to the U.S. And he as reason to worry, because it is already happening. While most of you consider undocumented immigrants uneducated and troublesome, they are actually better educated than half of the remaining population of Mexico and also represent the most economically active and entrepreneurial sectors of the Mexican Economy.

Abascal is (rightfully) concerned that losing this cohort permanently to the U.S. would make economic development even more difficult in Mexico.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

The only form of goverment that doesn't have rich/poor is communism. Would you rather live under those conditions?
I do read up on current events Freedom and I realize what the campaign is called. We went in because we had reason to believe Saddam was a threat. WMD or not, he was a threat. Now that he's out of power, we must maintain our occupation until an the forging of a working Iraqi government is complete.
As for NO, all will be repaired in due time. If you're asking me if I think the situation in Iraq is more important than the Hurricane Katrina aftermath the answer is yes. I do realize there are people in this country without adequate healthcare coverage, but it's not something the government needs to intervene on. It's available to everyone who wants it. I've seen how the "have-nots" spend what little money they have, and it's not on healthcare or education. It's on "tricked out" SUVS, drugs, and alcohol. Sorry, maybe I should say it's spent on things they "want" rather than on things they "need." Saddest part of it all is that working class individuals such as you and I fund all that.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 02:24 PM

PC Gorilla, wow. I think you offended pretty much everyone. Except of course, Saddam Hussein, who will be happy to know that at least someone in the U.S. thinks that he was a threat to our way of life.

I am curious how you can make the statement that healthcare is available to everyone who wants it.

So do you mean it is available? Or it is affordable? Right now I make about $18,000 a year, if the university I attended didn't guarantee me healthcare, there is no way I would be able to afford it. And if I was a woman, it would be even worse.

Witness:

if you make $18-20,000 a year you take home about 1200 a month. If you live in the DC area, your rent will be at least $600. if you are a women an "adequate" healthcare plan will run you $400-450 a month.

Lets say you don't have cable or a landline, but a $40 cell phone bill and a $100 electric bill.

So now you have $60 for food, gas, and any emergencies? I think you need to re do your math.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

PC Gorilla:
Obviously you haven't actually looked into the situation of poverty in America because all you do is spout hopeless party stereotypes used to demonize the growing population of people living below the poverty line. I suggest you read Shipler's "The Working Poor" for a start and try to look behind the stereotypes that people such as yourself and Ford tend to focus on.

And yes there are people that fit your stereotype. But there are also people that work double the hours that you do trying to make enough to provide for their family. Often, it is not the case that they are in their positions based off of bad life choices, but on situational events that rob them of the oppurtunities that others have.

As for health care coverage available to everyone that wants it, please explain how. I know of several hardworking people with college degrees that cannot obtain it. With the current job market, they are unable to find any stable work willing to provide that type of benefit.

And just so we're clear, you're admitting with this statement, "If you're asking me if I think the situation in Iraq is more important than the Hurricane Katrina aftermath the answer is yes," that you are putting a foreign nation and its people above US citizens. So why is this a problem you point out with the Left in a previous post? By your own admission, you attempt to justify just that. Or have I wrongly associated you with not being on the Left?

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 02:36 PM

Greydawg-

Unlikely. If Abascal cared he would do more to encourage workers to stay in Mexico. Instead his contentious Abascal Plan "effectively destroys the right to strike, to win a collective bargaining agreement", "expands temporary hiring without union involvement and gives employers the right to lengthen the work day, in clear violation of the constitutional guarantee of a maximum work day", and "It cancels a whole group of labor protections dealing with procedure, proof of responsibility, and other matters of an administrative nature" among other things.

Furthermore if Abascal was serious about combating illegal immigration, he might discourage his own Mexican government from printing up pamphlets on how to successfully cross the border and avoid American Border Patrol.

Or if Senor Abascal were really serious, he could stop trying to limit the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the Supreme Court refused to allow backpay to an illegal immigrant. Clearly, if what you say is true, Senor Abascal would side with this decision because it discourages illegals from entering the United States. At the very least he could stop trying to violate our National Sovereignty and mind his own damn business.

Not that any of this is surprising, since 2% of the Mexican GDP comes from remittance pay. We know the Mexican government wants Mexicans to send home American dollars, and we know that since a majority of Mexicans feel they have the right to enter America irregardless of American law and further believe that the US unlawfully stole the southwest US, that Mexican officials who take seriously immigration laws face political suicide.

Abascal does not take seriously immigration reform. The wolf is guarding the hen house.

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 02:43 PM

Will, I did not mean to say that Mexico is a proponent of immigration reform. Indeed, a guest worker program with a path to legal citizenship would be the worst thing possible for Mexico, because over time those remittances would slow to a trickle as guest workers began to make homes in the U.S. and the amount of labor being supplied by undocumented immigrants would dwindle.

I agree that Abascal is not someone who's views should be considered when it comes to immigration reform. I was merely pointing out where his incentive was. From that point of view, his points are valid.

What is does suggest, is that we should not wait to implement a guest worker program and we should not use Mexico's back-and-forth on the issue as an excuse. If we are serious about immigration reform we need to make changes now, and begin an effective guest worker program that encourages businesses to hire documented workers and discourages further undocumented immigration.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 24, 2006 02:50 PM

I'm neither Left nor Right. I see faults on boths sides, but I see more on the Left. Healthcare is available to everyone. Anyone can buy healthcare coverage. It may not be as good as mine, but it's a start.
If you dont' make enough money to live in D.C. then you can't live in D.C. PLain and simple. I'd have healthcare before I had a cell phone though.
As I've stated before, the overall goal of Iraq will benefit the U.S. just as much as it will the Iraqi people. I feel sorry for the people who had to deal with Katrina, but asking the government to pull them out of hell isn't the answer if you're not trying to do it for yourself.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 02:54 PM

Greydawg-

"I did not mean to say that Mexico is a proponent of immigration reform. Indeed, a guest worker program with a path to legal citizenship would be the worst thing possible for Mexico, because over time those remittances would slow to a trickle as guest workers began to make homes in the U.S. and the amount of labor being supplied by undocumented immigrants would dwindle."

Wrong, the remittances would do precisely what they've been doing: steadily increasing. Your idea that Mexicans will just happily settle and Americanize is factually wrong. As was the case with amnesty in the 80s, legitimization of illegal immigration, be it through amnesty or guest worker programs, simply excacerbates the problem by encouraging more immigrants. The "drying up remittances", which may or may not actually happen, will be easily replaced by the next 3 million immigrants who show up annually.

As guest workers make homes here in the states, they accumulate the wealth necessary to transplant their enormous families from Mexico to the United States, so that the entire Rodriguez family can enjoy the wonders of decent hospitals, schools, and prisons. The entire family will *not* be documented workers, even if the head of the home is.

"From that point of view, his points are valid."

What points? That Mexican workers would be more inclined to stay in Mexico if their government provided pensions, housing, social development programs, and 1 million dollars per person? The latter is about as likley as the former 3.

Notice how "Reasonable Access To Collective Bargaining" or "Unionizing" or "Employee Rights" or "Fair Labor Laws" are conspicuously missing from Senor Abascal's list of necessary incentives. That's because he has spent a career supressing Mexican labor rights which makes him about the single most responsible person for our current horde of Mexicans crossing the border annually.

"If we are serious about immigration reform we need to make changes now, and begin an effective guest worker program that encourages businesses to hire documented workers and discourages further undocumented immigration."

Insulting. If we were serious about immigration reform, we wouldn't invite Senor Abascal to the United States at all. The only "facts" we can draw from Miss Messner's post is that the Washington Post is as unserious about immigration reform as the United States and Mexican governments are.

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

It would be far easier, and far more effective, just to imprison for a period of not less than six months in maximum security, any CEOs and Presidents of corporations and businesses that hire such people.

But that's called supply and demand.

Like the fake Drug War, any real attempt to cut demand is ignored, while supply is attacked ineffectively as a result.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | March 24, 2006 03:04 PM

PC Gorilla, please answer the question. So we're clear you feel that the situation in Iraq is more imporatant than helping US citizens in Katrina. You made a broad statement regarding the Left and I am trying to qualify your position and understand it.

Second, you are adamant about this:
"Healthcare is available to everyone. Anyone can buy healthcare coverage. It may not be as good as mine, but it's a start. If you dont' make enough money to live in D.C. then you can't live in D.C. PLain and simple. I'd have healthcare before I had a cell phone though."

This shows your ignorance on the matter. In NO, there were people who chose to get out of harms way. There were also people who fiscally couldn't afford it. Have you ever had to uproot yourself and move somewhere else? While doing it on a job that pays you below poverty level? It's not easy.

And your comment on cell phone also displays your non-understanding of the situation. In many cases now, a cell phone can be cheaper than a land line. My nephew used one in college as his bills ended up being comparable with a calling plan that was not minimal. Also, if you believe you can get away without a phone, please explain how one can get into contact with employers? Most jobs require phone numbers to contact you at during the interview process. Unless you're suggesting one can support themselves and provide healthcare working at a place like McDonalds.

Not only that, but you leave out costs for gas and food, when paying for healthcare. You've suggested moving out of DC if its too expensive. This leads to a few problems. Assuming you can afford to move, if you go to another city, it will most likely not be that much cheaper for living expenses. I'm assuming Greydawg's rent included utilities, as those are most likely another 100-200. So 400-500 is actually a pretty good rate for most cities. And if you move out of the city, where it might be a little cheaper you run into transportation costs. You need to pay for gas, insurance, upkeep on car.... the list goes on. And when you are making 20k a year, before taxes, you won't have that much more money to spend on health care. If you've got a better way, please provide it.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

Will:

"If we were serious about immigration reform, we wouldn't invite Senor Abascal to the United States at all."

Why not? he is here representing the interests of his country, from which many (but not all) of the undocumented (and documented) immigrants in this country come from.

re: Increasing/decreasing remittances. Sr. Abascal's point is that if Mexico does not do something to make sure that immigrants keep ties to their home country, then remmittances will slow.

I wouldn't be too insulted by Sr. Abascal or his country, because they are the second leading purchaser of U.S. goods, so our government may have some incentive for involving them in any discussion of immigration reform.

The idea of immigration reform is to ensure that all immigrants are documented immigrants. You raise an interesting point that with a guest worker program you would still have undocumented family members coming to live with guest workers, But how would this be any different from a situation where a husband has a wife and three kids that don't work? (economically, not legally).

Posted by: Greydawg | March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

Whoops! I see Greydawg included electricity as a line item. So scratch that. However, thats assuming heating is electric, and water is not under utilities (as it is in some cities). Still, in most cities you will be hardpressed to find liveable conditions for a one bedroom apartment under 500. Thats assuming you dont have a family or anything like that.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 03:24 PM

The best way to combat all those problems you mention would be to get a better job. The only point I'm trying to make here is that I'm not for my hard-earned money going to support someone else. The money I earn should be for the needs of my family, not someone else's. Government plans take money away from the working class and provide it to the poor. That's manure and it's not the answer. If I had the answer to all the world's problems I would be a politician myself. It's way more complicated than just an idea, and it will most likely never change. There will always be individuals without adequate whatever while others sit fat and happy. That's the way of American life, and you know what you can do if you don't like it.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 03:26 PM

Yeah I tried to be thorough.

I think PC Gorilla's point is that anyone who can't afford it just isn't working hard enough. Either that or God wants them to be poor (but only if you believe in intelligent design).

Posted by: Greydawg | March 24, 2006 03:26 PM

PC Gorilla,
I repsect your wish to keep your own money to provide your family. I don't respect blanket statements that insinuate taht the only reason people are poor is because they are too stupid or lazy or they messed up their lives and don't want to change. In reality, most cases like this are a result of situational experiences from childhood, as well as growing problems with America that inhibit people from the chances/education/early life experiences necessary to be successful later in life. The American dream is just that. A dream. It is possible for some people to better their own lives. Statistics show, however, that its not mainly a result of their own problems, but rather a result of the current situation in America. Just because you work hard enough is not enough anymore.

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

PC Gorilla strikes me as one of those people who would complain either way.

Suppose we kicked all the Mexicans south of the border. All the factory, farming, janitorial, and construction jobs would then be taken by Americans, right? Sounds great and patriotic, in theory. But Americans know their rights. They would unionize, and demand a living wage, health care, and retirement benefits. You know what happens next, PC? The cost of your soap bars, bread, office building rents and homes would skyrocket (like they aren't expensive already). Your company can't afford to pay you any more money in salary because of all the expenses that are hitting them. Then it becomes impossible to live, and you'd be really have your drawers in a bunch.

The uncomfortable reality is that, as much as illegal immigrants need us, we need them just as much to keep the cost of living at a tolerable level. American immigration policy, as it stands today, won't give the uneducated poor a visa to come live here because, whether this is correct or not, they believe they don't have anything useful to contribute to America. I'm inclined to disagree with that assessment, as are many Americans.

So we need a balance. We need cheap labor. We also need a way to legitimize them so they are not a drain on our resources. Whether the guest worker program is the best way to do that is up for debate. But tossing around racial stereotypes isn't going to help, although playing to them certainly makes great politics.

Posted by: JK | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

PC Gorilla spouted:
"The only point I'm trying to make here is that I'm not for my hard-earned money going to support someone else. The money I earn should be for the needs of my family, not someone else's. Government plans take money away from the working class and provide it to the poor.

So your hard-earned money should not go to support people in Iraq, to the families in Iraq and to the poor in Iraq? Why we are in total agreement!

Now if instead you would like to see the US stay in and support people in Iraq, are you willing to raise taxes so that you actually pay for this war with your hard-earned money, or should we continue to borrow money from the Chinese, a communist country and let your children pay for it with interest?

Posted by: Sully | March 24, 2006 03:59 PM

This is NOT what we need in the USA...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_re_us/immigration_rallies

===========================================
The Los Angeles demonstration led to fights between black and Hispanic students at one high school, but the protests were largely peaceful, authorities said.

Chantal Mason, a sophomore at George Washington Preparatory High, said black students jumped Hispanic students as they left classes to protest a bill passed the House in December that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally.

"It was horrible, horrible," Mason said. "It's ridiculous that a bunch of black students would jump on Latinos like that, knowing they're trying to get their freedom."
===========================================

This issue doesn't only affect "white America" it's Blacks, who also depend on those jobs and services. They see 33 million illegals taking THEIR native born rights away.

Then this is the icing on the cake >:(

===========================================
At least 500 students at Huntington Park High School near Los Angeles walked out of classes in the morning. ***Hundreds of the students, some carrying Mexican flags,*** walked down the middle of Los Angeles streets, police cruisers behind them.

The students visited two other area high schools, trying to encourage students to join their protest, but the schools were locked down to keep students from leaving, said Los Angeles district spokeswoman Monica Carazo.
===========================================

They DO NOT own this country, and they DO NOT dictate policy. Illegals have no right to be here, and zero rights to receive benefits citizens enjoy.

It's a privledge to be a US citizen, not a entitlement. If they respected this country, they wouldn't have broken our laws to begin with.

Christ now their kids are demanding rights. What next change our language and mores, too?

Sandy

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 04:08 PM

JK wrote:
"The uncomfortable reality is that, as much as illegal immigrants need us, we need them just as much to keep the cost of living at a tolerable level."

This is totally wrong. Illegal immigrants keep PROFITS at a comfortable level and salaries for legal immigrants and citizens artifically low. You make it sound like we never had a tolerable cost of living until illegals started spreading across America. You sound like Bush who thinks outsourcing jobs to India is great for America.

Look, hiring illegals depresses wages for everyone. When I was in college in the 70s getting a summer job on a farm was typical but today they hire illegals. Did the costs of produce go down? No, the profits for the farms that hire illegals went up. Same for painting companies, drywall contractros, landscapers, etc...

There is a reason republicans do not want illegals to leave. Their corporate sponsors want local cheap labor, pure and simple. And legal immigrants and citizens must compete in the job market with the 12 million illegals. So don't give me the line that illegals make everything wonderful.

Posted by: Sully | March 24, 2006 04:08 PM

I'm all for raising taxes to cover war expenses. What I'm not for is raising taxes to cover welfare programs, medicaid, or whatever else is there for the less fortunate. They laugh in our faces for waking up early every morning and going to work. "Gubment just gonna giv me mo money." I know first hand because I use to work for a rental agency. You got people living in government housing and refuse to pay their $65 rent. However, they drive off in an Escalade on eviction day while running their mouths. How about the grocery store? You've all seen it I know. Using food stamps for the necessities then pulling out "the wad" for alcohol and tobacco. It's ridiculous and that's the kind of crap you're all defending here. You might not realize it, but it's truth. If the government paid me to sit on my front porch all day with a 40, I'd do it too.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 24, 2006 04:14 PM

Greydawg-

"Why not? he is here representing the interests of his country, from which many (but not all) of the undocumented (and documented) immigrants in this country come from."

For the same reasons we wouldn't invite Saddam Hussein to our country to discuss Kuwait-Invasion-Reform. He is complicit in illegal immigration.

"re: Increasing/decreasing remittances. Sr. Abascal's point is that if Mexico does not do something to make sure that immigrants keep ties to their home country, then remmittances will slow."

You are taking enormous creative license with Senor Abascal's "point" above, none of which mentions remittances.

But you are right, it is in Abascal's best interest to keep remittances high since it partially funds the Mexican economy. Not to mention each poor Mexican that sends dollars back home is one less they have to worry about employing/schooling/feeding/imprisoning. It's win/win for Mexico to ship Mexicans at high rates to the United States, because the ones that do successfully arrive and hole jobs ship money back home.

What Senor Abascal understands, and what you do not, is that increasing illegal immigration is the best way to increase remittances. Mexicans don't just lose their ties back home overnight. For every Mexican that "naturalizes" there are many more to replace them, since illegal immigration has increased over time.

"I wouldn't be too insulted by Sr. Abascal or his country, because they are the second leading purchaser of U.S. goods, so our government may have some incentive for involving them in any discussion of immigration reform."

I agree, and these discussions should typically end with an "or else" clause. Senor Abascal encourages his citizens to break American laws. This is precisely the type of person we do not ask for advice from.

Furthermore it is in his and Vincente Fox's political interests to let the United States handle this unilaterally. If the Mexican government is even perceived as seriously addressing illegal immigration the people will politically revolt. The majority of Mexicans (by the way, 10% of Mexicans live in the United States) feel they have a right to enter the United States irregardless of international law. If Vincente Fox or Senor Abascal tries to infringe on this right by aiding Americans, the Mexican people will vote them out.

"The idea of immigration reform is to ensure that all immigrants are documented immigrants. You raise an interesting point that with a guest worker program you would still have undocumented family members coming to live with guest workers, But how would this be any different from a situation where a husband has a wife and three kids that don't work? (economically, not legally)."

No, the idea of immigration reform is to make sure that illegal immigrants stop entering the country. There is no "documentation problem" regarding legal immigrants from mexico (about 500,000 a year). The documentation problem is on the illegal ones who we do not want nor do we invite. Documenting them is not the issue, enforcing our laws and criminalizing them is.

My point is that Pablo Rodriguez doesn't merely invite his wife and three kids into the country, it's that he invites his cousins Juan, Pedro, and Carlos. And Carlos invites his girlfriend Josefina who brings her three kids (who will go to American schools) and her sister Juanita who, incidentally, is pregnant...

The difference economically is that Juan, Pedro and Carlos are exploitable workers and that Juanita and Josefina cannot afford to pay hospital visits because their husbands/boyfriends are underpaid. This puts an enormous strain on the hospitals to cover the substantial costs of 3 potentially disease carrying children with uno mas on the way. Did I mention the schools?

You can discuss the amount of labor America *really* needs after we curb illegal immigration. We can have a reasonable debate about how many Mexican laborers America needs by raising the immigration numbers legislatively so that the American people, and not the Mexicans breaking our laws, decide whether we want/can afford 500,000 Mexicans a year, or 3.5 million Mexicans a year.

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 04:18 PM

PC Gorilla wrote:
"I'm all for raising taxes to cover war expenses. What I'm not for is raising taxes to cover welfare programs, medicaid, or whatever else is there for the less fortunate."

But you support the "nation building" going on in Iraq? The building of schools, oil facilities, roads, homes and all the other wonderful things Bush says the media is ignoring in Iraq, all with your hard-earned money, but Katrina victims or the poor in this country should be given the back of the government's hand? Man I wonder who raised you...

Posted by: Sully | March 24, 2006 04:20 PM

But Will, I DO understand that the best way to increase remmittances is to increase illegal immigration. This is one of the reasons I want to decrease illegal immigration and increase legal immigration. Then all of the money currently being spent in Mexico can go back into the U.S. economy.

But your discussion about Pablo and his family is where you stop making rational sense and start making racist commentary.

The idea that just because someone has a Latino surname means he won't pay his hospital bills is offensive. The idea that just because someone is hispanic he is going to invite everyone he knows to come live with him (even though they can't work, because we are presupposing an immigration system that stops the hiring of undocumented workers) is even worse.

I would humbly remind you that whether you were Italian, Irish, Eastern European, Jewish or Greek, when your family first came to this country they were labelled lazy, shiftless, dishonest and a drain on the economy.

Don't make the same mistake that previous Americans did and discriminate based on racial or ethnic bigotry.

We both have the same goal. Ending Illegal immigration. We should try and craft a solution that assesses the demand for low wage labor and design an immigration system that matches up to the market for labor. We should NOT pass laws based on ethnic stereotypes and anti-immigrant bias.

Posted by: greydawg | March 24, 2006 04:50 PM

PC Gorilla:
All you seem to do is rely on sterotypes and single situations to speak on broad subjects. The problem with this is that it can be applied to other situations. How about we compare middle-class citizens and higher than cheat on taxes? Enron? Inside trading? Using the insurgents war on our troops to speak about Iraqi feelings at large? There will always be bad examples. You spout a stereotype. Can I spout a stereotype about Abramoff and corruption in the Right? No. Because it isn't valid, as its a distorted snapshot of a small piece of the whole picture. It's like evaluating the pictures of Saddam's statue being dragged down. Sure, in the small picture it works. But when you zoom out and see an almost empty courtyard surrounded by US military fencing in the Iraqis? Not so much.

You claim your own experience to make a blanket statement. I claim my own knowledge and experiences in soup kitchens, habitat for humanity and the recollections of my friends in similar situations. I do this as well as falling back on studies and also books on the subject matter, such as "Working Poor."

And you claim it is outrageous that we defend this, using the stereotypes you pull as the only examples of the entire population under poverty level. This is like me denouncing the entirety of the Iraq war based on the images shown of US soldiers torturing Iraqis. Or missing government funds that can't be accounted for by contractors. How about using the example of insurgency as proof we are losing? A mounting list of casualties years after 'mission accomplished?' Does this not seem a bit absurd to you?

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 04:50 PM

I'm all for raising taxes to cover war expenses. What I'm not for is raising taxes to cover welfare programs, medicaid, or whatever else is there for the less fortunate. They laugh in our faces for waking up early every morning and going to work. "Gubment just gonna giv me mo money." I know first hand because I use to work for a rental agency. You got people living in government housing and refuse to pay their $65 rent. However, they drive off in an Escalade on eviction day while running their mouths. How about the grocery store? You've all seen it I know. Using food stamps for the necessities then pulling out "the wad" for alcohol and tobacco. It's ridiculous and that's the kind of crap you're all defending here. You might not realize it, but it's truth. If the government paid me to sit on my front porch all day with a 40, I'd do it too.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | Mar 24, 2006 4:14:11 PM


Gee,

We're back to the Reagan's welfare queen propaganda game again?

Let's see since 2001 we've piled up almost 3 trillions in new debt plus the trillion or so they 'borrow' from the social secutity fund that does not show up in the debt number. That's 4000 billions or 4 million millions Gorilla man!

400 plus billion for Iraq already with no end in sight. 500 billion more a year for the Pentagon's war on terror. A 100 billion or so a year for the CIA and other intel agencies. Where's Osama?

Also go read about uncle Bucky's millions from the war or Barbara's gift to Neil by way of the Katrina victims. Man the rich are different they can help the poor while benefitting their own and getting a tax deduction at the same time.

Posted by: Wont get conned again. | March 24, 2006 05:06 PM

Greydawg-

"But Will, I DO understand that the best way to increase remmittances is to increase illegal immigration. This is one of the reasons I want to decrease illegal immigration and increase legal immigration. Then all of the money currently being spent in Mexico can go back into the U.S. economy."

Guest worker programs do not decrease illegal immigration, they legitimize it. The same reasoning was used for amnesty, incorrectly. You are assuming that as soon as we introduce this magic Guest Worker program that all illegal immigrants will suddenly register, and all the Mexicans down south will magically decide to respect our Guest Worker Program and wait their turn for a Guest Worker Card, much like the illegal immigrants waited... yes?

All a guest worker program does is make this country more accessible to people we do not want here. This is totally counterintuitive and why I cannot support the program. Until we can stem illegal immigration we cannot have a serious discussion about how many "legal" or "guest" immigrants we need because we cannot just assume that 3 million immigrants will stop coming. Guest Worker programs would encourages illegal immigration in the same ways that amnesty did.

"The idea that just because someone has a Latino surname means he won't pay his hospital bills is offensive."

This was not my point. The reason Paco Rodriguez won't pay his hospital bills is because Paco just came from Mexico and he paid the Coyotes all his money. Now he works for lower wages because he is exploited by employers. That Paco's last name is Rodriguez is reflective of where he is from, not reflective of any inherent racial differences brown and white people have. That you so readily made that erroneous connection suggests more about you than it does about me.

"The idea that just because someone is hispanic he is going to invite everyone he knows to come live with him (even though they can't work, because we are presupposing an immigration system that stops the hiring of undocumented workers) is even worse."

No, it is not just because he is Hispanic it is because he loves his family and wants to provide a better life for them. I wouldn't call this an offensive opinion of Mexicans so much as I would call it a demonstrably accurate one. Not that I need the anectodal evidence because the ever increasing 3 million illegal immigrants a year already suggests what the rest of us know, but my best friend's illegal wife (I was a groomsman at the wedding which was at my home, you can explain to my best friend how racist I am) just invited her illegal sister to visit. She is now an illegal resident. Oh yea, her illegal boyfriend just got her pregnant. Here's to hoping the whole clan can anchor in, eh?

We are not "assuming" an immigration policy that eliminates the hiring of undocumented workers with or without the guest worker program. Until the government can effectively prove their ability to do so, I'm not going to sit around assuming otherwise. We already have in place a documented (legal) worker program. What makes you think replacing it with another will increase enforcement of current laws at all?

"I would humbly remind you that whether you were Italian, Irish, Eastern European, Jewish or Greek, when your family first came to this country they were labelled lazy, shiftless, dishonest and a drain on the economy."

Just ask? British and German.

I welcome with open arms all legal immigrants into the United States, be they brown, purple, or green with pokadots. I especially welcome all my Legal Latin American visitors with open arms, all 380 thousand of them. Hola mis amigos!

"Don't make the same mistake that previous Americans did and discriminate based on racial or ethnic bigotry."

I have not and would not. You do not know a damn thing about me, guy.

"We both have the same goal. Ending Illegal immigration. We should try and craft a solution that assesses the demand for low wage labor and design an immigration system that matches up to the market for labor. We should NOT pass laws based on ethnic stereotypes and anti-immigrant bias."

We have a solution in place that assesses the demand for foreign labor: it's called LEGAL immigration. We can discuss the varying levels once we have slowed the flood of illegals entering the country right now.

Your "solution" for illegal immigration is merely to legitimize it. You want to rename "illegal immigrants" to "guest workers". A rose by any name, chief.

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 05:17 PM

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I don't trust the Mexican government as far as I could throw it. (Not that I trust our government much more) Vicente Fox and his government are actively trying to get more people coming north. It's good for Mexico: There are fewer people there, and the ones who come north send home money. The gringos take care of them with their schools and hospitals. And if someone gets into trouble, well, the gringos will put them in jail, too.

Lab Rat made a point about languages. Here in California (I live in LA), we have official state documents (like ballots) in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, two different dialects of Chinese, and Tagalog. And next year, health insureres in California will have to pay for and provide interpreters for people who don't speak English when they go to the doctor or hospital.

Then I hear today on the news that two cities in Southern California have declared themselves safe havens for illegal aliens. I'm really not trying to be xenophobic here. But that really is going too far.

Please. Secure the border. Build the wall. Enforce employment laws. And deport the illegals. I don't care whether they're Irish, Mexican, or Martian. I've had it with supporting them.

Posted by: Deanna | March 24, 2006 05:55 PM

Sounds like Abascal was saying to Emily and company, basically this: Tanslated or untranslated:

1. Ignore all my past undermining of America's sovereignity and deceitful promises on improving of Mexican worker conditions - like the Abascal Plan. Because the more low-skilled Mexicans cannot live in Mexico and leave, the better off Mexican society is. And the more parasites, like those with expensive medical conditions, the elderly, the children of ill-educated peasants of low IQ, and criminals released from prison can be sent over the richer Mexico's oligarchs get??? (Mexico is employing Castro's Mariel strategy of discarding unwanteds onto the US, just more subtly and with an eye towards profit - since the oligarchs get a cut of remittances, drug and people smuggling action)

2. Keep all the illegals that jumped the line, as it would be "unfair" to the law-breakers to ask them to go back to where they came from. Obviously an amnesty solution, which Abascal knows would trigger "Family reunification" as soon as it was legal, allowing him and others running the Mexican elite to dump another 20 million dependents of the illegals onto the USA.

3. He would allow Mexicans to return to Mexico, as long as the US taxpayer footed their retirement plans, since the illegals mostly do not pay into US social services and are a net drain on them throughout their illegal presence time in the USA. The money from Americans would pay for:
* medical care
* pension
* housing
* social development programs

Now, that's "mighty white" of him! With our own medical and social security systems going bankrupt - needing money we don't have - he wants us to somehow subsidize 10s of millions of Mexicans so they would be "willing to return to their homeland???" Housed, free medical care, pensions, and replete with other American paid for social services?

All while illegals have helped gut US pension plans, access to health care plans formerly offered to poor and middle class US workers in industry after industry???????? Damn!!!

Jeeez, Emily, were you and the others at the Post also nodding your heads towards Abascal's boots when the issue of Aztlan and the "fair return" of lands illegally seized from Mexico came up??

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 24, 2006 06:05 PM

Ms. Messner, You act as though deporting ILLEGAL ALIENS and unwanted, unneeded masses of peasant foreigners is untenable, because it would make life difficult...on the illegals... and others who are crowding our nation against the will of more than three-quarters of the citizenry. You say it would be "unfair" for the Mexicans.
Well, Ms messner, what's fair for AMERICANS? It seems you forgot that the United States is here first for AMERICANS. (Gee, I must be some xenophobe from the "lunatic fringe" you cite, huh)? So selfish!
Maybe this would que you in to a more objective reality:
I am coming over to your house to live. Set the table tonight. I am bringing my family, and some friends. You will not try to bar me from squatting in your house, becaues you're too polite to refuse me, and my extended family. We're going to stay for an indeterminate time (get used to our ways, because we're not changing for you), and along the way, we're going to make demands...afterall, it will be our house too, just because you did not stop us at the front door.
Though you will get very tired of having us there, some years down the road, you will realize you simply can't finally make us leave, because we had made your house OUR HOME, and it would be "unfair" to expect us uninvited squatters to make adjustments, or, you know, go back to our real homes. What is ours is ours...and what is yours is ours, too!

Yeah, right, Emily. You're not letting ANYONE in your house. No uninvited guests at the Messner residence. You'd call the cops in a hundredth of a second.
You are an enormous hypocrite. You think to piously tell Americans what to do with their country, and you demand you and yours have sanctity and seclusion. Grant to America, that which you would jealously defend for yourself.
America is not a motel, anymore than your house is.

Posted by: Alex | March 24, 2006 06:14 PM

Emily wrote:
"Secretario Abascal explained that in order for such a system to function as intended, Mexico would need to provide incentives for laborers to return home, including guarantees of:
* medical care
* pension
* housing
* social development programs"

Emily, did he perhaps also go on to explain that in order for such a system to function as intended, the US would have to provide matching incentives for laborers to return home, including guarantees of:
*no permanent medical care
*no pension
*no permanent housing
*no social development programs
*no permanent employment

did he????

Emily wrote:
"He noted that many illegal immigrants in the United States have been working here for many years, their families and friends are here, and they no longer have any meaningful ties back home.

That, too, makes sense."

Emily, I suppose that depends on what the meaning of "many" is. Does 100,000 constitute many? Sure, when it is 20 times the population of our own remote little valley. On the other hand, when it is just 1-2% of the illegal Latinos living in our nation, it is not very many. Truth is most Latinos maintain very close ties with their relatives back home, including those who have lived here many many years. Where do you think those billions in remittances go anyway?

No, actually it does not make sense.

Emily, where is your plan? Got one?

Smorgasbord for you:
1. Either build the wall or mine the border, because until we have actual physical control of it, this whole thing is hopeless.

If this is to remain a purely federal responsibility:
A. Figure out a path for currently illegal residents to become legal.
B. Figure out a controlled guest temporary worker program that puts the employers on the hook for control purposes.
C. Get rid of citizenship by virtue of birth in US territory.

Otherwise:
A. Provide the States with the authority to find and deport illegal aliens.
B. Provide the States with the authority to criminalize illegal alien employment.
C. Get rid of citizenship by virtue of birth in US territory.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 24, 2006 08:09 PM

Well Emily, you've really brought out the loonies with this one. Or is this what the American education system and culture has produced: closed minded bigots unable to handle contrary opinions and unable to reason from the facts. I wont name the individuals to spare them well-deserved embassassment but here are some of the more moronic statements and opinions so far:

"Not only wanting to dump their indesireables on our door (like Castro did), they also want to fill their coffers with international aide -- like they do in Africa." Obviously an insightful, well reasoned view obtained after much research and analysis.

"No mention of the countless communities disrupted economically, environmentally, or socially by illegal immigration in the first place". Such as? Who needs facts when you can use your own imagination.

"To boil down Abascal's point to its essence, he's saying that if the USA creates a guest worker plan, Mexico will reciprocate by transforming itself into a half-way decent country. Since Mexico has never been able to do this before, why would anyone believe them now? What's different? Wasn't this the argument in favor of NAFTA? How'd that turn out?" Almost too much to choose from this mildly retarded ot grossly under-educated contributor who knows nothing about Mexico nor NAFTA. Emily, you wouldn't be trying to be unfair to this poor soul by presenting views and opinions of people outside her limited intellectual circle, would you?

"Christ now their kids are demanding rights. What next change our language and mores, too?" No S....whoops!, these kids happen to be American citizens exercising their rights. You got a problem with that?

"I'm all for raising taxes to cover war expenses. What I'm not for is raising taxes to cover welfare programs, medicaid, or whatever else is there for the less fortunate. They laugh in our faces for waking up early every morning and going to work." A more moronic comment it would be difficult to invent. Does this represent the the apex of American understanding and intellect?

I could go on. This is deeply depressing. Goodnight.

Posted by: Eric Yendall | March 24, 2006 08:26 PM

Hello Eric. Here is a link to NSHP.org (National Society for Hispanic Professionals) quoting an AP article regarding a Hospital in east LA closing down because of hispanic immigrants. If you are really interested in having a discussion about the damaged communities then I would be more than happy to accomodate you with an endless tirade of similar articles:

http://www.nshp.org/?q=node/717

Posted by: Will | March 24, 2006 09:12 PM

Mr. Eric Yendall : You are in real need of an education as to the tragic effects mass immigration is having on this country.
Remember the concept pf conservation and sane population management? That used to be an American ideal, but it has been crushed by the weight of forty million immigrants in about twenty years. Our population was only about 260 million in the 1980's, and, was actually leveling off, headed for...and this is amazing...lowered numbers over the decades. We had done, on our own, the single most important thing for conservation. We had decided we wanted our children, and our children's children to live; in an uncrowded, free, clean land.

Yet you flippantly say, and I quote:

"Well Emily, you've really brought out the loonies with this one. Or is this what the American education system and culture has produced: closed minded bigots unable to handle contrary opinions and unable to reason from the facts."

Um, FACTS, Eric? Let's just look at some FACTS. (You can start by wrapping your brain around the staggering population explosion we are suffering, well more than 70 % of which is from immigrants and their offspring. Don't trust me as a siurce? Well, look then to THE US CENSUS BUREAU. Those numbers come from a government body that is hardly a right-wing mouthpiece.

Eric, then you cart out this monstrously stupid little statement, as you decry the supposed imaginary complaints against immigration:

"No mention of the countless communities disrupted economically, environmentally, or socially by illegal immigration in the first place". Such as? Who needs facts when you can use your own imagination?"

Eric, have you ever been to the Everglades? ( I am a Florida native, in his early forties, who remembers when the Sunshine State was full of open land. A true paradise. Now it is paved from Gulf to Ocean, and-I kid you not- there are apartments in the middle of the Everglades. Bizarre. The population explosion (again, 70% plus from immigration and their offspring) fuels the "housing boom." Immigrants pour into and saturate cities ( I damn well know, as one born in Miami (may it rest in peace). That place, and all of South Florida is a giant megalopolis now. But Americans did not want this, and we showed it in the most substantial way; we lowered our family sizes. Then Fat little Teddy Kennedy stumbled into Congress, drunk, with his pants around his ankles (and hey, Eric- I have always voted for Democrats, so don't think I am some right-winger!), and introduced legislation that radically changed American demographics, and our population size. (I concede that we Americans have been stupidly complacent, letting our cherished wishes be subverted by politicians and lobbies. We let the kooks run our system into the ground while we busied ourselves with the rigors of long workweeks and the complications of the modern world).

Still, now that we have more than two million new immigrants each year...maybe as high as five million, we are hurting badly. And since we allow chain migration of family members...since we allow children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to heve instant citizenship because mommy went to a Texas hospital for a free birthing...because of all this, we are essentuially doomed to an upward spiral of crushing overpopulation, almost all of it from foreign cultures who speak different languages, have little care for our ways, and are largely happy to assume control- or at least to divest us of our control of our own country.
But I guess overpopulation, the resultant environmental destruction, and the subversion of the will of the whole United States is not really an injurious thing to you, is it, Eric?
Or maybe it is. Maybe you did not realize all this was happening.
If not, Gaze on California. See the way Immigrants pour in. See the way Americans pour out, fleeing crowding, pollution, crime, strife, sprawl, congested roads, and culture clashes. See how they (not wanting to live in a supercrowded megalopolis) go to places like Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, etc. See how those places are filling up at a nightmarish pace. See the open spaces and irreplaceable forests, mountains, rivers, plains, and vistas get marred by more new cities, and more sprawl. See how the immigrants themselves now flock straight to places like Denver, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, and the like, because Los Angeles is even too crowded for them!
Sure, nothing is being hurt by all this immigration. Sure, Americans always wanted to be THE 2nd FASTEST GROWING NATION ON EARTH. Try and swallow that. It might be the bitter pill that wakes you up.

Unless you want to kiss America's irreplaceable natural bounty goodbye, you had better vote to curb immigration. There are no two ways about it, Eric.

Posted by: Alex | March 25, 2006 01:35 AM

Eric,
Sure, you don't have to look too hard to find loony stuff on this issue. It doesn't bring out the best in a lot of people. On the other hand, we really do have a real problem here and it really does need to be addressed. Now you can take the easy path and just debate the loonies, or you can take the hard path and debate the actual problem; namely, we have a currently uncontrolable flow of illegal immigrants across our Southern border. When you wake up refreshed in the morning, take your pick.


Alex,
Actually, the spoiling of Florida began long before you were born, and the early migrations came from the North. Then there is the sugar industry which thoroughly spoiled the Everglades with its runoff. We have also managed to do a whole lot of environmental damage in the rest of the country long before this latest 20 year flood from the South. I might also add the decline in our birthrate here was never driven by a conscious decision to save the environment. It flows naturally from the slow acting trends of social effects of industrialization and the wide availability of birth control technology.

Finally, there are your "cultural" points. We have of course, absorbed many foreign cultures and languages, some more easily than others. Early on, these were Germans, Swedes, Dutch, Norwegians, Irish, a few French, a few Danes, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Jews, Italians. More recently, Philipinos, Vietnamese, Indians, more Chinese, Koreans, Salvadorians, Cubans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Peruvians, Columbians, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Jamaicans, Haitians, Russians, and many more Mexicans. I'm sure I missed some. They come, we feel our culture threatened, they are absorbed and melded into it, we move on. This is something we have been uniquely gifted at, at least relative to the rest of the world. So cool it on that, especially with the Mexicans, who have been around and close by for centuries. In fact, they were in large areas of the West long before we white/black folk were. Unless you want to go back to our true Native Americans, Spanish was the original language throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California before the white folk overwhelmed those areas with uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Don't make it a moral or cultural or legal issue. The problem is that it is too much, too fast, and we just simply have to get it under practical control and figure out how we will control it in the future for everyones best benefit. Most of these folk are not bad people, any more than your ancestors were.

Finally, don't think we don't need some immigration. Its a matter of our demographics and our success at both leveling our birthrate and extending our lives. Unfortunately we have a system of old age support which burdens the young to support the old (instead of saving for our own old age support). That means you are supporting me, and there are enough you's out there to do that (barely). When you get to my age, there won't be enough for you, and that is a fact. So you are going to need a few hardworking young Mexicans with big families to make sure you get that cash support stream when you get to be my age. And you will definitely want them to be part of the legal system paying in their social security taxes which will be funding your monthly checks.

So lets just come to grips with how we actually get a practical handle on this, shall we?

Posted by: Cayambe | March 25, 2006 05:16 AM

Oh, we won't be needing immigration for a long time now. Since the immigrants are catholic (which birth control is a no-no) and have large families, in contrast to citizens.

And Eric, get a life. What I stated about Castro is a fact (he did indeed empty his jails and forced them to flee into international waters, which is why we had them in federal pen -- which they rioted in demanding cultural sensitivity. Ask your bud Clinton about it). And it's the same policy Mexico is practicing...exporting undesirables, because if they riot and start a revolution, they'll lose their land (which natives are fighting for) and money.

Like in Iraq, the US underestimates (or just plain stupid) on cultural impacts. This is one area they don't want to address, because to acknowledge it would get the US citizens irate.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 25, 2006 05:52 AM

Hello Cayembe:
I never stated that Florida (or California) weren't being populated before the huge swell of the last decade. But there is simply no denying we are in a huge population explosion. Neither can you deny that most Americans do NOT want it. (Nor do most of us want to be displaced by foreign cultures- as no culture on earth has ever wanted to, or should.

THREE HUNDRED MILLION people is enough. (Why would you want more? (Your talk about previous waves of migration has to be viewed in relative terms, but you fail to realize that absolute numbers and realities, trump relativities. Population growth , like on a richter scale, has enormously more impact at a level like 300 million, than it would when there are only 20 or 40 million people. Critical mass is critical mass. And like any good conservationist, I say we shouldn't try to torture up arguments that we could absorb more...the point is, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO?

If you support the importation of tens of millions of foreigners to take American jobs (and perhaps trot out the utterly false statement that these are merely "jobs Americans won't do"), and to crowd our country, then the burden is on YOU to prove why it is a good thing.
By the way, throw morals out of it if you want. I have mixed cement with a shovel and my broken back. I have laid carpet. I have washed dishes, bussed tables, cooked, mowed lawns, and I have a Master's degree. I was born to a middle class family and lacked nothing. I began work at fourteen and paid my way through college. I come from a very comfortable small-town life, but I did all those jobs "Americans won't do." Those are jobs we ALL did, until the wages got pushed through the floor, because a Mexican would do them for much less, and a greedy employer decided to start hiring only those Mexicans-which are like a pseudo-slave class. And it does not stop there, by a long shot. High-tech firms salivate over bringing in Bachelor's, Master's and even PhD level workers from all over the world. They are taking the BEST jobs in America. Even physicians are brought in from other countries, because they work for less.
Call it economics, if you want, Cayembe. IT IS ALSO YOUR FUTURE, if you are, say in your teens or twenties. You have become a replaceable, expensive anachronism, as an American citizen (if you are one), who has the haughtiness to think your work, your investment, and your education grants you any rights at all.
Maybe you could oppose mass immigration on these terms. I truly feel sorry for twenty-somethings who have nowhere to go. You deserve more.You should never be displaced by a tech worker from India (who, by golly just happens to accept a wage one-third below yours). Bill Gates and the like can lie to the people all they want about the imaginary need for more such workers, and the dirth of such in this country. Bill gates mants more cash. He is as rich as God, and still he needs more. He is a great philanthropist (in his mind, I am sure), but he robs Peter to pay Paul.
Really, Cayembe, there is a huge and treacherous trend to level all of us, you included., to work the jobs we work. The richest people, for some reason, want more, and ever more. They are importing people we don't want. The people they are importing already have designs on taking over. (Why beat about the bush? I will not mince words; Hispanic culture is aggressive and rather culturally chauvanistic. They do not assimilate; they demand accomodation). Our very free system (which was never intended by the Founding Fathers, or any subsequent generation to be used this way), has become a vehicle for these foreigners to impose their political will. We can stem this through activism and awareness...not to mention guts. Don't be duped by the PC priests, the fat-cat industrialists, or the immigrant lobies who want to make America into their colony. This is a terrible thing.

And as to birth rates declining, you can claim it just sort of happened as a natural consquence of impersonal trends.
You are making a dry, and rather irrelevant point. You think to dismiss the wishes of a people. It doesn't fly.
If you like crowding, go elsewhere. If you doubt the numbers, study them.
If you don't care about open spaces, natural habitat, farmland, clean and plentiful water-and if you're willing to sell off the national heritage and bounty for a nod to multiculturalism, or to provide cheap labor for a very few very rich people, then you are against about 70-80% of the citizens of the USA.
You should value your surroundings. It sometimes takes hard choices to make a better world, or to preserve good things.

I think maybe you're either apathetic, affraid to be called out as some type of extremist (a very hollow accusation, by the way), or maybe you think America should be remade, socially and racially, into some other type of place.

If you are into re-engineering America's demographics...if you think the nation that Began over 90% Anglo, and remained so up until about 1965 (and is about 70 % Anglo today), then remember that over 90 % of the world is non-Anglo. You have a very wide choice of other places to go. Maybe you can go to one of those places, and start telling the locals you want to change their racial makeup, and crowd their country with tens of millions of foreigners. I am sure you will be greeted most warmly. Like say, being skewered and barbequed.
It doesn't fly anywhere.
I know you conceded that it (immigration) is too much too fast. I just think you fail to understand how catastrophic it is. Huge numbers of people from other societies, that barely assimilate, which crowd the land, and which clammor for political changes made to suit them...these are things no sane nation would invite.
And, Cayembe...Americans never invited it.
Best to you.

Posted by: Alex | March 25, 2006 04:44 PM

I agree whole-heartedly with Alex in this case.
I live in Los Angeles and I AM SICK OF THE CRUSH OF "IMMIGRANTS" TO OUR CITY BECAUSE OF IT'S "SANCTUARY" POLICY. Traffic is grid-locked, our hospitals are closing, E.R.'s are mobbed, our schools are failing, and today Mayor Villaragoisa said he speaks for all of the people of L.A. WRONG!! HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THOSE OF US WHO FEEL OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND RIGHTS AS CITIZENS WHO DO FOLLOW THE LAW ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE HISPANIC MINORITY/MAJORITY. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS IN MY CITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS, MY OWN INCLUDED. HOUSING IS OUT OF SIGHT, WHOLE FAMILIES LIVE IN GARAGES (I HAVE SEEN THEM MYSELF) AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT AVAILABLE. I AM NOT XENOPHOBIC, I JUST FEEL THAT AS A CITIZEN MY VOICE SHOULD CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN A NON-CITIZEN OR LEGAL RESIDENT. BUT WHICH LEGILATOR IS LISTENING TO ME AND MILLIONS OF VOTERS LIKE ME. CITIZEN'S RIGHTS SHOULD TRUMP IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS.

Posted by: DIAWINS | March 25, 2006 09:15 PM

So to sum up the opposition of this uncontrolled immigration with citizens:

1. Illegal immigration.
---a. Host country has no idea of criminal record.
---b. No way of knowing their health (even Ellis Island immigrants were screened for diseases like TB, and denied access due to it).
---c. Immigration is too rampant to readily be absorbed, causing laugage barriers and funding to assimilate them.
---d. Theft of identity. No work permits (green cards), no SSN#, no driver's license to get legal employment, without turning to crime.

2. Jobs
---a. Most trade jobs are in jeopardy.
---b. Areas with heavy construction and trade work most affected, which affects local economies as the work pay isn't being spent in the community, but sent back home.
---c. Work/code standards. Little accountability if structural damage occurs, as it's "all under the table" work. If dozens or more people die due to a roof collapse, not only the owner is liable, the country is for allowing illegals to work in the first place. Localities, States and SCOTUS will be locked down with appealate cases on the subject.

3. Social services
---a. Illegals tend to have larger families (the norm in the US is 2 kids per family, as that's about what the average can afford to raise properly -- insurance, healthcare, an education).
---b. Education is remedial. Costly remedial education will be needed to get illegals to pass standardized testing. This is before mainstreaming them into public schools (otherwise they'll fail and become a socio-economic problem).
---c. Healthcare for the non-insured is beyond what localities can afford (public hospitals get their funding from the State -- Medicaid). And because illegals don't tend to visit less costly public health centers for healthcare (like for antibiotics and prenatal care), they tend to go for ER services, which are 3 to 10x more expensive. They don't go to those clinics because they have no legal SSN#, which paperwork requires for residency and need purposes. It's not necessary for the ER as they treat first, ask later.
-----a. Disease prevention with illegals is non-existent. If an illegal winds up being the vector for Bird Flu or the next virii, there will be such a backlash over the issue that this immigration debate now will pale to it! They are not uptodate with vaccinations (and will bring it to public schools that don't bother to check it); they bring exotic diseases to are wiped out in the US on our shores (especially tropical diseases, which some are horrific).
---d. Family planning. Since these are mostly Catholic immigrants who don't apply for family planning services, overpopulation and abuse (especially physical) are factors that clash with the country today. Having 6 children living day-to-day is a burden for the entire community who are responsible and trying to uplift their lot by controlling having children.

These factors can't be ignored, and have been brewing for 5 years. It's an issue now because the focus on the border, but it's not a wedge issue. It's legit on all accounts, especially how the US can absorb so many in a day where social services cost much more than in the turn of the 20th century (as it's required to meet standards that didn't exist then).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 25, 2006 10:38 PM

Alex,
Wow......I'm not sure whether I just don't write clearly enough or you are too wound up to read clearly. :o)
1. Actually, I thought 200 million was more than enough. But we never had the stomach to do what the Chinese did, i.e. keep it to one child per family.
2. I don't support the import of 10's of millions of foreigners to take American jobs. And I do believe that doing so both depresses wages and displaces domestic labor and overburdens public services. I also believe it reduces consumer prices.
3. Yes, I am an American citizen. I am 65, long past my 20's I'm afraid, and most anxious to keep you working so my monthly SS check continues to be funded.
4. While I was born here (with blue eyes and red hair), I grew up in South America, so Hispanic culture is something I've experienced from the inside so to speak. I never found it aggressive; somewhat more emotional perhaps, and rather more easygoing, but certainly not aggressive. It is decidedly odd to hear them described as such when at the same time we are in an absolute outrage that the Afghans should dare to apply their own law to their own citizen in their own country over our objection. And I don't suppose that we are being aggressive in Iraq either right? Alex, we are for a fact, the most aggressive nation on the planet, bar none. Aggressive in our political dictates, our cultural dictates, our economic dictates, our security dictates.
5. I don't think your Anglo percentages are quite right. Just the black population alone is over 10% as I recall, or don't you count them? And I don't believe the current Anglo percentage is anywhere close to 70%. As a matter of fact, I believe that here in California it has relatively recently dropped below 50%.
6. I am as anxious as thee in wanting to gain physical control of the flow of people across the southern border. I remain of the opinion that having done that, we would be wisest to absorb and assimilate most of the ones already here as opposed to launching a nationwide manhunt to track them down and throw them out. I also remain of the opinion that it will be found useful to import cheap labor for certain particular business's that are exposed to foreign competition also using cheap labor, perhaps even cheaper. But you can't effectively do that without also having real control of the border.
7. As for inviting it. Actually we did invite it. We invited it by refusing to enforce the 1986 immigration law. This is a failure of our political system we seem to be so proud of. It is a product of the broad corruption of both the executive branch and the legislative branch by well funded and well focused special interests coupled with a complete lack of principle or integrity in our political parties.

Hasta luego.....

Posted by: Cayambe | March 25, 2006 11:41 PM

It takes about 60 years (the 2nd generation) to really assimilate those who are here today. If they're even willing to assimilate.

That folks are protesting being sent back home for not assimilating and coming here legally, that shows the US what trouble they'll be on the political level, as well (like demanding more social services for them, over even the native born [and I mean those born here not from illegals <-- the US really needs to curb that loophole, too as it's being exploited]).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 26, 2006 12:59 AM

Cayembe:
I never supported Presidente Boosh. His "invade the world, invite the world" neocon policies are insanity to me.

And if you think 200 million people was enough for the good 'ol USA, then I count you as an Ally.

Maybe we agree more than we disagree.
By the way, I think it is also a shame that European and US investors are buying up South American land and resources. They belong to the peoples of those countries.
I do not accept globalism, but rather think all these different cultures should be allowed to maintain their identities. ( I do have a special concern for my own culture, which should be understandable to all, so long as they are not tainted by hatred of Anglos, or political correctness).


Being under the yoke of a few fantastically rich S.O.B.s who view us all as drones and consumers is my idea of hell on Earth. I am for vigorous efforts to resist this trend, rather than accept it as inevetable. Hard as it may be, I think Americans (and all elsewhere) should be much more proactive in the defense of their way of life, in the face of these heartless economic and social onslaughts.

Finally, deportation may sound ugly, and it would be difficult. But so many necessary things are difficult. Nothing good is easy or free. We have to regain balance, and rule of law. Again, I say Americans have a right to keep this country the way they like it. We should not be cowed by a vocal minority that wants to ram all this down our throats. I support every other country in the world in their efforts to be free of unwanted outside influence. I just want my home to be preserved.
Take care.

Posted by: Alex | March 26, 2006 01:28 AM

Hello Cayembe:
OK, maybe its unfair for me to conclude with a conciliatoty gesture, then try to get in a Parting shot, but;
You have said that Americans "invited" this huge wave of Hispanic immigration. But you liken our recent political apathy (which I did in fact cite as a problem, and did
accept responsibility for) to actually WANTING this displacement, overcrowding and strife. Don't confuse our jaded nonparicipation with actually desiring to be overrun.
I know that after 60 -70 hour work weeks, I have at times been just unable to cope with the crap and silly lies coming off the TV, and from politicians. I contributed my obligatory votes (all for Democrats)every two years, and actually (gasp!) refused to vote in the 2000 elections, because it all seemed so circuis-like, so much a sham of a mockery of a travesty (to parphrase Woody Allen). My life, and my problems seemed so very removed from the moronic lies being parried back and forth by Moron Gore, and Traitor Bush. They each would screw this country in their own style. It seemed distant and surreal to me.
But now I participate, every week, through some very sensible internet organizations, and I find it quite easy and cheap to access all my politicians. I find many of them even respond. I have found that American political non-participation is not excuseable. With the 'Net, it is easy and free. I spend about ten minutes a week on emails and calls, and millions more like me do the same.
I use www.numbersusa.com and www.fairus.org.

These provide easy contacts with House members, and Senators, even the white house. Our efforts have dramatically changed the proceedings of immigration debate, and even the substance. We are focused on facts, and rational solutions.
I encourage all who are concerned about this to inquire at these sites. You might be shocked how easy and effective it is.


Funny thing about that. (And I am not trying to anger you here). Senators are being bombarded with phone calls, emails and faxes regarding the legislative action over immigration. The House was simmilarly innundated as they worked their immigration bill.
But nobody, really, is calling in, or emailing, and asking senators to "please crank up those amnesties, and let more people in." Nobody except maybe a few illegal aliens. And any such volume is almost non-existant.
Tom Tancredo has posed the question to the Senate, as to how many requests the Senators are getting to actually increase immigration, or give amnesty. He was greeted with utter silence. That's because the response from American citizens has been overwhelmingly, and consistently, to curb immigration, and grant no more amnesties. Most are also in favor of employer sanctions, and many, if not most want a border fence, and military oversight of the border. ( I used to be against such measures, but now the state of emergency demands strong action, no matter what the esthetics, or the short-term costs). Mexico can recover from the "insult" of a wall, and it had better see to its own problems, instead of dumping them on the USA. Mexicans need to go home and make their homeland a place worth living in. They will have to be brave, industrious, and organized. Let them throw their terribly corrupt government and elites out of power, and forge a new nation built on representative democracy, not bribes and coercion. Hard to do? You bet. Are they up to it, or will they insist instead on squatting here, and complaining we don't love them?
If they go back and do the right thing, I will support them. That woulsd make me proud to be their neighbors. I don't like resenting them, but with this current situation, being overrun by so many who flaunt their non-assimilation, even reasonable, charitable, cosmopolitan folks like myself, will get angry. People around the world have only so much tolerance for invasions (yes, and I do sympathize with Iraqis and even Afghans who just want the US forces out of their countries. Though some good may have come from the deposing of the wicked Taliban, and the maniacal Saddam Hussein, We have worn out our welcome, and any young Arab or Persian or Afghan is to be excused for hating us, even if we (the people, and our soldiers) mean well. And we do. But it is all part and parcel of the general problem: People want their ways, their people, and their lands. And so it should be. 'That's really my argument.
Maybe we see eye to eye. Hopefully we won't end up on opposite sides of a riot one day. A very bad place for two "old men" to be, wouldn't you say? I for one have too many scars and spare parts from a n active life, to go tumbling with a reconquista. But I will if I have to. Some things are worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Be free, and encourage freedom.
Alex

PS: I can safely say that I stand with most Americans in my views. Check out the posts here, for some evidence of that.
But, really, I bear no hostility to Hispanics, so long as they respect the sanctity of my country.

Posted by: Alex | March 26, 2006 02:26 AM

Alex,
Yes, the polls are with you in your views, but I don't pay much attention to that when it comes to my own views. I am reminded that the polls were very much in favor of our Iraqi adventure as well. Not so today.

I think it is healthy that you let your representatives know where you stand, and often. It would be even healthier if you voted for individuals who were aligned with your views, regardless of the party they were in. The truth of the matter is that this particular immigration issue is a battle between the populace and business interests, and the parties are stuck in the middle, between votes on the one side and money on the other.

The politics of it get pretty ugly actually. Read in the latest thread Chris Ford's acid take on Jesse flitting between his brown brothers at the border and his economically displaced black brothers in New Orleans. On the other hand, read today's WP story on GM/UAW to see what happens when the labor market becomes too rigid.

What we can all agree on is that we really do have to get control of the physical flow of people across the border. How we deal with the illegal inventory we already have and how we get control of hiring illegals in the future (which is an essential element of controlling the border) is where some compromises need to be made in order for this to work.

Best regards

Posted by: Cayambe | March 26, 2006 01:52 PM

We should deport every illegal immigrant discovered unless they meet the criteria for sanctuary based on humanitarian reasons ( they fear for their lives). I find it interesting that no one finds the argument of 'disruption of the family' a valid enough reason to keep a hot check writer, a drunk driver or a dope user out of jail.

Posted by: Sal | March 27, 2006 11:25 AM

Hello. Your site is great.

Please visit my site.
ring tones

Posted by: Jannis | June 20, 2006 09:21 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.