Immigrants' Attitudes on Immigration

At the massive pro-immigrant rallies across the United States over the weekend, native-born citizens participated, as undoubtedly did some illegal immigrants. And, in spite of what the rhetoric of illegal immigrants' staunchest opponents might lead us to believe, many of the protesters were legal immigrants who don't believe illegal immigration is inherently unfair.

A poll of legal immigrants* conducted over the last month found 60 percent find the tone of the current immigration debate to be alarming; more than two-thirds say anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise. Support for a temporary worker program and allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal status if they pay a fine and learn English clocked in at 68 percent. Four out of five of the legal immigrants surveyed also expressed the belief that illegal immigrants take jobs shunned by Americans.

The PoliWatch News blog points to a different poll concluding that immigrant voters in the United States (and their children and grandchildren) believe illegal immigration is a serious problem. Ah, polls -- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. (Okay, sure we could, but what would the pundits talk about?)

So Debaters, has there been an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment, or have we just become more aware of the sentiments that already existed? Either way, what might have caused the shift? Any immigrant Debaters out there care to weigh in?

*Note: The White House has doubts about one of the questions.

By Emily Messner |  March 29, 2006; 12:53 PM ET  | Category:  National Politics
Previous: Senate Delays and Presidential Politics | Next: Born in the U.S.A. (Part I)

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As long as a steady supply of workers who will accept sub-standard wages, unfair hour and benefit situations, and other employer-controlled labor conditions is available, illegal (and some legal) immigration affects wages, employment, and opportunity for residents and citizens. The complexities of the issues will not succumb to simple solutions, whether walls or legislation. If we really want to gain a solution, it will have to be through far more careful analysis than is presently being conducted and (yes) through compromises.

Posted by: Jazzman | March 29, 2006 01:36 PM

It seems to me that the debate is not about immigration per se, but about illegal immigration. It is patently unfair to penalize those immigrants who would like to come here but live in places like Darfur, (where genocide is being perpetuated against black Africans) and residents of other countries who do not have the resources or can not walk across the boarder. Illegal imigrants are not coming here because of persecution--the Pwe Center says that they are coming here for economic reasons--to make money.

The "illegals" and their supporters say that they are not "criminals," but anyone who knowingly breaks the law IS a criminal. The laws are there to be followed--if the law is unjust, then change it. Otherwise, what is the sense of having a law?

Posted by: Anon | March 29, 2006 01:44 PM

I deeply resent the intentional blurring of the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. There is no anti-immigrant sentiment in America. That would be the equivalent of hating our parents, our wives or our friends. There is, however, a strong anti-illegal immigrant sentiment.

Posted by: Paul Metzgar | March 29, 2006 01:49 PM

Anti-Immigrant sentiment? I have a hard time believing that any other country would be considered "anti-immigrant" for protecting the integrity of its boarders. Is there any place else in the world where people demand to be taught in their own language? Can I go to France, overstay my tourist visa, live there for 30 years and demand that my children be taught in English, instead of French? The madness has to end somewhere!

Posted by: Fed up! | March 29, 2006 01:54 PM

I agree with Paul Metzgar 100%. The idea of 'anti-immigrant sentiment' is something cooked up by Latino-identity groups and the press to stifle debate on illegal immigration.

We're being told that having a policy preference against illegal immigration reflects nothing more than 'anti-immigrant sentiment.' That's a simplistic and dismissive attitude that should not even merit a response.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 01:55 PM

Could it be that many legal immigrants were previously illegal and gained legal status from a legal relative or from the last amnesty?

Posted by: ThirdParty | March 29, 2006 01:57 PM

The MSM tells us that there are 11 million illegals in the country and they are all working. Of course, everything else says only 7 million are working. Hmm. where are the other 4 million? And what about the number of criminal illegals? Do they fail to report that one-third of the prison system is comprised of illegal aliens? of course not, we only hear the one poll from a left-wing San Francisco group that asked people if they were legal immigrants. Do you honestly think an illegal alien would admit over the phone that they are illegal? the WaPo has every bad poll on Bush and republicans, but cannot seem to find all the polls that state AMERICANS are worried about ILLEGAL aliens. Not legal immigrants. I say let us have a million more LEGAL immigrants a year. But ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL. WaPo should find someone without liberal bias to put down all the pro-democrat polls and find the polls from LEGAL AMERICANS.

Posted by: Karen | March 29, 2006 02:01 PM

I disagree. I think there is an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment. You can't tell whether someone is a documented or undocumented immigrant based on their skin color, their voice, or even what language they speak. Many people who claim to be "anti-illegal immigrant" take all of their anger out on anyone who they perceive as being "illegal".

Notice the above poster, Fed Up! CA has not taught in Spanish (except in certain bilingual programs for advanced students) for many years now. No immigrant, documented or otherwise wants their children to NOT learn english. (this is also in the Pew data). In fact by the second generation, most latino immigrants do speak english. But these negative perceptions persist.

I think the proof is in the pudding. Legal and illegal immigrants who are unskilled do not demand substantially different wages, they do not present a substantially higher burden on social services, and often they occupy the same jobs.

The difficulties inherent to anyone in poverty in a foreign country trying to make a new life are subscribed to illegal immigrants only by anti-immigrant activists as a way for them to avoid being labeled anti-immigrant and instead call themselves pro-border security.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:05 PM

I dont agree with illegal immigration. Several legal imigrants have to go through hell and back to be able to be here. That is after paying taxes, signing agreements that prevent them from using federal assistance of any sort for at least 5 years and having to deal with the unfair discrimination that comes from people fed up with illegal immigrants. I don't think illegals should be given the opportunity to become legal. People must follow the law. Come the right way, follow the rules and then ask to become a citizen or whatever it is that you want, but don't break the law and then ask this crime to be rewarded. Whats next? Murders having the right to kill? Bank robers being able to spend the money they robbed after a minor visit to jail? A crime is a crime and should not be treated any different.

Posted by: santafecmsb | March 29, 2006 02:06 PM

Greydawg:

What a load of BS. You cite purported evidence of how great illegal aliens are, but no evidence of this 'anti-immigrant sentiment' you belive exists. Who are these "many people" you refer to? The great "them"?

So let's see it. Where's the beef? (or pudding if you prefer).

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:09 PM

On the whole, I think the alleged "anti-immigrant sentiment" is really better characterized as a realization by many Americans that illegal immigration is a problem that's not going away.

The pro-illegal-alien crowd would prefer it that we don't pay attention, so they try to smear our newfound awareness as 'bigotry'.

We cannot let that work.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:21 PM

Sigh.


http://www.pcun.org/campaigns/InOurOwnWords.pdf

This is one of many reports with anecdotal and statistical evidence of discrimination against immigrants.

Chapter 6 contains stories of legal immigrants who have been hassled by the police. Women who have attempted to report crimes and have been ignored. Black Africans who have been shaken down at home for fear of being terrorists, A somalian refugeee who was stripped searched while going to Canada on vacation and held at the border, and US born citizens who are children of immigrants who have been harrassed and beaten because of their cultural heritage.

The many people are the contractors, apartment managers, and DMV officers who I have had contact with over the years who have discriminated and persecuted immigrants because they knew they could get away with it.

They are the people who protest an immigrants rights march and scream and yell at people who are in this country legally, keeping their heads down and their noses clean.

they are the people that write death threats to those who attempt to help immigrants in states like North Carolina and Virginia.

That's only a filet, but there is plenty of other "beef" out there.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:23 PM

Virginia, please keep in mind I know nothing about you, and would never accuse an indivual of being anti-immigrant (without seeing it with my own eyes). I am just describing my experiences to you as someone who has been out in the field.

If you would like to join with me and work to end illegal immigration in a way that supports immigrants and protects our borders, I would love your help.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:26 PM

Greydawg:

Anecdotal evidence has little meaning, especially in a country of 300 million people.

This is the self-description of the organization whose study you sighingly posted:

"Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste ["PCUN"](Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), is Oregon's union of farmworkers, nursery, and reforestation workers, and Oregon's largest Latino organization. PCUN's fundamental goal is to empower farmworkers to understand and take action against systematic exploitation and all of its effects. To achieve this end, PCUN is involved in community and workplace organizing on many different levels."

In other words, a finding of "systematic exploitation" will be the conclusion of every study this group funds - their charter demands it. I greet their efforts with a heavy heavy dose of skepticism.

No one can say that illegal immigrants are not exploited -- they are, mostly by employers.

However, such economic abuse does not reflect a wide-spread 'anti-immigrant sentiment' among the American people.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:35 PM

Gee Em,

Imagine it...the NERVE of those pesky CITIZENS of the United States, insisting that that their elected representatives UPHOLD THE LAW!

I guess anyone who doesn't ardently support ILLEGAL immigration is a cold- hearted xenophobic racist, eh?

Inconvenient little things like the law apparently only apply certain less favored groups.

These people protesting that the LAW be upheld have no inclination or desire whatsoever to become citizens...they're waving Mexican & El Salvadoran flags!

They're gonna show ol' Whitey...after all, he stole New Mexico, Arizona & California...pay backs are hell!

Posted by: Registered Voter | March 29, 2006 02:35 PM

By the same rationale, can't I say that your responses (and data produced by FAIR and other organizations) should be ignored because they are inherently biased?

Many of the people quoted in that study were legal immigrants and some were citizens.

Or perhaps this will help:

Anti immigrant agitators fumed about the "degradation of the white race" caused by the influx of these groups, and such views evidently were legitimated by the national decision to put an end to it in 1922. Highly placed intellectuals attributed highly prejudicial characteristics to the new groups, as in Woodrow Wilson's complaint that "The immigrant newcomers of recent years are men of the lowest class from the South of Italy, and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy, nor any initiative of quick intelligence"

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:40 PM

Greydawg writes:

"Anti immigrant agitators fumed about the "degradation of the white race" caused by the influx of these groups, and such views evidently were legitimated by the national decision to put an end to it in 1922. Highly placed intellectuals attributed highly prejudicial characteristics to the new groups, as in Woodrow Wilson's complaint that "The immigrant newcomers of recent years are men of the lowest class from the South of Italy, and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy, nor any initiative of quick intelligence." The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Apples and oranges. Sure, there was widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States in the 1920s.

Find any respectable person saying those things now, Greydawg.

You can't.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:43 PM

...Jobs shunned by Americans?

In a non-border middle American state, my fiancee cannot get a landscaping job (she's a country girl used to working farm soil) in the suburbs because 1) all the jobs are taken by illegals, 2) she doesn't speak Spanish and therefore isn't 'qualified' to be a foreman. Forewoman. Whatever.

I know folks whose teenage kids weren't too proud to take jobs at mall food courts or fast food places, but weren't hired because they only want illegals as cooks and bilingual whites as crew chiefs.

I finally gave up when calling tech support for something the other day (which was miraculously not outsourced to India). The guy I spoke to didn't speak English well enough to be on the phone. I talked to his manager, whose English was only *passably* better (both were Spanish-speaking). I told the manager that they had no business putting someone who doesn't speak English on the phone unless he was working the Spanish-only lines. When did English become the second thought?

Posted by: Taniwha | March 29, 2006 02:45 PM

"By the same rationale, can't I say that your responses (and data produced by FAIR and other organizations) should be ignored because they are inherently biased?"

You could. FAIR is certainly biased.

However, my responses, and those of other regular citizens, are not corrupted by being linked to any organized group.

Thus, the polls showing a clear majority of American citizens preferring a clampdown on illegal immigration are more reliable and persuasive than either FAIR or PCUN.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:45 PM

FOREIGN POLICY March/April 2004
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS THREATEN THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2524

A few excerpts:

"In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico...."

"The transformation of the United States into a [culturally bifurcated] country...would not necessarily be the end of the world; it would, however, be the end of the America we have known for more than three centuries. Americans should not let that change happen unless they are convinced that this new nation would be a better one."

This sounds awfully similar to me, Virginia.

And Virginia, even I support a clamp down on Illegal Immigration. I think it terrible for the immigrants and for America. I just have different ideas about what to do with the immigrants already here.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:48 PM

Poor Greydawg. Seems like you know nothing about the history of the bilingual education in the United States. Are you saying that school districts are not providing education to Latino students in their native language? There have been lawsuits over that in many states--take a look at the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols.

Posted by: Fed up! | March 29, 2006 02:51 PM

Greydawg, I see no similarity between Huntington's point and that of the race-baiters in the 1920s. Huntington is merely saying that (1) massive immigration will change the country; and (2) Americans should be given the chance to assess whether they prefer such changes.

Does he say things like your 1920s quote: "The immigrant newcomers of recent years are men of the lowest class from the South of Italy, and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy, nor any initiative of quick intelligence."

No, he doesn't.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 02:51 PM

A summary of Lau V. Nichols

The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565-569.
www.findlaw.com

This was a case about providing english language instruction (ESL). I don't understand your point, Fed Up! Would you prefer that immigrants DON'T learn english? Or would you prefer they don't come at all?

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:55 PM

This anti-immigrant sentiment, legal or otherwise, makes me think of a person who removes one of their own vital organs, because they despise it.
Like it or not, immigrants of whatever stripe constitute one of the columns that props up our economy. The economy of the California Central Valley for instance would collapse without the presence immigrants. I believe that to a lesser extent this would also be the case through out the nation. I am surprised at the passion, with which a large portion of the country want to chop down this column. I suspect that this high degree of irrationality can only be explained by a latent racism of the opponents of immigration. There is a phobia in this country that our complexion might darken.

Posted by: Bornon Wrongplanet | March 29, 2006 02:57 PM

You said "At the massive pro-immigrant rallies across the United States over the weekend . . .".

There were no "pro-immigrant rallies" the past weekend. There were, however, several rallies that opposed enforcement of immigration law. The participants, of course, were nearly all illegal aliens.

Posted by: LW | March 29, 2006 02:58 PM

Virginia if you don't see a similarity between references to the degradation of the white race by new immigrants and the claim that hispanics are currently the biggest challenge to American Society... I can't help you.

They sound like one in the same to me.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 02:58 PM

and you Emily, are playing a card that obfuscates...that there is an anti-immigrant sentiment....


there is a much _realer_ problem that you are ignoring.

the corporate, and owner "class" of people are pitting two classes of peasants against each other....


and you're ignoring that.

perhaps from the DC Metro area it seems like everybody has plenty.


that's not true.


One of the interesting things about the DC area is this:

in most cities where the cost of living is fairly high _all_ wages reflect that need to have more money to survive, down to motel, hotel, kitchen staff


that's not true in DC, they have boatloads of illegals _there_ that are willing to accept _less_ which keeps compensation low...


there are also lots of businesses that are run by internationals, that bring their _own_ illegals, indentured servants in and do them the favor of releasing them into the economy...


YOU and THE ADMINISTRATION are saying that people are predjudiced about illegals.


what YOU and THE ADMINISTRATION are ignoring

is that benefits for all classes have been receding for several 10's of years...since you're not old enough you don't know that...


my father set up a plant from scratch to build a high tech component...he was an engineer working in a fairly affluent industry....the workers in this "high tech" factory were treated as well as the scientists and had benefits at a similar level...my father retired from there about 20 years ago, and moved out of state.


when I went back there to visit, I found that the workers, were being replaced by temp workers, their benefits cut, and they had bad teeth.......


now that may not sound like much to you, but I grew up during the 50's....no one had bad teeth, everyone was covered either by a company policy or by the union....you didn't see bad teeth on someone that had a job.


the point is benefits and pay had been cut so much that they were not able to easily afford good dental care....this is something I _never_ saw growing up unless you went down to the backwoods of Mississippi, Louisiana or Arkansas where there were a lot of people living off of the land..........


employed people had healthcare that afforded them good teeth and health


even grocery store clerks had healthcare, and there were free clinics during the 60's and 70's that provided it to those that needed it that didn't have money...


bad teeth were _unheard of_

BENEFITS ARE BEING REDUCED, and ordinary people are _just_ coping...


you on the other hand are sitting around making up stories about why things are happening with no first hand knowledge, because, quite frankly my dear, you're not old enough to _get it_


the middle class, that occured after WWII, is being erased, reduced by an inexorable passage of laws, bills, actions that undercut the gains that occured when a lot of farmers got to go to college because they fought in the war...

this created a sort of Utopia in America with a large group of people, that could read, listen to the radio, watch television, at leisure and understand what was going on, and vote on it. That's disappeared and been replaced by a constantly working to make ends meet.


I need to digress: the high tech factory that I breifly went back to has plants in four other countries, 2 of them 3rd world

they were comparing production costs at all plants as-if somehow you could do something to make an American plant competitive with an Asian plant where they were making substandard wages...


they were importing 3rd world mores into the United States and asking the workers to accept them....they had no choice.


you're not speaking up for them.


you're not recognizing what is going on.


you're saying that Americans who are existing within that strata where they are affected by illegals are selfish.

you my dear, are effin ignorant.


you are supporting a president who thinks it's okay to start an occupation in another country, call it a war, because he wants to be assured that his oil reich friends can have a dependable future...


while he invites in illegals to work on his families ranches because, they're cheaper to hire....


since when has this draft dodging president shown a compassionate side? When he had the bin Laden family flown out of the United States after he took down the WTC, because he didn't want them getting hurt? perhaps...


the point is there are plenty of low-income people that used to be middle classed, craftsmen, factory workers, tradesmen that could use the work that illegals are taking


as well as real, bottom of the pile people that are having social services yanked away because _we_ can't afford them...


resent the illegals, I don't think so...


if they could understand why things were happening to them, there _would be_ a march on Washington complete with pitchforks, torches and probably some rope...


hopefully, they'll figure it out soon...


thanks so much.

Posted by: I don't see any anti-immigration sentiment... | March 29, 2006 03:00 PM

Greydawg sighs:

"Virginia if you don't see a similarity between references to the degradation of the white race by new immigrants and the claim that hispanics are currently the biggest challenge to American Society... I can't help you. They sound like one in the same to me."

I explained why I think they are different. If you cannot explain why you think they are the same, then you have no argument. Perhaps you simply want them to be the same.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:03 PM

In other words, Greydawg, there is a difference between "degradation" and "challenge".

If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:04 PM

Virginia:

Huntington is saying he thinks Mexicans are a threat to the American Way of life.

Anti-Italian and Eastern European Sentiment dictated that these immigrant groups threatened the American way of life.

Huntington's language may be (slightly) more PC, but he is saying the same thing. Mexican's shouldn't be here because they threaten "our" way of life.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:06 PM

Greydawg you have no idea what you are talking about and obviously you live no where near California. In EVERY school in California ALL Spanish speaking ESL students are taught in a sheltered bi-lingual environment for the first 12 months. Then they gradually move into sheltered English classes where work is done in small peer groups of yes bi-lingual students. ALL teachers who teach ESL students MUST have either CLAD or BCLAD credentials which means they have studied linguistics and, or are bi-lingual. Spanish speaking students also get Foreign Language credit for taking Spanish classes and many times fail their English classes repeatedly but advane thru honors classes in Spanish. Many students who are indeed children and grandchildren of the 1980's amnesty program are in these classes. Their parents and they were born and raised here - yet they still cannot read or write in English.

Now lets talk illegal - In Mexico the average wqage is about $1 an hour. Illegals come hear adn earn 700% more than that at $7 an hour. In the work force working under the table also nets the average minimum wage Illegal worker 20 to 35 % more than the tax paying citizen. That means that 700% more than they would make in Mexico is now closer to 800%. Then they take the bulk of that money and send it back to Mexico at an exchange rate of 10x the value of a single $ here. All told that means the average illegal is making on average the equivalent of $75.00 or more. The bottom line is that they work here and live like kings there while legal immigrants and citizens live in poverty.

Now lets consider working conditions. Many who work in Construction (a higher paying job) gain those jobs as day laborers agreeing to work for less, to work under the table (both of which are against the law) as men stand at the unemploymeent office or go from job site to job site seeking work as a trained construction worker only top find out he - as a educated citizen isn't wanted or needed - because the job he is trained to do has been outsourced to Illegal immigrants.

Agriculture workers do not work 12 months out of the year. On average they only work 8 months out of the year. They start work about 6 a.m. and are usually done working by noon.

Learn the FACTS. And consider htis - the Bracero program - was also called a "guest worker program."

Posted by: zephyr | March 29, 2006 03:06 PM

Greydawg writes:

"Huntington is saying he thinks Mexicans are a threat to the American Way of life. Anti-Italian and Eastern European Sentiment dictated that these immigrant groups threatened the American way of life. Huntington's language may be (slightly) more PC, but he is saying the same thing. Mexican's shouldn't be here because they threaten "our" way of life."

I think you are missing the point. In the 1920s, the view was that recent immigrants were 'debasing the white race.'

Huntington is writing about culture, not race. His point (do you really disagree with it?) is that massive immigration from Latin America will change the American way of life. Not the WHITE way of life, the AMERICAN way of life.

And his real point is CHANGE. He just wants Americans to have a voice in whether that change is preferable. If they think it is, then fine.

If not, their voices deserve to be heard.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:10 PM

you're like the *sshole who touches a womans breast and says...oh you don't like me because I'm ethinic...


well, no, it's because you're doing something that is _inappropriate_


and you need to _own_

_that_

.

.

Posted by: Hello mr framer, greydawg... | March 29, 2006 03:12 PM

Virginia:

I think you are splitting hairs. In the 1920's the "white race" was America. Like it or not. The discussions were about race because that was the language of the time.

Because it is no longer appropriate to talk about race, we use culture to discuss the challenges that immigrants present.


To Zephyr. Proposition 227 mandates that children be taught in an english only environment as soon as possible. Once again, if you think it is bad that children take ESL classes to learn english, then I am not sure what else you would like them to do?

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:15 PM

Greydawg: Thanks for the Lau primer. The point is that organizations like LULAC, MALDEF--and yes, certain federal "guidance" (thank goodness for the REVISED HHS Guidance on Limited English Proficiency) have used the Lau case to advocate not only for teaching Latino children in their own language, but also for using federal dollars to REQUIRE the translation of public documents into other languages.

So, while people tout how much "illegal" immigrants contribute to society, they don't pay income taxes, (becuase they are for the most part paid off the books), but they put a real burden on public services--hospitals, social services and education--which citizens and legal immigrants have to subsidize.

Posted by: Fed up! | March 29, 2006 03:18 PM

Greydawg:

No, you are trying to find a parallel that doesn't exist. Huntington says that massive Latin American immigration will change America. Do you disagree with this?

Really, do you?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:18 PM

is this:

the illegals

_don't care_


how they affect the citizens.

they _are_ playing the pity card.


_THEY_ are _unwilling_ to make _their_

country a better place to live...

_THEY_ are willing to contribute to the

degradation

of services available to the citizens here.


that is only part of the problem.

The main problem is that the affluents, primarily an international group,

are selling their citizen out.


And you _the media_ are assisting that, by reporting on stories as-if

it were personal, when it's very impersonal...


where is your story about this group of leaders, congressional, current administration


taking us into an illegal occupation of a foreign country...


where's your truth, justice and the American way?

eh?

thinking about that next trip to Bali?


do you know why you can't easily rent a car in Bali, or why television doesn't have any thing from the states or Australia available, or why their DVD's have a non-standard format?


they don't want to be invaded.


how about helping us out and quit pandering to the commercials running through your mind, that what I'm writing is


out there.


perhaps you're just kinda stupid.

.

Posted by: the real _thing_ is | March 29, 2006 03:21 PM

Virginia: Yes, I do. I still speak english, I still watch baseball. Televisions shows with white rich people from New York are still tremendously popular. I still see more hamburger stands than taco stands. Immigrants still want to learn english. Kids still grow up learning english in school. Everyone goes to church. Latino's represent a lot of the growth in the U.S.'s church going population. We are still the richest country in the world.

I just don't see any threat to the American way of life.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:22 PM

Greydawg:

So you think that massive Latin American immigration will have no impact on the United States, culturally speaking?

None at all?

Or you don't think that the change-force they represent is a threat.

I hope you can see that these are two different positions. Which is yours?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:25 PM

Virginia:

I understand the difference, I recognize the subtlety and, in statistical terms, I think it will have no statistically significant impact.

As I said before, or lives are the same. I see more of a difference from opening up of trade barriers with Asia (like the fact that I can buy those spicy Wasabi peas at the market downstairs) than I do with immigration from Mexico.

To those who will say, "it is different in CA" I remind you that the first restaurants, stores, and foreign residents of CA were of hispanic decent.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:28 PM

are you afraid to address the issues that I'm raising?

or is it just that I call a spade a spade and you don't want to deal with the truth...


you want to handle it as_if it were a predjudicial issue..


which is really what you're trying to sell?


for all I know, you and Virginia are seeding this thread....


.

Posted by: hello, mr greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:31 PM

Greydawg concedes:

"As I said before, or lives are the same. I see more of a difference from opening up of trade barriers with Asia (like the fact that I can buy those spicy Wasabi peas at the market downstairs) than I do with immigration from Mexico."

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Some impact from Latin America, but not enough to worry you. That's fair enough.

But what do you think of Huntington's point that current American citizens should have the final decision whether the United States is changed AT ALL by immigration? Surely you must agree...

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:40 PM

Well Virginia, when you put it that way, I have to say yes. After all we live in a Democracy don't we?

By the way did you know we are in cahoots?!??!?

I will qualify the above statement with this: let's make your point into a poll question. Huntington would say:

Mexican immigrants present the single greatest threat to American Society. They wil fundamentally change the way you live your life? Should we increase immigration? Yes or No?

I would say:

Increased immigration will have a small impact on American Society, and most American's will barely notice the difference in their day to day lives. Should we increase immigration? Yes or No?

These are very different questions, with very different assumptions behind them. If you don't believe that there is an anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., then you only need to read many of the posts above that not only attack immigrants, but also attack me for defending them.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:45 PM

Greydawg writes:

"By the way did you know we are in cahoots?!??!?"

Yeah, I saw that. We're "seeding" the debate, I think. Hmmm. Very strange.

Greydawg also writes:

"I will qualify the above statement with this: let's make your point into a poll question. Huntington would say:
Mexican immigrants present the single greatest threat to American Society. They wil fundamentally change the way you live your life? Should we increase immigration? Yes or No?
I would say:Increased immigration will have a small impact on American Society, and most American's will barely notice the difference in their day to day lives. Should we increase immigration? Yes or No?"

That would appear to be a good way to illustrate the difference between your position and Huntington's. The bigger difference, however, is that Professor Huntington produced a fairly long essay explaining why he thinks his wording would be more accurate.

If you don't agree with his reasoning, that's fine, but my point all along has been that simply saying that Huntington is nothing more than a more sophisticated racist than the bigots from the 1920s is not a fair or persuasive way to debunk him.

You have to counter his arguments with arguments, not name-calling.

Finally, Greydawg concludes:

"If you don't believe that there is an anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., then you only need to read many of the posts above that not only attack immigrants, but also attack me for defending them."

I never said that there's _no_ anti-immigrant sentiment. I said it isn't widespread and it isn't growing. There's a core of bigotry in every country, including this one. I don't see it as a growing concern, however.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 03:50 PM

Virginia:

:-)

We obviously fall on opposite sides of the immigration reform debate. If you feel that the anti-immigrant sentiment is not widespread or growing (as I do) and I feel that immigrants do not pose a significant threat to American society (as you do) then perhaps we are both right (and both wrong) and everything is a lot better off than we think it is.

I certainly hope so.

I don't mean to call Samuel Huntington names. He is a far smarter man than I am. He is not a racist. But, you must also remember that a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment from the 1920's came from well respected individuals, most notably Woodrow Wilson.

And let's be fair. I can hardly write a whole essay in this comment box! I think it is fair to say that volumes of books have been written on both sides of this debate.

Posted by: Greydawg | March 29, 2006 03:55 PM

Greydawg says:

"But, you must also remember that a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment from the 1920's came from well respected individuals, most notably Woodrow Wilson."

Yeah, Wilson was well-respected. He was also a big-time racist. We just don't allow those views in respectable society any more, Huntington included.

Greydawg also writes:

"If you feel that the anti-immigrant sentiment is not widespread or growing (as I do) and I feel that immigrants do not pose a significant threat to American society (as you do) then perhaps we are both right (and both wrong) and everything is a lot better off than we think it is."

Of course, another possibility is that anti-immigrant sentiment is growing like a weed, _and_ Latin American immigrants pose a significant threat to the culture of the United States. Worst case scenario. Yuck.

Anyhoo, I'm out of here for now. Nice debating you.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 29, 2006 04:00 PM

person, my mistake...

thanks for the lack of insight.

Posted by: oh, you're the same | March 29, 2006 04:10 PM

Addressing Emily's original point. I think that there are a lot of people in the public who feel that illegal immigration is a significant problem. The distinction that needs to be made is the type of solution that needs to implemented. Even "illegal" immigrants are against illegal immigration. They don't like sneaking around and living in fear of deportation any more than the government likes chasing them down.

What the American public needs in order to make an informed decision about this policy is an understanding of the history of immigration policy, and its current function and shortcomings. It is easy to say that someone should not immigrate illegally and should utilize the proper channels in conformity with US law. When those byzantine laws become too restrictionist and impossible to maneuver, desperate people take desparate measures. That is why comprehensive reform is needed.

I challenge other debaters to give me a brief synopsis of either 1) the history of US immigration policy; or 2) the actual procedures for legal immigration today.

here's a good place to start:
http://www.closeup.org/immigrat.htm

If a typical American citizen understood how our immigration system currently works, then s/he might begin to understand why illegal immigration is so wide spread and why the system needs reform.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 04:16 PM

The more people know about the number and problems caused by illegal immigration and the fact that millions have entered illegally since 9-11, the more people will start to question where our security is. We obviously do not secure our borders or so many could not get in. The Dubai Ports deal showed this government did not care much about who ran the ports, or at least did not care that anyone else cared.

What's happening is that people are waking up and realizing that what Bush has been telling Americans for over 4 years since 9-11, that he is keeping America safe, is a lie. They want things done as we were told they would be done.

Americans did just not wake up and find 12 million illegals in their backyard. They have been told over and over again the lie that they were bring protected. The illegal immigration backlash is caused by the same furor as the Dubai Ports backlash. This republican government is not doing its job, and at worst lying about it, and people are pretty mad. If the illegal immigration issue is not addressed with satisfaction, satisfaction will be taken at the voting booth.

Posted by: Sully | March 29, 2006 04:22 PM

is this:

the illegals

_don't care_


how they affect the citizens.


they _are_ playing the pity card.


_THEY_ are _unwilling_ to make _their_

country a better place to live...


_THEY_ are willing to contribute to the

degradation

of services available to the citizens here.

that is only part of the problem.


The main problem is that the affluents, primarily an international group,

are selling their citizen out.


And you _the media_ are assisting that, by reporting on stories as-if

it were personal, when it's very impersonal...


and you're trying to make it appear as_if it were _racist_

.


and then if you admitted that the United States had a problem taking care of the people that are already here...


they you'd have to admit that you don't care


about the people that are already here,


but you're asking them to care about


your friends.

_that's_


a little one sided dont you think?

or is that something that you don't want pointed out?
.

Posted by: I challenge you to address the fact that | March 29, 2006 04:23 PM

Bornon - You are so Wrong!
1) The entire San Joaquin Valley does not depend on agriculture. Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa,

The Facts are:
1) The average farm worker makes over $9 and hour. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageId=158


2) In the Central Valley, the unemployment rate is more than twice what it is elsewhere. If the unemployed were working; could find a job, they would be able to live better, the burden to social services would decline and the federally mandated NCLB would ease the pressure on the literate to make up for the illiterate.
By the counties here is the San Joaquin:


Fresno 9.7% 38,200 people unemployed
Kern 8.9% 28,700 people unemployed
Kings 10.5% 5,600 people unemployed
Madera, 7.9 4,800 people unemployed
Merced, 11.4%
Mono,
San Joaquin,
Stanislaus,
Tulare 10.2% 20,000 people unemployed
Tuolumne

Source: Labor Market Statistics
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov


3) Farmers are making every effort to mechanize planting and harvesting orare chooseing to stop farming all together because gangs are gaingin a foothold and begining to control who plants and harvest fields. So, competition has increased and there is no evidence that there are labor shortages in agriculture. As a matter of fact agriculture is not the


4) Workers are finding more lucrative wages in construction, landscaping, fishing, and food service industries across the country. They no longer have to work in the summer heat, or winters cold because they can and are working in an air conditioned casinos, restaurants, and hotels.

Posted by: zephyr | March 29, 2006 04:29 PM

that they were being taken advantage of by the congress and the current administration...


in that they are paying for an occupation, that benefits the president and his friends...


his international friends I might add.

why don't you have a blog debate about that, o peerless one?


or do you just like putting out what they tell you to?

.

Posted by: yeah, how about an article that points out how American citizens would feel if they knew | March 29, 2006 04:31 PM

El Naco wrote:
"If a typical American citizen understood how our immigration system currently works, then s/he might begin to understand why illegal immigration is so wide spread and why the system needs reform."

I fully agree. The INS needs to be funded properly and laws enacted to punish the reasons for the illegal flood, employers and individuals who knowingly hire illegals. Then we will see the illegal flood stop, existing illegals caught and deported, jobs opening up to legals and citizens who did not want them due to the low pay caused by the illegals, and companies who relied on illegals going out of business to the delight of companies who operated legally.

Posted by: Sully | March 29, 2006 04:34 PM

Oops sorry about the fractured post.
Bornon - You are so Wrong!

1) The entire San Joaquin Valley does not depend on agriculture. No county does totally depend on it. 9 of the 15 counties: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne do NOT depend on agriculture at all to sustain their economies.

2) In the counties that are ag based, the unemployment rate is more than twice what it is elsewhere. If the unemployed were working; could find a job, they would be able to live better, the burden to social services would decline and the federally mandated NCLB would ease the pressure on the literate citizen. By the counties in the farming area of the San Joaquin the unemployment rate is:

Fresno 9.7% 38,200 people unemployed
Kern 8.9% 28,700 people unemployed
Kings 10.5% 5,600 people unemployed
Madera, 7.9 4,800 people unemployed
Merced, 11.4% 11,200 people unemployed
Tulare 10.2% 20,000 people unemployed

Source: Labor Market Statistics
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov


3) Farmers are making every effort to mechanize planting and harvesting orare chooseing to stop farming all together because gangs are begining to control who plants and harvest fields. Competition has increased for jobs in agriculture.

4) Workers are finding more lucrative wages in construction, landscaping, fishing, and food service industries across the country. They no longer have to work in the summer heat, or winters cold because they can and are working in an air conditioned casinos, restaurants, and hotels.

1) Farm workers make over $9 and hour. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageId=158

Posted by: zephyr | March 29, 2006 04:41 PM

illegals,

get desperate enough to make


_their_ effing country _worthy_


of residing in...

I mean, WE have made things so hard on _them_


el effing nacho.

Posted by: why don't those _desperate_ | March 29, 2006 04:45 PM

with the reality that exists within this country rather than


your imaginings that burble up from your schooling.

Posted by: it would be nice if you dealt | March 29, 2006 04:58 PM

i deal with

the reality of the world

not the whining of people who can't get a job

despite the fact

that some illiterate undocumented worker

will bust his behind

to make a better life for himself

instead of waiting for

the police to do it for him

i went to school and learned about freedom democracy and human rights

i dream of a WORLD where those things exist not just in my backyard but everywhere

risk your life for a job and maybe i might respect what you say

until that time you are an effing unqualified to speak on this topic

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 05:13 PM

Sully said:

"I fully agree. The INS needs to be funded properly and laws enacted to punish the reasons for the illegal flood, employers and individuals who knowingly hire illegals. Then we will see the illegal flood stop, existing illegals caught and deported, jobs opening up to legals and citizens who did not want them due to the low pay caused by the illegals, and companies who relied on illegals going out of business to the delight of companies who operated legally."

Are you absolutely sure that these will be the results of the cure that you are advocating? If not, there are sure a whole lot of harms in that statement that won't be worth the benefits they purport to produce.

I think most Americans would support enforcing the law, but at what social, economic, and diplomatic cost? At what cost to our society and to our humanity? Those are the intangibles that need to be considered - along with the obvious cost benefit of sending an army of police officers out there to "bust" those illegal workers. This is about as high a priority for America as invading Iraq.

BTW, the INS no longer exists. Its called CIS, ICE, and CPB. YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THIS SUBJECT BEFORE YOU START SAYING SILLY THINGS.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 05:21 PM

Wake up. Here in CA their are lawyers everywhere making sure no one is ever asked about their legal status. CA is in the process of passing or has passed a bill that allows illegals to pay in-state tutition. They may be doing unskilled work now, but they will be doing your job soon. Why are the Democrats assisting Big Business with driving down wages and the standard of living in this country for CITIZENS?

Posted by: ThirdParty | March 29, 2006 05:27 PM

All this talk of citizenship. What does citizenship mean to you? Do you think that US citizenship guarantees you the right to a job? Does it guarantee you the right to health care? Does it guarantee you a right to housing? What does citizenship give citizens the right to?

Just throwing that out there for discussion.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 05:31 PM

El Naco...."What does citizenship give citizens the right to?"

The right to vote.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 29, 2006 06:09 PM

El Naco-

The right to vote on legislation that outlaws the illegal infiltration of this country by foreigners.

Posted by: Will | March 29, 2006 06:23 PM

you did this all by running away...


right?


.

Posted by: and El Nachoe... | March 29, 2006 06:45 PM

other than that, you're middle class whitebread with parents in the state department...


wat a larf...

Posted by: oh, I see you're qualified because you know someone that risked his life... | March 29, 2006 06:47 PM

or hang out in Atlanta, GA or Charlotte, NC or Miami, FL

with the Latinos...


instead of reading, heffi

Posted by: you need to get out on the streets in Adams Morgan... | March 29, 2006 06:49 PM

_YOU_


don't have the courage to stand up to your president and this administration...


so let's talk about _YOUR_ determination to make the world a better place


nacho gorl...

.

Posted by: oh, and back to the world things... | March 29, 2006 06:51 PM

you don't do that by making the _world_


_full_

of peasants....

George Mason, is not the _real_ world

I was in a class there that was mostly Iranian...the shah's people and Vietnamese and Cambodian...

an engineering class.........they cheated as a matter of course

it's what they were used to, none of the Americans did.


that doesn't make people from outside of the country evil it makes them used to corruption....


and you want to get used to it too, apparently rather than address it...


without an example, how will the world know what a better place is?

you're endorsing giving America away and ignoring a flagrant disregard for the citizens by congress and this administration and settling for some sort of doey eyed story about how hard it is for people in other countries...it is


and it's going to be that way here pretty effin fast too, if people like you decide that the

_truth_


is too rough, or needs it's eyebrows plucked....

Posted by: as to making the world a better place... | March 29, 2006 06:59 PM

here's some hard edged reality:

watch "Lords of War," and do something about illegal arms and munitions sales...


think about this,

"what difference does it make saving a childs life, if the world that you leave for them is a living nightmare?"

"saving someones life, and leaving them to live that saved life in a world that can not support them is stupidity."


this is the solution:

change the world first, then save the life.

create an environment that can sustain the starving, ill child...


not do some "we need to save the children" while ignoring the context of _that_ life corruption, poverty, lack of tools, etc....


saving a life is not equivalent to fixing a

_system_

quit being simplistic.


giving an alcoholic a drink is not a solution to their cravings

Posted by: take this... | March 29, 2006 07:12 PM

i grew up in da kuntry, no cable TV for me

just a dog, and a shovel, and an old truck till i went back to America

the real mean streets and the fields of this country working side by side with all of those people

you want to KEEP OUT as if this were some sort of country club in Alabama

i went to college yes, only public school my whole life and proud of it too

i studied abroad in Mexico - twice, no less

always searching for the reasons why Mexico is poor,

_why_Mexicans_are poor

why_there are rich and poor countries in the world

i didn't find an easy answer. i don't think many people do.

one thing i did learn however was that freedom is more than a word you had to live it and sacrifice to keep it

justice means more than getting what you want

_there is no one-

_truth_

we all see things differently *obviously* one man's guerilla is another man's freedom fighte is another man's terrorist

maybe you should

consider what it is you value most
freedom for all...

jobs for some...

america the little island...

america the leader of the free world by word and deed.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 07:16 PM

El Naco-

Will you please tell me why it is America that is responsible for providing for the welfare of all the poor of Latin America? If they have all this get up and go, why isn't it their responsibility to use that to improve their nation?

Posted by: wiccan | March 29, 2006 07:21 PM

wiccan wrote-

"Will you please tell me why it is America that is responsible for providing for the welfare of all the poor of Latin America? If they have all this get up and go, why isn't it their responsibility to use that to improve their nation?"

Please remember that these people want to get a job, no one is asking for anything other than an opportunity to WORK. You all act like getting a job is some kind of free lunch program - it's a job.

It's a pretty simple choice really. Work moving bricks around a construction site in Tijuana and get paid 8 dollars a day or do the same work in San Diego for 8 dollars an hour. You tell me which life you want to pick for yourself. 8 bucks a day and social activism on the side to improve the nation? 60 bucks a day and the american apolitical lifestyle with cable TV at night? Tough call.

Now you answer my question:

Why do certain people in the US feel that the American lifestyle is their exclusive province? Why do certain Americans feel that they own American jobs?

Isn't this the same sense of entitlement that everyone blames these immigrants of having?

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 07:38 PM

As with most Post writers on the subject, Emily repeatedly, and intentionally, conflates "immigration" and "illegal immigration".

These were not merely "pro-immigration marches"; they were clearly "pro-illegal immigration marches".

Again, the disconnect between the media and the public on this is amazing. Emily, you're outta touch. No matter how you try to massage the debate -- we know from your bio you're a debating champ -- people are sick and tired of illegal -- ILLEGAL -- immigration.

Build the Wall!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 07:40 PM

LMAO at El Naco! Why do American's believe they are entitled to run America? LMAO! This is your future people. Get ready to debate why we should have borders or property rights or a Constitution. LMAO! Who do we think we are? LAMO at El Naco.

Posted by: ThirdParty | March 29, 2006 07:43 PM

Why do certain Americans feel that they own American jobs?

Well, silly me. Now that you've explained it to this ignorant old American I feel so ashamed of myself. American jobs for Americans- what was I thinking?

Posted by: wiccan | March 29, 2006 07:45 PM

El Naco escribe:

"Please remember that these people want to get a job, no one is asking for anything other than an opportunity to WORK. You all act like getting a job is some kind of free lunch program - it's a job."

Falso, amigo. They're asking for:

US citizenship
Food stamps
In-state tuition
Free schooling
Welfare
Hospital emergency room visits
Police, Fire, and Rescue Public Services
Security (very expensive intangible in society)
etc.

It's time to do something about all of this illegal behavior -- I'm tired of picking up the costs for it, and being called a racist for not wanting to do so.

Build the wall already!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 07:48 PM

Drive around in this old Pinto or steal that guy's car and drive around in an Escalade? Tough call.

Posted by: wiccan | March 29, 2006 07:54 PM

Emily writes, with a twinkle of innocence in her doe-like eyes:

"So Debaters, has there been an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment, or have we just become more aware of the sentiments that already existed? Either way, what might have caused the shift?"

It's not "anti-immigrant sentiment," Em. For the 1,014th time, it's "anti-illegal immigrant sentiment."

Gee, let's think about what might have caused this, and why there's more such sentiment around these days. I'll have to pour some tea, since this is a tough one that might take a while.

Golly, here's an idea: there's more anti-illegal immigrant sentiment nowadays because there are a lot more illegals here every year, hence more and more people are finding it impossible to keep their head in the sand.

Emily appears to be the last ostrich in the country, since she's still using the "anti-immigrant" construction when everyone (see first five comments on this thread) knows she's really talking about "anti-illegal immigrant".

Em, my dear debater, that's called "propaganda". In our next lesson, I'll teach you where "anti-media sentiment" comes from.

B-U-I-L-D T-H-E W-A-L-L ahorita!

Si se puede!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 07:56 PM

To El Nino, who said "Will you please tell me why it is America that is responsible for providing for the welfare of all the poor of Latin America?"

A better question would be, why are we American taxpayers responsible for providing for the welfare on non-taxpaying Iraqis? Our country is going broke from all the checks the WH is cashing.

A better thing would be for us to imprison CEOs, CFOs, and senior execs of firms that hire or subcontract hiring of illegal immigrants, and arrest members of Congress and WH staffers who hire illegal immigrant nannies and housekeepers.

Then you might see some change.

Well, have to go, I've got to get ready for my friend's party (she's hispanic, like my brother-in-law).

Posted by: Will in Seattle | March 29, 2006 08:00 PM

BTW, does anyone else here totally not buy this "estimated 11 million illegals in the country" number? I'm thinking more like 20 million plus. Everywhere I go -- small towns in Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Eastern Shore -- you find a whole bunch of not-too-legal-lookin' Mexicans. I'd guess that California, Florida, Texas, and New York alone have got 11 million illegals.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 08:00 PM

Our dear, sweet, naive Emily writes:

"A poll of legal immigrants* conducted over the last month found 60 percent find the tone of the current immigration debate to be alarming; more than two-thirds say anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise. Support for a temporary worker program and allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal status if they pay a fine and learn English clocked in at 68 percent. Four out of five of the legal immigrants surveyed also expressed the belief that illegal immigrants take jobs shunned by Americans."

In other news, 86% of foxes claimed that tightening security at the henhouse was "anti-fox" and "troubling," and called on Farmer Bob to consider the dietary needs of the fox community.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 08:07 PM

Bambi Messner, innocent and trusting as a white-spotted fawn relaxing in a dewy glade, writes:

"At the massive pro-immigrant rallies across the United States over the weekend, native-born citizens participated, as undoubtedly did some illegal immigrants."

No! Someone close my eyes for me! I don't believe it's happeniiiii-----! Aaargh!!!!!!!!!!

b
u
i
l
d

t
h
e

w
a
l
l
!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 08:18 PM

If there were no illegal immigration, there would be no anti-immigration sentiment. Those immigrants would have respected our laws, and have jobs that do not negatively impact native Americans.

News Flash! Nations exist to provide for the welfare of their natives! Nations that do not will cease to exist. Your nation won't provide for you? Why is this my problem?

Posted by: wiccan | March 29, 2006 08:23 PM

First thangs first:

"Everywhere I go -- small towns in Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Eastern Shore -- you find a whole bunch of not-too-legal-lookin' Mexicans. I'd guess that California, Florida, Texas, and New York alone have got 11 million illegals."

Isn't this exactly the problem with the "'round 'em up ship 'em out" solution? You can't tell just by looking at a person whether they are "legal" or "illegal". In fact, sometimes it is even difficult for the Border Patrol to figure out (even when they are presented with documents) and they are trained to do so. I know you all say this is a legal v. illegal debate, but I tend to think that you would really rather round up any ol' mexican lookin' fella and ship him out "b/c this is America and it for us Americans". Be careful with advocating a solution that is more harmful than the problem!

"LMAO at El Naco! Why do American's believe they are entitled to run America? LMAO! This is your future people. Get ready to debate why we should have borders or property rights or a Constitution. LMAO! Who do we think we are? LAMO at El Naco"

I'm not sure how working at McDonald's all of a sudden equals running the country. BTW, Latinos as a group have dismal electoral turnout, too busy working...you can be assured that you will continue to run the country.

You really should consider the issue of the relevance of borders in the globalized world as a topic for debate. If we started talking about that, we might actually start understanding the kind of world we live in and the kind of world our kids might live in. Is a borderless world a positive? What are the drawbacks?

"It's not "anti-immigrant sentiment," Em. For the 1,014th time, it's "anti-illegal immigrant sentiment."

Well if it is anti-illegal sentiment, isn't it just as easy to presto! magically make the illegal immigrants legal? Then we wouldn't have a problem right? Or is it that you just don't want to have a lot of immigrants in the U.S. period. Based on a lot of your comments DC Dude, I tend to think it is the latter.

You might also want to look at a little law passed back in '96 called IIRAIRA - it restricts the receipt of most public benefits by all undocumented immigrants as well as many classes of LEGAL immigrants, so that problem's solved. It is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that local services are usually paid for out of property and sales taxes (and income taxes in states with that feature, I haven't really lived in one of those so I don't really know about their tax structures - disclaimer). It is my understanding that these types of taxes get paid for by consumers of housing, clothing, food, services, etc., i.e. people who spend money in the local economy. kind of hard to avoid those taxes when you have to live, eat, and work at the ol' job site, eh? So I think that working immigrants contribute their fair share for those services as well.

It really all comes down to what was being debated in earlier posts - "we don't like those strange, short, dark, hairy people who have a million kids, put their last names on their windshields, drive cutlass cieras with ugly chrome wheels, playing loud silly music at all hours of the day, they are offensive to our perceived way of life and our perceived notion of what America should be".

Read the fine print ladies and gents, the contract with America didn't say that only Anglo-Saxon, Protestants were welcome, nor did it say that only the native born could get a job at Burger King. It said you are free to make a living. That's what the people who are already here want to do, so let 'em do it already. As I have things to do tonight, i gotta sign off - it has been fun.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 08:37 PM

Sorry El Naco--you've lost the debate, at least among American citizens. You can try to make it all about you and fawn victimization by the "white man," but that just shows how little you understand about the debate. Your arguments fall apart when confronted by legal immigrants that may not fit your "not-too-legal-lookin' Mexicans" stereotype and who are not Anglo-Saxon or Protestant.

I'm a legal immigrant and I think ALL illegal immigrants should be deported--no amnesty and no excuses. I came to the U.S. at age 6 and eventually got a green card, but was not eligible for citizenship until I was 18. I even joined the U.S. Army as a non-citizen and did not take my oath of citizenship until I was 20.

My family and I did everything legally and by the book and there are many others now going through the same process to become Americans--but not our border jumpers. No, they want to jump to the head of the line and force their way in to this country with absolutely no respect for its laws. Do we really want people like that becoming U.S. citizens when their first act is to break the laws of this country. What kind of example does that set?

Speaking of examples, the U.S. Senate is disgracing itself by following Nero's. Let's just hope that our fires don't turn out to be from a nuclear weapon smuggled across a porous border, which we could easily have sealed if we had the political will to do so.

Build the wall!

Posted by: KB | March 29, 2006 08:57 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senoras y Caballeros, may I present to you, on this lovely spring evening: My Top 5 List of El Naco Strawman Arguments!

Drumroll, please!

#5: "Isn't this exactly the problem with the "'round 'em up ship 'em out" solution? You can't tell just by looking at a person whether they are "legal" or "illegal".

Love the scare quotes around "legal" and "illegal," but we could still only give this baby the #5 slot. No one actually says "let's round 'em up and ship 'em out," but Naco puts it in quotes anyway. What does it have to do with anything that you can't tell just from looking at a person whether they're legal (no quotes, Naquito!) or illegal (no quotes again!)? You sure could tell when they applied for a job if we had a simple, super-E-Z-2-implement system for employers to check. Fund it, Congress!

#4: "Read the fine print ladies and gents, the contract with America didn't say that only Anglo-Saxon, Protestants were welcome, nor did it say that only the native born could get a job at Burger King. It said you are free to make a living."

Strrrrrrrrrrawmaaaaaaaaan! Don't know precisely what "contract with America" Naquito is habla-ing about, but I bet it says this: if yer gonna immigrate, ya gotta do it legal!

#3: "Well if it is anti-illegal sentiment, isn't it just as easy to presto! magically make the illegal immigrants legal? Then we wouldn't have a problem right?"

Wow, just make all the illegal immigrants legal, and then we don't have an illegal immigrant problem. Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of this sooner? We can also take care of our "murder" problem in DC by relabeling "murders" (note the scare quotes, Naquito!) as "ham sandwiches"! Then we won't have 250 murders a year in D.C., we'll have 250 ham sandwiches, and we all know how delicious those are, right?

#2: "Or is it that you just don't want to have a lot of immigrants in the U.S. period. Based on a lot of your comments DC Dude, I tend to think it is the latter."

Yes, Naco, you've outed me. I don't want a lot of immigrants in the U.S., period. How on earth did you figure it out? I've tried to hide it with comments over the past two weeks like:

"[Let's all] Agree that measured legal immigration is overall a good thing, and illegal immigration is overall a bad thing."

and...

"No one here wants to kick out all immigrants. Legal immigrants are an asset and unaffected by my proposals."

and...

"It's disingenuous to call your side the "pro-immigrant" camp. I'm pro-immigrant, too. I'm anti-*illegal* immigrant."

and...

"regulated immigration is overall GOOD, it makes America greater"

...but still, you clever little feller, you managed to suss out that I simply hate all immigrants. Nicely done!

And now, Naquito's #1 strawman...illustrating the paucity of good arguments on the pro-illegal side...I present to you...all the way from, well who knows where...NACO!

#1: "It really all comes down to what was being debated in earlier posts - "we don't like those strange, short, dark, hairy people who have a million kids, put their last names on their windshields, drive cutlass cieras with ugly chrome wheels, playing loud silly music at all hours of the day, they are offensive to our perceived way of life and our perceived notion of what America should be".

Simply brilliant. Naco, pie at my house anytime -- you just call. We can talk in Spanish if you like. My favorite part is "our perceived notion of what America should be." Perceived, indeed! I think I'm perceiving something right now, Naco. It's your side losing bigtime!

The moral of our story is: Build the wall, baby! Legal immigration -- good. Illegal immigration -- bad. Naco & the pro-illegal camp -- officially out of actual arguments.

Hasta luego!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 09:11 PM

After reading about protests in CA, seeing Mexican flags waving, the chanting etc., I think it best summed up as: MADNESS!, MADNESS! There is nothing more to discuss, except:

Building the freakin wall, NOW.

Also, open Klingle Road damnit!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 29, 2006 09:48 PM

With you on both, Johnny. Weren't those Mexican flags charming? I especially liked the flagpole where the "protestors" (!) had the Mexican flag over the U.S. flag, and the U.S. flag had intentionally been raised upside-down. And then there was a "THIS IS STOLEN LAND" sign right behind it and a guy in a Aztlan T-shirt.

...and 3,000 miles away, Emily Messner sipped margaritas at Lauriol Plaza and wondered to her friends, one of whom's mom is from Cuba, why, like, people are just so intolerant, you know? I mean, Emily has a half-Cuban friend, so why can't we just let Mexico's entire population in?

Oh, I'm sorry. That was mean. It's just that last week Emily told us that reconquista groups were just fringe elements not even worth her Google time, which she spent instead on skinhead groups. Then suddenly this week there's a million-plus marching in L.A. with Azteca flags.

And so the media elite / real world disconnect spun through another cycle. Tell us again why you're qualified to moderate this debate, Emily?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 09:57 PM

Yeah DC Dude, I read your earlier post about this phenomena. It disturbs me. It should be quashed, or squashed. In our country! I find this absolutely amazing. F*** them!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 29, 2006 10:10 PM

I guess this would be the place to debunk Ruth Marcus' piece in the Post today, which proves that what really happens in the world doesn't matter, since the people who write history can just leave out the parts they don't like.

Marcus, the Post's not-so-careful-with-the-truth queen when it comes to illegal immigration, writes that Republicans better not irk all those Hispanic voters by cracking down on illegals, since they don't want to lose "a large and growing slice of voters".

If they did crack down on illegals, they might share the fate of 1994 California gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson (R), as Marcus writes:

"Wilson pushed for Proposition 187, the 1994 initiative to deny state services to illegal immigrants, and won -- with disastrous results for the California GOP. Hispanic turnout in the next election surged, and the GOP's share of the Hispanic vote fell, from 31 percent between 1988 and 1994 to 23 percent from 1996 through 2000."

Well, isn't that interesting. Wilson ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform -- and won. And this was a loser for Republicans in the Golde State why? Oh yes, because they lost the *next* election in 1998. But what Marcus doesn't mention, because the dear thing is lying to her readers, is that the Republican loser in 1998, Dan Lungren, *didn't run as an anti-illegal Republican, he ran as a no-position/essentially pro-illegal Republican,* thereby failing to turn out his (mostly white) base.

Marcus' overstress on the importance of the Hispanic vote in 1998 blurs her vision to the much larger white vote, which didn't turn out for Lungren because he wasn't anti-illegal like Wilson.

In short, running against illegal immigration is clearly a winning political issue for Republicans, which is why you're going to see -- already are starting to see, in fact -- a lot of them do it this spring, summer, and fall.

And yet our highly-respected Ms. Marcus, a member of the Post editorial board, intentionally leaves pertinent facts out for her readers in an attempt to paint cracking down on illegals as a *losing* issue for Republicans.

Hell, you can even just Occam's Razor it: if pro-enforcement was really bad for Republicans, do you think Ruthie would be warning then against it?

It was a sad day for me when I realized that editorial writers lie, but once you get used to the ideas, it's actually quite enjoyable to wade through the muck.

Q.E.D.

Build the damn wall!

PS--Ruth, call me. Let's have pie. I'm sure you're lovely, but I'll count my silver after you leave.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 11:20 PM

I am an illegal immigrant like most of my friends. I admit everyone of us broke the law staying after our visas expired. But on the other hand none of us, neither none of illegal immigrants i know of is taking advantage of any benefits you mentioned here. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Please don't miss this point. Moreover, we do pay taxes and we do pay for social security we'll supposely never benefit out of. Call me illegal immigrant, never a thief.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 29, 2006 11:20 PM

Illegal immigrant, I'll be happy to call you a thief, because you are one. I'm sorry your home country wasn't able to provide you sufficient economic opportunity, but perhaps if you'd stayed there you'd have helped improve the situation for those you left behind.

I suspect you use many services you don't pay for. If you're for real, would you mind specifying what taxes you pay? I'd really like to know.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 11:25 PM

the reason Mehico is poor and the United States is becoming that way too...


is because it is ruled by a few rich people that control most things and enjoy corruption as a part of that control....that is the attitude that the current administration and congress are embracing....


and you're helping to bring that to fruition, with your desire to say _everybody's doing it_

why not me?

well, everyone's didn't used to do it so much and to some of us it looks like someone that is running this country needs their effin coolo kicked...that's italian for your hind quarters your boontocks...'


and personally I'd like to lift the presidents boontocks up in the air about four feet...

thank you very much.

.

Posted by: dear el nack ho.. | March 29, 2006 11:26 PM

"El Nachos" writes: "Read the fine print ladies and gents, the contract with America didn't say that only Anglo-Saxon, Protestants were welcome, nor did it say that only the native born could get a job at Burger King. It said you are free to make a living."

Where exactly is this "contract with America" you talk about, El Nachos?

Where exactly have we native Americans agreed that it is our obligation to conceed any of the 6 billion wanting in -outside the borders of the country WE constructed - have an equal "Right" to a job at Burger King or "Freedom" to enter at will and make a living here??????

To reconcile the mass invasion of America by illegals and other immigrants with America's long term goals, we have to understand more than a few goals of America we all seem to widely hold are threatened by mass immigration of the scale and nature we have today:

1. We want an America with a sustainable environment, with less pollution, congestion, and open space.

We can't get there if we continue to explode our population. 225 million in 1970, 300 million today, 363 million in 2038, 420 million in 2050.

2. We want an America with cultural cohesion and unity of purpose, with general agreement on core values. A place where we can travel about in and not encounter a Balkanized and tribal land of incomprehensible language and societies.

We cannot do that if we have Muslims refusing to assimilate and a Quebec-like problem being created in the American Southwest.

3. We need to have an America where we achieve energy independence and work with technology to meet Kyoto goals.

We cannot do that when the immigrant-driven population explosion will add 100 more Quads to our existing 107 Quad BTU need by 2050, unless we do something. All the Conservation and "alternate energy" mantras will only shave 7-10 QUADs off that need, unless we all agree as Americans to substantial reductions in standard of living.

4. An America where the best and brightest come to add to our way of life.

Unfortunately, we have a system that shuts out the best and brightest applicants globally in favor of unscreened, mostly untalented low skill, low education illegals pouring across the border, refugees fleeing dysfunctional 3rd World societies, and then, finally, "reunifying" their family or village here in the USA. What we do now, with Cuban preferences, and letting PhDs in Sri Lanka languish in immigration paperwork limbo so radical Egyptian mullahs can be refugees since they are "persecuted" for hating Western Civ, or the family of 12 from Oaxica can "reunify" with their min-wage Guatemalan toilet cleaner Mommy with a 4th grade education ---is insane.

5. We have to address the growing black underclass.

That is impossible if the immigration invasion takes all the no skill or minimum skill jobs since they will "undercut" the wages the black underclass needs. Worse, the immigration invasion has completely undercut the incentive for schools and employers to train the black underclass in the trades. Why take on a black mason's apprentice when you can get an experienced illegal Mexican mason willing to work for 7.50 - 10 dollars an hour.

6. We cannot afford to create a substantial, unassimilated - even "enemy within" or lifetime welfare parasite - population, like France did with certain of it's minorities.

Which is why we have to pick and choose which countries provide well-assimilated, well educated, highly productive and largely crime and drug free descendents (Indians, Canadians, Chinese, Antiguans, etc)...and bar more of groups that have not worked out so well. (Hmong, Somalis, Yemenis) and limit others in the middle that show disappointing 3rd gen academic skills or social pathologies that resist Americanization

*****************

In any discussion about illegals or immigrants in general, the discussion is best steered away from "rights" to what kind of country are we working on now to leave to our kids and grandkids.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 29, 2006 11:30 PM

Reading Harold Meyerson's column today in the Post on the pro-illegal immigration marches in LA, I have to wonder: who is this guy? How is his opinion mainstream enough to deserve a twice-weekly column in the Post?

While the rest of the country saw lawlessness, truancy, irredentism, racial strife, and linguistic fracturing, Meyerson saw only good:

"The non-Latino city and the English-language media were plainly stunned by the magnitude of Saturday's protest -- though on balance, it's hard to imagine a more healthy surprise. In laid-back Los Angeles, it's the immigrants who are forging a culture of civic activism, and teaching Angelenos how to be engaged Americans."

Meyerson is an old '60s-70s radical whose parents were leaders in the California Socialist party, but even so, being happy about the marches last weekend is just nuts. As long as people are protesting something and carrying banners, Meyerson is happy because that's "activism"? It's racial conflict, it's balkanization, it's terrifying. Just another example of the media elites being totally, completely, utterly out of touch with the American people.

I always wonder -- how do they decide who gets a voice? Why Ruth Marcus, Harold Meyerson, and Emily Messner? Their views don't jibe at all with those of their countrymen, and aren't representative of how Americans feel on this issue.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 11:41 PM

DCdude:
FICA-SS
FICA-Med
Federal W/H
State W/H
I also pay my health insurance. Having no children I don't use school district funds. Yes, I go to school myself. No financial aid, no anything. I don't know which generation you are DC Dude, but must be a generation of a quite piece of a hipocrite calling me a thief.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 29, 2006 11:41 PM

Illegal Immigrant,

And you file federal and state taxes every year?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 11:56 PM

And illegal immigrant, where do you go to school? A publicly-funded university? Do you pay in-state tuition or out-of-state?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 29, 2006 11:57 PM

Do you see any connection between "global economy", out-sourcing, demand for unskilled and low-skilled employees to work at low-wage occupations, and influx of illegal immigrants? Advocates for all these phenomena urge that economic growth of the U.S. depends on these measures. And yet . . ..

Until the peoples of the world reside under a single governing organization, nation-states are the unit of global interaction. National identity, economy, and politic are the necessary elements for this condition. As long as this situation prevails, nations can carry out their mandate to build the "common good" or they can yield to pressure of commerce to allow business to extract and exploit the maximum from human labor to the profit of business entities. The results of the latter course is not the necessary improvement of standards of living within the nation, but rather the greater profit of the controllers of such commerce.

One of the most interesting factors of this dynamic is that the gains are essentially short term. However, the accumulation of short-term wealth that can then be freely reinvested preserves to those who can "cash in" on these conditions. In other words, in the United States, which was founded in the hope that no "royalty" should ever gain power and dominion on these shores, an economic society of "royal families" is being created and forwarded by the "conservative" elements in our political arena.

Knowing that most Americans would scream at the anti-Constitutional idea of founding a permanent nobility whose members hold special privilege (including access to government leadership and influence in law and finance) supporters of this idea mask their direction in more acceptable terms. They talk about "family values", "self reliance", "individual responsibility", and so on. These terms conceal and obscure the underlying truth that vast financial resources, isolate holders of wealth and power from the vagaries imposed by the very policies they promote. The wealthy of this and other nations like to be connected to those who make regulation; in this way they can hope to have laws favoring wealthy individuals, families, and economic entities. This pursuit to join political power and wealth is one aspect to the present administration's aims. The other is to sell as a national good the limitation of public concern for health, education, research, and infrastructure.

How does that play with the current debate on immigration? One has to look at the kinds of "cures" offered. None so far is a permanent solution, and whatever the immediate effect is, the real effect is obscured. Every system we can create has limits, finite limits imposed by availability of resources, energy, costs, etc. Population pressures, although studied by sociologists, are ignored in all the proposed solutions.

No on looks over the next hill. There is some (to me frightening) attitude that tomorrow's problem is someone else's problem. Yet every parent will say that he/she wants a better world for the coming generations. We are creating a world with greater suspicion, uncertainty, and certainly with less equality. Money is power, the market (not values or principles) rules.

Our laws and our public action must be in the furtherance of our principles, not willy-nilly improvised so as to give certain interests greater access to wealth. The current immigration behavior (not necessarily the laws) of this country are hybridized, attempting to impose an appearance of control while allowing for an essentially economics-driven one-way flow to enhance earnings for some business entities. The very real unfairness of this approach is justly decried by most "average Americans." Until there is an open and honest debate that weighs all the factors objectively, we will not find a workable answer to this matter.

But to those who still propose harm to other humans who seek better economic opportunity for themselves and their families, I have to say I do not understand what kind of people you are.

Posted by: Jazzman | March 29, 2006 11:57 PM

let me be abundantly clear...


I would make it a felony, first time offense _to_ _hire_ an illegal alien...

there's a lot less people to chase.


and without incentive, there's no reason to come.


I'd start with checking the bush family ranches and their friends as well as aquaintances...it seems to me, that Mr. GW bush was looking to help some uh his friends out perty quick like here...you know, like he knew some illegals that needed tuh be leagalized quick-like here..

Posted by: dear sweetheart... | March 30, 2006 12:00 AM

DC Dude:
Yes, every year!
None of the school you mentioned. It's privatly owned. American citizens can file for support from state and federal agencies. I can not. So don't worry. Is not out of your pocket.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 30, 2006 12:08 AM

that pretty much says that outsourcing, internationalization of companies, and the moving of factories overseas will deplete the monies of the citizens of the United States...


"The World is Flat" talks about some of the effects of Globalization, internationally based companies with no warm feelings for any country or it's citizens....using them as it sees fit, unless constrained...mind you Japan, and most European countries have thought a lot further ahead than the United States about the implications...

your leaders couldn't even plan a friggin occupation worth an effin owl's hoot.

Thomas L. Friedman

"The Disposable Work Force:Worker Displacement and Employment Instability in America
"
Thomas S. Moore

this is really no different than the world was 300 years ago, when the royals controlled everything....


it just has a different name now, globalization, most of the same money is running it...


and Microsoft apparently used the Romans RCC, as a model for controlling competitors....if it's good they buy it and you never hear from it again.

Posted by: apparently you're not reading the lastest literature... | March 30, 2006 12:14 AM

OK Illegal Immigrant, I take it back, then -- you're not a thief. I apologize.

So why didn't you go through legal immigration channels? And what country are you from? Your story is intriguing, please go on.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 12:24 AM

DC Dude
From Poland. There was no other way. Legal channels are really tight. Even if you carry university degree.
I shouldn't have called you as I did. My apologizes.
See you here another time.
Goodnight

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 30, 2006 12:40 AM

I imagine Polish illegal immigrant is trying to stay way below the radar and refraining from demonstrating (e.g., waving a Polish flag and demanding "rights").

The difference here is the Mexican contingent is finding solidarity in impressive numbers. Otherwise, it would be incredibly stupid to overtly display loyalty to another country on US soil. Why didn't they wave those tiny US flags (remember the silent clips of Ellis Island)? That would have demonstrated a first step toward assimilation and gotten more emotional support for their "cause."

I did not know what "Aztlan" represented until I looked it up tonight. This crap never ceases to amaze me. This group apparently wants to take back about a quarter of the US. Was there any other modern movement here with such aspirations? If this is a growing movement, we must set these Aztlanians straight now, or deport them. I say line up some low tech trebuchet catapults along the border, facing Mexico, for this purpose.


It may be they are nearing or at a critical mass.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 01:43 AM

Paul Metzgar wrote:
===========================================
I deeply resent the intentional blurring of the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. There is no anti-immigrant sentiment in America. That would be the equivalent of hating our parents, our wives or our friends. There is, however, a strong anti-illegal immigrant sentiment.
===========================================

So very true.

My mom's a first generation immigrant and even she's upset that illegals trying to get the same rights as immigrants that went through all the paperwork, the vaccinations, the citizenship courses, all 100% top shelf legally to boot.

How dare these illegals DEMAND equal rights when they broke the law in the first place. This country is a land of immigrants, we will always be a land of immigrants, but what makes this land of immigrants upset is ILLEGAL immigration. They not only shoved theirselves ahead of the line, they pushed the guards down, hit them upside the head, and run laughing into this country. >:(

Just look at what that LA DJ that helped to instigate those protests in CA and abroad. He himself was an illegal, who was about to be deported himself if it wasn't for a last minute work permit.

If folks break the law, they need to be punished. And the best punishment for such lawbreakers is put them (their whole families, including the anchor babies) on a bus, right on down to Mexico City, and dump them on Foxe's (or his Commie rival)'s front door.

We can't take every immigrant in the world here, there's only so many resources available for everyone to enjoy our standard of living -- and the US isn't going to become a third world so some law breakers can make money 2000 miles from home. Make it in their own country, instead.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 02:36 AM

Illegal Immigrant wrote:
===========================================
I am an illegal immigrant like most of my friends. I admit everyone of us broke the law staying after our visas expired. But on the other hand none of us, neither none of illegal immigrants i know of is taking advantage of any benefits you mentioned here. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Please don't miss this point. Moreover, we do pay taxes and we do pay for social security we'll supposely never benefit out of. Call me illegal immigrant, never a thief.
===========================================

Been reading this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/311951p-266724c.html

Where did you get that STOLEN or FAKE SSN#?

That's worse than just crossing the border, that's breaking two laws.

BTW, the 9/11 terrorists, how did they manage to stay in the country, too?

Yeah, overstaying their VISAs...

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 02:42 AM

Illegal immigrant,

As much as I sympathize with your personal situation, you come from a country where the per capita GNP is about $14,000 per year, and it sounds like you have a college degree. Surely you had other options besides coming here, and you have to admit that your presence here, ahead of those around the world who've gone through legal channels, is unfair.

You seem like a nice guy, but sorry -- illegal is illegal.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 03:04 AM

DC Dude,

He's a thief, because the SS doesn't issue SSN# to undocumented workers. He had to pay someone for a stolen one or a fake one.

When native born can goto prison for 10 years for SSN and benefit fraud, that makes that nice talking illegal (yeah, I can see how he lifted that SSN# now too) even worse. >:(

Some more to read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant

===========================================
Many immigrants commit another federal offense by purchasing fake documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates and driver's licenses, and many use fake social security numbers (knowing they will never see the money that they illegally pay into Social Security). Some engage in criminal activity like identity theft while Mohamed Atta al-Sayed and two of his co-conspirators had expired visas when they executed the September 11, 2001 attacks. All of the attackers had U.S. government issued documents and two of them were erroneously granted visa extensions after their deaths. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States found that the government inadequately tracked those with expired tourist or student visas.
===========================================

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 03:45 AM


El Naco escribio:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You really should consider the issue of the relevance of borders in the globalized world as a topic for debate. If we started talking about that, we might actually start understanding the kind of world we live in and the kind of world our kids might live in. Is a borderless world a positive? What are the drawbacks?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All right. Lets. To begin with lets understand the kind of world we live in. It is a world divided, often rather arbitrarily, into nation-states separated for the most part by mutually agreed boundaries recognized by all. Nations are generally considered sovereign within their defined territory. This means they are free to govern themselves in whatever manner they choose, to permit or not permit others to enter or leave as they choose, to make agreements or treaties with other nations as they choose, to defend themselves from other nations as they choose, and so on. A nation's authority extends to its borders and over its population and no further except by prior agreement with another nation. To the extent that a quasi-world authority exists, it lies in the United Nations, and the UN derives that from the consent of its member states.

To the extent that "globalization" has any real meaning, it is embodied in agreements and treaties willingly entered into by nation-states for a variety of purposes. Some of these cover political things such as the Oceans, Human Rights, Torture, the Geneva Convention (war), etc., etc. Others cover trade things such as the WTO, NAFTA, BIT treaties, and so on. These last ones primarily set general rules for the exchange of goods and services between signatory nations, and for the flow of capital.

Nowhere, not even in the Declaration of Human Rights, is it recognized that a citizen of one nation has the right to cross a border into another nation without the consent of that nation. This is not an inalienable human right, an alienable human right, a religious right, nor a national political right. You may assert it, but it is nothing more and nothing less than a sheer self-assertion and has no more authority than what you personally give it.

The external flow of population into a nation lies entirely within the sovereign determination of that nation. Through our democratic process, in which all citizens may participate by vote, we have established the rules and regulations governing the terms of entry into the United States, and the terms for a temporary stay, and the process/terms for a permanent stay, and the terms for acquiring citizenship. We have even further rules and regulations regarding the violation of them. We enforce these rules through our internal federal police forces and judiciary. (Not very well).

The point of this is that today, given the way the world is now organized, and given the meaning of sovereignty, these regulations, regardless of their history or stupidity, are sovereign regulations which no person or citizen foreign to this nation is entitled to violate, not morally, not legally. Not for the sake of food, or medical attention, or work, or love, or money, or fly fishing.

Now, when you say the following (taken with the first quote above):
"Read the fine print ladies and gents, the contract with America didn't say that only Anglo-Saxon, Protestants were welcome, nor did it say that only the native born could get a job at Burger King. It said you are free to make a living. That's what the people who are already here want to do, so let 'em do it already."

And, "When those byzantine laws become too restrictionist and impossible to maneuver, desperate people take desparate measures."

And, "Why do certain Americans feel that they own American jobs?
Isn't this the same sense of entitlement that everyone blames these immigrants of having?"

It is not clear to me precisely what you mean to question, what position you are debating from. It is one thing to argue for a different immigration policy as a citizen of the United States. It is another to argue that we have no right to deny entry to some poor foreigner who merely wants to work hard to support his family. The former is a perfectly acceptable participation in our democracy. The later is a challenge to our sovereignty, to the idea of sovereignty itself. As it happens, as an internal debate over what policy we should have, I agree with much, not all, but much of what you argue for. On the other hand, as dumb as our current immigration policy might be, we have every right to have this dumb policy and no foreign person has a right to violate it. How we choose to address these violations is a completely different matter, but in no way can we NOT recognize that they are in fact violations, indeed violations of our sovereignty.

Truthfully, relatively few Americans feel that they own American jobs. That is pretty much restricted to public sector jobs and really well entrenched union protected jobs (which are disappearing rather rapidly as GM and other companies are buying them back from their owners). We are not the French where the 90% who are employed own all of the jobs available, leaving nothing for the 10% without. What they resent in the lower ranks of jobs is the wage erosion in those markets from an excess of labor supply imported from south of our border. As American citizens they might reasonably expect some level of protection from this "unfair" competition, just as our steel industry has, and currently our softwood lumber industry does, and our sugar industry does, etc. Citizenship certainly enables the same sense of entitlement to laborers as corporations have, doesn't it? Or does it?

You have suggested a racial animus behind those who are upset with the level of illegal immigration. I've no doubt there are some who are. Racial and/or cultural animus has been with the human race as far back as we can trace such things and is not likely to go away entirely for centuries if ever. Still there are sufficient more practical reasons for being so upset in our particular southern border problem that it is unnecessary to appeal to these in order to explain the reaction.

But recognizing that these distinctions exist and endure is important to the broader question you pose about borders. I would argue that so long as these distinctions endure, we must have borders in order to have peace. The perfect example this week is this Christian convert, now fled to safety in Italy, who faced death for his criminal conversion in Afghanistan. Now we might believe that the death penalty for converting from Islam to another religion is immoral, cruel, inhumane, and a crime against humanity. But the fact is most Afghans don't, by an overwhelming margin as well. Are they within their sovereign rights or not? How would you mix such a population with a western population? How could you form a world government from such disparate views? How might we even form one around western civilizations? How would we bridge our death penalty issue with Europe? In Europe's eyes are not we as inhumane (as we think the Afghans are) for applying the death penalty to minors and to the mentally retarded and mentally diseased? No, I'm afraid nations and their borders will be with us as far as the eye can see and this is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is what allows like-minded people to gather together and live by their common beliefs.


I was also struck by the following:
"i went to school and learned about freedom democracy and human rights

i dream of a WORLD where those things exist not just in my backyard but everywhere"

It would seem to be a dream you share with our President, not content to dream, but to act, respecting no borders, just bringing forthwith freedom, democracy and human rights.

Do you grant him that? Or in your dream, does it just happen by magic? I'm curious as to how you see us getting to where you would like to go.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 30, 2006 04:41 AM

Emily opens the topic of "immigrants' attitudes on immigration." I haven't read anything about this more pertinent than George Will's piece in today's WP, with the salient portion quoted below:

". . . large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into."

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 07:41 AM

LOL, Will is a genius.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 07:57 AM

Nice Post, Cayambe.

I would comment on one passage: "Nowhere, not even in the Declaration of Human Rights, is it recognized that a citizen of one nation has the right to cross a border into another nation without the consent of that nation. This is not an inalienable human right, an alienable human right, a religious right, nor a national political right. You may assert it, but it is nothing more and nothing less than a sheer self-assertion and has no more authority than what you personally give it."

I can think of only the treaty on refugees which obligated signatories to take in refugees, but which devolved into a "3rd world preference-driven process that has basically dumped the obligation on America and a dozen other wealthy nations while the rest of the world slides....Similar to all hotels in America deciding they would take refugees from hurricanes in and the refugees get to "pick" - conveniently piling into Hyatt Regencies while driving by Motel 6.

The other beefs I have with refugees are:

1. They are quick to run vs. stay and fight to fix their own dysfunctional country and in a world with affordable global transportation. Hmmmn. Stay in El Buttholia and make 600 a year and possible die fighting El Supremo - or bail to the USA and make 25,000 a year in perfect safety with free school inc. refugee college scholarships, free job training, guaranteed welfare and rent subsidies, and free health care for ten years???

2. The USA welcomes in "Temporary" refugees, like from the El Salvador/Honduras hurricane, Somali civil war, oppressed Islamists from Egypt - with the outcome that "temporary" is a pure fiction. Refugees check in, but they never leave the American "roach motel".

3. Our definitions of "persecution" have resulted in us taking in some serious, evil criminals and terrorists. And large numbers of people whose beliefs are inamicable with our own or who come in and have no interest in assimilation.

*******************************
Cayambe, your point about how we protect corporate interests and others with paid lobbyists from foreign competition while we screw unorganized workers and the poor is well-taken. Its one thing to be a Hawaiian sugar baron free from foreign competition, it's another to be a construction worker told the "new rate" for plumbers just dropped from 18 to 12 dollars an hour after a busload or Mexican plumbers organized and trained by the Mexican Government just arrived in Peoria..

******************

We also are going to have to really look at global populations that pose a threat to us, and block their immigration. The threat could be hostile, it could be cultural, it could be simply recognizing that previous immigrants from that country or region have proven to have unwelcome pathologies at unacceptable levels.

We were not crazy enough to say to the Nazis in the 1930s that America's borders were open or let Hitler build Nazi Party meeting halls in American cities. Or welcome Soviets in from 1946 to 1987 and encourage them to indoctrinate and push the COMINTERN..So why are we crazy enough to let Muslims in in large numbers and let Arab government's oil wealth establish and promote religion unfettered??? The incompatibility of Islam with other religions is unfortunately becoming more apparant. It is not radical Islam, but Islam itself that in its 4 major Sunni schools plus the Shia school - that says it is not a sin to kill - but instead it is a sin NOT to kill apostates, pagans, unbelievers, and infidel People of the Book, that reject submission. We have a legitimate cultural concern that Mexicans, relatively benign, have still come in in such numbers and with many in a Latin Pride rejectionist sentiment - a concern we may be creating another Quebec or *shudder* future Yugoslavia. And we have the parasitic non-hackers like the Hmong who still consume far more in taxes than they generate, 30 years after they came here.

That is not a "racial animus" but merely asking our national leaders to be as careful, say, as managers staffing their day care center with new employees or a prestigious university selecting which students shall be admitted, and which shall be rejected.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 30, 2006 08:21 AM

Cayambe wrote:
===========================================
It would seem to be a dream you share with our President, not content to dream, but to act, respecting no borders, just bringing forthwith freedom, democracy and human rights.
===========================================

Without borders a nation would be hollow. It would not exist, for it'll be overrun by hordes, with dictatorships and/or anarchy ruling supreme.

All nations have borders to also protect their way of life, it's traditions, it's culture. For without them, we'd lose our past, and our identities.

Even in science-fiction (like Star Trek), there are borders. For within those borders develops a nation with it's own uniqueness.

So, no, we'll always have borders, let alone fences -- hopefully with good neighbors on the other side!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 08:37 AM

Without cheap immigrant labor to show the way middle class Americans might never learn to be comfortable as serfs. Without serfs there can't be nobles. Without nobles...
God save us from having to be ordinary forever.

Posted by: Commoner | March 30, 2006 08:40 AM

On the plantation wrote:
===========================================
". . . large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into."
===========================================

But wait! That's not enough! They have to make money! So they take their first paycheck and either buy a stolen or fake SSN#, or worse, steal it from someone else (identity theft).

Shhhhhhhhh! Don't want the rest of the country to know about that dirty business. Shhhhhhhhh!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 08:42 AM

SankyK, I only wish I wrote that quote. It's from George Will.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 09:08 AM

With the circulation of all sorts of claims of bias in the selection of immigrants who are admitted, no one has mentioned age. Try to move to New Zealand when you're forty. The leniency of Americans is quite astonishing.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 09:13 AM

For those who have made strident comments about illegal immigration being a law enforcement issue:

I look forward to the day, if it should actually happen, that the Republican Congress passes a bill making illegal immigration a felony, a 700 mile fence is erected along the border and President Bush goes before the cameras and announces that:

"The 12 MILLION illegal immigrants in this country are breaking the law and will be rounded up and deported as soon as possible".

Does anyone not think that all hell would break loose?

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 09:16 AM

El Naco wrote the following silliness:
"I think most Americans would support enforcing the law, but at what social, economic, and diplomatic cost? At what cost to our society and to our humanity?"

Our humanity. Is that what we are giving up by enforcing our laws? First you say that anyone can break the law if they feel the law is unfair. Then you say enforcing the laws threatens our humanity. It seems you will say anything that gives illegals a right to come into the US and stay. Since you do not seem to have any respect for American law, you really have no respect from me or many others who would like our laws respected. Respecting the law IS humanitarian. Breaking them is not. How many people die in the desert because YOU say they have a right to stroll into the US (its one per day)? How many families are broken up because you think it should be easy for a father or mother to leave their families to come to the US. You are not concerned with humanitarianism, you are only concerned with allowing non-Americans to take what Americans have. In essence, you applaud theft and that is not humanitarian. A humanitarian would work to make life better in Mexico and south.

Do you even care about the Americans that suffer under this illegal deludge? Do you think about the effects of what illegals do to the US economy, wages, healthcare and school systems? Do not talk about humanitarianism when you advocate theft, death, breaking up families and law breaking. Your arguments do not pass the silly test.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 09:19 AM

Cassini wrote:
"Does anyone not think that all hell would break loose?"

Hell has broken loose. You may have a nice white collar desk job that is not threatened by illegal immigrants, I don't really know, but many people with unskilled jobs are very threatened. I just had a painter, an American painter, paint my house. He's leaving my area because the illegal competition is too much. My brother-in-law owns an electric company and does not hire illegals. He only bids now on jobs where companies or the governments require no illegals on staff because he can compete in those bids.

Illegals have depressed wages on average 8% but when you look at the lowest paying unskilled jobs it is a high percentage. I don't blame the illegals as much as the companies that knowingly hire them. Stop the illegal hiring and you will stop the illegals coming here.

And as to what would happen if the president stated all 12 millions illegals would be rounded up and deported, you would see wages go up with many unskilled jobs becoming available with decent wages. You would see our schools and healthcare system become less burdened. I really do not see a problem. There are many legal immigrants and Americans waiting for good paying unskilled jobs. I say lets kick out those who stole those jobs from legal immigrants and Americans and punish the companies who gave illegals those jobs, and get back to where a painter can make a decent living and an electrician can bid equally with other electricians. In other words, lets get back to living under the law.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 09:32 AM

Sully wrote:

"you are only concerned with allowing non-Americans to take what Americans have."

theft of? theft of jobs? only 5% of the workforce. theft of public benefits? they pay taxes too.

Americans suffering - how? where? show me some proof.

And how about an answer to my challenge about an explanation of US immigration history and the function of the current immigration system. Without an explanation, your arguments and proposed solution don't pass the minimum-competence- to-propose-solutions test.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 09:38 AM

I think youre being totally unrealistic.

Please explain exactly how those 12 million illegals would be rounded up and deported without a very violent counter reaction.
Furthermore I really dont think thats its a law enforcement issue for most people in opposition to illegal immigration. I think its a matter of skin color and your uncomfort with it.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 09:40 AM

There is some cross-cultural humor in the immigration debate. Do prospective legal immigrants know what they are really getting into?

I reflect back on several emotional and even resentful comments about the bureaucracy and paperwork for a prospective immigrant to be admitted, mostly stating or essentially implying that it shouldn't be a competitive or difficult and process, and it should all go away. After all, they assert, as in the most pointed example, shouldn't absolute freedom of mobility be a human right.

To my mind, their timing in making such claims is immaculate. I laugh. We are now in the major week for announcements of college acceptances (Harvard announcing today, so sort of acting as the main gear for many others). Also, we are approaching the last day for income tax filings.

I did my taxes on Tuesday (all day), while my kid within a few days of this got the first college acceptance notice other than the state university. Talk about mental anguish, multiple submissions of forms, credentials, recommendations, transcripts, checks for fees, etc., etc., over many seasons; all in a competitive process where, e.g., in the latest college notice, just 55 of over 1,000 applicants were accepted -- it's all a job in itself. And this whole enterprise dedicated to being accepted does not even touch on the parallel process of research, essays, applications, and deadlines to possibly obtain bits and pieces of financial grants; nor does it touch on the prior years of planning and direction of activities to get to a reasonable competitive position.

My sympathy with complainers about complying with immigration paperwork and delays is very low on this day. And if they imagine that it ends once they might become citizens, they are awfully misinformed about this society and how intensely competitive decisions are made.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 09:42 AM

Sandy K writes:

"All nations have borders to also protect their way of life, it's traditions, it's culture. For without them, we'd lose our past, and our identities."

as she eats a breakfast burrito in her Spanish Colonial style apartment in the city of Nuestra Senora Reina de los Angeles, in the state of California.

The US southwest has a very long tradition of interaction with Latin America, you can't deny it, no matter how much you abbreviate it (SF and LA). People have moved back and forth in that area for centuries that artificial border is a new thing. Show me a real security risk (Panchito and Juanita driving a taco truck laced with C4 into the white house) or take your imagined community elsewhere.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 09:43 AM

Chris Ford wrote:

"Where exactly have we native Americans agreed that it is our obligation to conceed any of the 6 billion wanting in -outside the borders of the country WE constructed"

"In any discussion about illegals or immigrants in general..."

"The incompatibility of Islam with other religions is unfortunately becoming more apparant. It is not radical Islam, but Islam itself that in its 4 major Sunni schools plus the Shia school - that says it is not a sin to kill - but instead it is a sin NOT to kill apostates, pagans, unbelievers, and infidel People of the Book, that reject submission. We have a legitimate cultural concern that Mexicans, relatively benign, have still come in in such numbers and with many in a Latin Pride rejectionist sentiment - a concern we may be creating another Quebec or *shudder* future Yugoslavia. And we have the parasitic non-hackers like the Hmong who still consume far more in taxes than they generate, 30 years after they came here."

I applaud Chris Ford. At least he's honest about his views. He doesn't hide behind the "this is about illegal immigrants only" argument.

This is what it is really about. Take notes DC Dude. These are the folks that you are in bed with.

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 09:50 AM

El Naco wrote:
"theft of? theft of jobs? only 5% of the workforce. theft of public benefits? they pay taxes too."

So theft of 5% of the American workforce is nothing? The jobless rate, the American jobless rate, in many areas illegals congregate is over 10% as others have noted in this blog.

Yes, theft of public benefits.

They pay taxes but so do drug dealers and many other law breakers. So they cannot be arrested for breaking IRS laws, so what. They are breaking immigration laws. Americans and legal imigrants are being harmed and that is the aspect you totally ignore.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 09:51 AM

SandyK:
You have no clue about legal ways to obtain SS. I didn't have to fraud it. It's fully legal. Since wikipedia is the only source of knowledge for you, I'm sorry for you.
DC Dude:
GNP per capita is just an average maesure. Virtually in many cases is useless. Did you also check the unemployment rate, especially among youth?

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 30, 2006 09:52 AM

Someone (not me) wrote:
"Please explain exactly how those 12 million illegals would be rounded up and deported without a very violent counter reaction."

So that's how we react to law breaking, fear violence in response to enforcement and back off? I thought this was a nation of laws. What you are saying is that we should be a nation ruled by mob mentality.

As for the logistics, you first crack down on the hiring of illegals. Stiffen the fines, add some jail time for first offenders, and increase funding for agents to search businesses. Once the illegals find they are out of a job many will simply go home on their own. Others can be held and quickly deported as they are found. It won't happen in one weekend and likely will take many years. It won't be 100% effective, but right now the lax laws on hiring illegals and the lax enforcement of the borders and lack of agents to patrol businesses creates a lure that is pu;ing illegals across our borders. If the lure remains, no wall or beefing up of the border will help and the 12 million will remain.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 09:59 AM

George Will wrote

". . . large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into."

as compared to the entitlement mentality created by posters that Americans have an entitlement to a job free from competition from others.

STILL I have yet to see a post of anyone indicating a rudimentary understanding of the legal immigration process (and why it is working, what its objectives are, etc.) or the history of immigration policy in this country (as in there was no process until the twentieth century). Come on all of you who are just again illegal immigration, tell me why the current law works. Maybe tommorrow Congress will pass a law requiring all new immigrants run a two mile race before being granted a visa - it's the law and if you can't do it, then you've broken the law.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 09:59 AM

El Naco continues her silly rant:
"Come on all of you who are just again illegal immigration, tell me why the current law works."

The current law DOESN'T work El Naco. I think we all agree on that point. Just because a law does not work does not validate the law breaker. By your logic, I can speed at 120mph because many drive at 70mph on 55mph roads. Lack of enforcement does not invalidate the law.

El Naco continues:
"Maybe tommorrow Congress will pass a law requiring all new immigrants run a two mile race before being granted a visa - it's the law and if you can't do it, then you've broken the law."

You have proven how silly your arguments are and how you do not repect American law or even the concept of law.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 10:06 AM

"My sympathy with complainers about complying with immigration paperwork and delays is very low on this day. And if they imagine that it ends once they might become citizens, they are awfully misinformed about this society and how intensely competitive decisions are made."

See prior post on explanation of current immigration system. I bet you don't have a clue how it operates.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 10:08 AM

Anyone check out some of the photos of the protests out in LA, which surprisingly enough didn't show up in the MSM?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004869.htm

Think we shouldn't be a teensy-weensy bit concerned about illegal immigration?

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 10:10 AM

El Naco: "as compared to the entitlement mentality created by posters that Americans have an entitlement to a job free from competition from others"

I don't have a problem competing with fellow Americans on a fair basis. Illegal immigrants DO NOT compete on a fair basis.

Posted by: wiccan | March 30, 2006 10:14 AM

"I don't have a problem competing with fellow Americans on a fair basis. Illegal immigrants DO NOT compete on a fair basis."

why is it not fair? They got four arms and six legs? They taking Andro?

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 10:23 AM

El Naco, it's not my appointed task to correct your deficiencies, either in patience, respect for this country, or having enough educated concepts to represent anything other than a clown with a keyboard.

Your postings remind me of a quote from Richard Tarnas: "A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but a massive amount of knowledge based on a limited and self-isolating set of assumptions may be very dangerous indeed."

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 10:24 AM

As an immigrant from a minority community, I don't find opposition to illegal immigration to be racist at all. There is not another country on this planet whose borders one can cross illegally and then demand to become citizens and expect free services. It is outrageous that the politicians will sell out this country to the business lobby and defy the will of the majority of the constituents. And I'm sick of hearing Bush's mantra that "illegals do work that Americans won't do". The fact is that illegals do work that Americans won't do at the wages that the greedy corporate CEO's want to pay. This is a tactic by greedy corporations to flood the market with unskilled workers to bring down the wages so they can pocket the difference.

Posted by: VM | March 30, 2006 10:31 AM

I am the most illustrative of what most American's are today. A mutt. My father's first language, although he was born in the U.S., was a dialect of Slovak. He actually failed kindergarten because he could not speak a lick of English. My Mother is the beautiful blend of a German-Irish mother and a half Native American-German Father. I am proud to be the quad-breed of such a rich and diverse culture, however, recently I have become less of the traditional supporter of the "give me your huddled masses yearning to be free," school of thought and more of a "give me your green card," type.

I am exhausted by the time I come home from running errands because I have had to translate questions about products and services, and negotiate simple cash transactions in every language from the most common slang Spanish (trust me it is not the same tongue I studied in school for 5 years) to Swahili and Farsi. The critics of having a structured immigration law and guest worker program in this country testify that I should be happy to have someone working these jobs at Home Depot and CVS because Americans won't take them. Hmmm. Who had these jobs before the illegal immigrants came pouring over our borders? Right, it was an empty counter and the economy was in the crapper. I don't think so.

The other day I watched teenagers who were skipping school in Los Angeles, shut down the 110 freeway by walking down the middle of it. They chanted and thrusted their fists in the air, while waving Mexican flags. As I picked my jaw off the ground, I wondered if someone in the protest had grabbed the wrong box of flags. These youngsters wanted to have better treatment by the U.S., right? Or was it Mexico? I think we can all relate to this. If I could live anywhere I wanted to and make the money I earn living in D.C., that would be a concept of utopian compliment. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you want to wave a Mexican flag in protest to American policies, your time would be better spent back in the school your parents arent' paying for, learning better.

What outrages me the most, and I consider myself extremely even-keel, is the explosion of support and emotion that has erupted in the past week as Congress has tried to come up with a common-sense plan for dealing with this problem LEGALLY. I emphasize this word because no one else is. There are millions of people in this country who are here illegally. They are breaking the law and most likely did so to cross the border as well. They are criminals. If one person, let alone close to a million, was illegally in my home, would these valiant wardens of the huddled masses be so intent on standing up for their rights then. Oops, they don't have any rights granted by our constitution because they shouldn't be here in the first place. When did this country become so complacent about people breaking the law?

Okay, so they don't want to speak the language of the land, they really want to be back in Mexico but making the money they do in U.S, and they are criminals. To add insult to injury, I now have to pay for services for these folks when they can't find a job. Yep, that's right. Fairfax County's way of dealing with the illegal immigrant worker was to build them a cushy center to aide them getting a job, illegally. Obviously it is more imperative to get criminals in from the cold 7-Eleven parking lots, than it is to build the roads to carry the law-abiding taxpayers to work and back.

If a well-structured guest worker program is not drafted and installed soon in this country, the civil unrest that will occur will make the civil war look like a cake-walk and instead of just the South rebuilding itself, it will be the United States of America.

Posted by: anon | March 30, 2006 10:33 AM

"You have proven how silly your arguments are and how you do not repect American law or even the concept of law."

The concept of law itself is not static. There are differing opinions, some of which are on display in this fine forum. This is a classic debate between natural law adherents vs. positivists. I think many people have been inconsistent with both approaches by shifting their principles to suit their policy goals.

Sully, why did Congress decide at some point in the past to restrict immigration? Was this a good choice, is it not open to change or reform? Your positivist arguments tend to indicate that it should be - I mean if Congress makes a law that says you need to jump on one leg when conducting interstate commerce, it can do so correct? If you don't comply you are breaking the law, correct? If Congress wants to get rid of that bad law and pardon all of those who were convicted of breaking that law, it is at its leisure to do that too, am I right? Or am I mistaken about "how the law works".

Again, you can't explain to me how our immigration laws used to work, how they got to be the way that they are now, and how a person legally immigrates to this country right now. In my book, these are prerequisites to any discussion of real solutions to this debate. Or am I wrong about that too.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 10:33 AM

Sully wrote:

"El Naco, it's not my appointed task to correct your deficiencies, either in patience, respect for this country, or having enough educated concepts to represent anything other than a clown with a keyboard.

Your postings remind me of a quote from Richard Tarnas: "A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but a massive amount of knowledge based on a limited and self-isolating set of assumptions may be very dangerous indeed."

Is this your fancy way of saying that you can't answer my questions? thought so.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 10:38 AM

Thank you anon. I'm a first generation american. My parents, my aunts and uncles, all came to this country LEGALLY. They came, learned the language and prospered. No, they weren't doctors and lawyers, they were the same types of folks doing those "jobs that americans won't do" (i.e., cooks, factory workers, laborers) but they made a life for themselves and one for their children. they retained a lot of their ethnic trappings (hell, my first langage wasn't even english) but they considered themselves AMERICAN. They abided by the laws of this land, both in getting here and living here.

It frustrates them (and me) to no end to see folks flocking here ILLEGALLY and once here, demanding they be treated as if they were just like everyone else. Well, they are NOT like everyone else. They are here ILLEGALLY, which makes them criminals, pure and simple. can we round up 11 million or so and ship them back? No. But we can better control our borders, revise and enforce our immigration processes and crack down on those within this country who profit from their cheap labor.

But I don't see or politicians doing this. This is just another election issue for them. They'll jocky to one side or another, excite their base and secure their office come election time. the real issue will never be addressed in any meaningful way because face it, why should some millionaire senator (odds are, he doesn't live in your neighborhood or compete with illegals for jobs) give a damn about the rest of us schlubs?

pathetic.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 10:53 AM

Why all the fuss? Congress will pass a bill that will favor the employers with each side claiming it responded to the concerns of its constituents.

Both will say that the new measures do not "grant amnesty to illegals" and that they will be placed at end of line for citizenship. None of it will be true, of course, but it will sound good on TV and Press. With no lobbist group representing the taxpaying middle-class corporate interests will be served once again.

As to claims of xenophobia those are simply corporate PR attempts to silence the critics by soiling them as racists.

On the positive side, unions membership will rise in the services and trade jobs and demands for higher pay and benefits will follow. Since socialism is a good Catholic advocacy and since most illegals are Catholics the future will bring more socialistics demands in the political arena.

As unions regain more power, corporate managers that advocate amnesty will find themselves having to cater to unions in a way they have not experienced in decades. After all you can't outsource jobs that require "onsite activities."

Imagine what the effects of a nationwide strike of all services and trade workers will have on all those employers that believe they can keep wages down by giving amnesty to illegals - They and their paid for politicians will have a rude and long overdue awakening when the exploited rebel and they will as they have done in the past against the Barons of Industries.

When the dust has settled the Middle Class will be the ultimate gainer.

Posted by: camus | March 30, 2006 10:53 AM

Sully:

Lets get real. The deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants simply isnt going to happen. American companies relying on them for cheap labor isnt going to go away either. Putting a 700 mile fence up at the border might slow down the invasion but it wont stop it. The genie is out of the bottle on this one. Over the last 20 years their has been a onslaught of immigration, particulary from South America.

Why all of a sudden has this become a major issue? Because the immigrants legal or illegal are settling into and taking over communities and cities that formerly
had caucasion majorities and they are up in arms about it. Saying that this is a law enforcement problem is a cover up for those who are complaining.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 10:54 AM

El Naco twisted:
"Sully, why did Congress decide at some point in the past to restrict immigration? Was this a good choice, is it not open to change or reform?"

What is your point El Naco? That laws can be changed by Congress? Please explain how that allows 12 million illegal immigrants to have rights to stay in this country, to work in this country and enjoy the benefits of this country. The law has and currently calls them illegal. They knowingly broke the law and harmed legal immigrants and Americans in the process. How can you condone that? How can you condone breaking the law to the detriment of others? How can you argue that non-Americans have a right to compete with Americans on American soil illegally? Your hand waving is nothing more than excusing law breaking and applauding the depression of wages and the harming of Americans who make up the unskilled labor force. Why don't you also argue for the illegal drug dealers who just want to make a living and provide a service to many Americans?

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 10:58 AM

My wife (Japanese) told me that the Hispanic's did not want to learn English when they immigrate to the US (This she said was in the news). I have lived 7 years in Japan, 3 in Germany, 1 year in Thailand and a small island in the Pacific. Of all the foreigners living in these countries, they all learned the local language. If you go to live and work in another country, if you want to advance and get more money, you need to learn the local language. The Thai and Japanese writing are much harder to learn than the Romance languages. I was in the military, but I found that it was a lot easier to learn some of the local language while shopping and traveling around these countries. I have friends in Taiwan, Thailand, Japan and others all learned English and other languages. The Thai friend speaks, reads and writes in Thai, Japanese and English. A friend in Japan, has degrees from an American university and a French university. Also, my son-in-law is Filipino from northern Luzon and he has a business in the US, so therefore he learned English.
So I say, that if I was to go to Germany to work, I should learn German, and if I was to go and work in Argentina, I should learn their version of Spanish.

Posted by: Jean | March 30, 2006 11:02 AM

Unsigned - The issue is how much immigration we can take before it destroys America's culture, sovereignity, security, quests for environmental sustainability and energy independence.

US Census projections are for 363 million people by 2030, and a range of 420-500 million in 2050. 500 million if full amnesty and full "family reunification" and attendent chain migration is granted. 95% of that population growth projected to be immigrants or children of immigrants. In 1900, the Subcontinent of India only had 238 million people. Now it has 1/4 billion people.

Legals, illegals, "family sponsored", H1-B visa holders that plant an anchor baby, refugees? Thats what is called "net immigration" for obtuse Lefties such as yourself.

It is important that America survives and not become another Yugoslavia, that we not import a substantial "enemy within" as France and other Euro nations have done, and that we try and select the very best talent wanting to immigrate over the low-skilled and even downright parasitic.

We also have to look very carefully at the critical goals and present attributes of America and see if they are truly attainable in the former and sustainable in the latter if unchecked mass immigration continues.

(If you ever meet a typical pro-3rd World mass immigration/committed environmentalist Lefty....laugh in their face when they say how important it is for an America with 363 million people to get back to the 1990 energy use levels (92 Quads)when we had 273 million Americans. We use 107 BTU Quads now, we will need 140 BTU Quads by 2050 even if "renewables" give us 5 Quads and "conservation" saves 5, immigration drives 22 more "carbon" Quads and we need. Mass continued immigration makes Kyoto and energy independence impossible)

Our current policy is insane. If America was a university, we would be an elite one everyone is trying to get into...but we have adapted an admissions policy which favors low-skill low education applicants that jump the waiting line the high talent workers are in for formal admission "by the rules" and also move people demanding transfer from the cruddy universities they were in front of the line privileges on "academic oppression" grounds. Then we apply a massive legacy program where relatives of the fence-jumpers, those fleeing the crappy universities they helped make crappy by inaction or inaction, and the relatives of formally admitted students, whatever their merits, all all encouraged to join the university enmass through a back door "reunification" plan. And further say that any failing student who is in a relationship with another student or who had a baby cannot be expelled.

How long would that school remain a quality university? A short time, I expect. And that fear on a larger scale also applies to America.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 30, 2006 11:07 AM

Cassini asks:
"Why all of a sudden has this become a major issue? "

I believe it has become an issue for the same reason the Dubai Ports deal all of a sudden became an issue, because Bush has been telling everyone how well he's maintaining the security of this country and when a story hits the papers that shows he is not, people pay attention. They paid attention to the ports deal and now, learning that 12 million illegals are here and our border security is a joke, are asking what Bush has done to stop the influx of undocumented people. The concern is a security concern first. Its people waking up to the failures of this administration, first with ports and now with borders. The effects of those illegals that come here simply to work is also being debated secondarily.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 11:08 AM

Spanish speaking immigrants who do not wish to learn english basically don't have to because we've bent over backward to accomodate them. We are creating a society within a society and that's a receipe for disaster.

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 11:10 AM

Erratum.

Should be 1.4 billion people from the 238 million that lived in what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India in 1900.

We also have more people now in the USA than were in China in 1800.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 30, 2006 11:12 AM

D. thanks for the comments. I completely agree with you on so many points, my folks came from families that worked the steel mills and western Pa coal mines. However, I can't give up on our elected officials. A great deal of them that I have the chance to work with, are just like us and I refuse to complain about a problem without offering a solution or at least applauding those that attempt such a feat.

Posted by: Anon | March 30, 2006 11:14 AM

"What is your point El Naco? That laws can be changed by Congress? Please explain how that allows 12 million illegal immigrants to have rights to stay in this country, to work in this country and enjoy the benefits of this country. The law has and currently calls them illegal. They knowingly broke the law and harmed legal immigrants and Americans in the process."

Point being that what Congress maketh Congress can changeth. They did it before by restricting legal immigration to this country and creating the backlog that leads to illegal immigration, so they can remedy this problem by changing the law to accomodate people who's only crime was to come to America to work.

Wages are depressed b/c employers can get away with it. Give the workers a reason to stay and fight to bring them up and they will. They ain't stupid, they ain't trying to work for $5.00 an hour when they can make $10. Don't shut them out, welcome them in and show them how to live better lives. Teach them those good ol' American values. Practice what we preach to the world about freedom, opportunity, "the american way". Don't abandon it, it is what makes our country great.

You still haven't answered my question about how immigration works, still mystified - read up on it. Might help fine tune your arguments.

Once you start posting about visa categories, work authorization, visa numbers, family preferences, consular processing, employer preferences, adjustment of status, and 245(i), then we might have what I call an informed debate.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 11:16 AM

Sully, regarding your point "Why don't you also argue for the illegal drug dealers who just want to make a living and provide a service to many Americans?"

Whom do you think benefits from the billion dollars that are derived from that global trade? Those dollars have to find their way through all the American and multinational financial institutions that handle currency, investments, make political contributions, et al.

Trade requires capital and where does that capital come from? Not from under a mattress that's for sure.

Posted by: camus | March 30, 2006 11:17 AM

El Naco-

You seem to be implying that our immigration laws are as arbitrary or senseless as laws requiring one to preform silly excercises for citizenship.

The fact is, the United States has the most generous legal immigration policy the world over. In 2001 the United States let in over 1 millioin legal immigrants, which was 300,000 more than the next most generous country (Germany) and 600,000 more than the 3rd most generous country (UK). In fact the United States accounted for about 1/3rd of the recorded legal global immigration.

Mexico, on the other hand, has a negative net migration rate.

If you really believe in this whole "open borders" thing maybe you need to focus on the countries that actually have repressive immigration policies (ask the Mexicans what they do with those pesky Guatemalans crossing the border) and not the ones that are exceedingly generous.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 11:20 AM

El Naco--get real. Why is it that the only country in the world that shouldn't enforce its boarders is the United States? Also, what's this junk about illegals paying theor own way for anything? They don't, for the most part, pay property taxes, federal and state taxes, or anything but consumer taxes. Also, the burden that they place on hospitals (which many use for primary care, since they by in large can't afford health care), educational systems and other public resources (police, fire, the criminal justice system etc.). All the rest of us are paying for the luxury of them being here. I say: (1) build the wall; (2) fine the employers, (3) deport the violators. While we can't get them all in one swoop--as George Wills says--this would be a start. I used to be a democrat, but will likely vote republican on the next go round. At least some of them get it.

Posted by: Fed up! | March 30, 2006 11:24 AM

If you lived in one of the border states,
and watched your schools, hospitals, and jails, overflowing with illegals that YOU
are paying for, then YOU would be ANTI-IMMIGRATION!!
If you watched the influx of drugs and gangs from south of the border, then YOU
would be ANTI-IMMIGRATION!!
If YOU gave a hoot about YOUR COUNTRY being
turned into another BALKANS, then YOU would
be ANTI-IMMIGRATION!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Posted by: Ralph A. LaPaugh | March 30, 2006 11:28 AM

Will-

i would advocate the same for Mexico. The way they treat Central Americans is deplorable. Unfortunately, I am a US citizen, and I only get to vote in the US. I really only understand the deficiencies in our system, so it is a bit difficult to offer Mexicans suggestions on what will work for them.

Mexican law is very restrictionist in a lot of ways. Our system and tradition is not. We have always been more lassaiz faire in our economic policies, and citizenship has always has always implied many fewer entitlements than it does in other countries. Since our approach has always been sink or swim, boom or bust, i figure we can accomodate new immigrants much easier than other countries.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 11:30 AM

The number 2, on my phone doesn't speak English anymore, soon under Globalization umbrella, the other numbers will follow suit.

Spanish is here to stay no matter how many may complained but Spanish should not be the major concern since Chinese will become the primary language of business in the future - He that hold the economic power determines the language of business.

Economically, China will surpass the US in the not so distant future - They have more consumers, the manufacturing power, the technology, the military might and the financial edge.

Posted by: Camus | March 30, 2006 11:32 AM

Ralph - I'd revise that to say anti-ILLEGAL immigration.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 11:33 AM

El Naco wrote:
"Teach them those good ol' American values."

Like telling your kids to skip scoll, take to the streets in protest over law breaking by their parents, and raise the Mexican flag? Oh yea, real American values.

She also wrote:
"Wages are depressed b/c employers can get away with it."

That's right, they are also part of this problem, the major part as I see it.

She continues:
"They ain't stupid, they ain't trying to work for $5.00 an hour when they can make $10"

But that's the point El Naco, they will work for $5/hour no matter what the prevailing wage was before they got here. That depresses wages and harms Americans like my painter who is leaving the area due to the wage depression of painting companies that hire illegals. Its not fair, is harmful and breaks the law. Both hiring illegals and being illegal should be and are against existing law.

She then deflects:
"Once you start posting about visa categories, work authorization, visa numbers, family preferences, consular processing, employer preferences, adjustment of status, and 245(i), then we might have what I call an informed debate."

No El Naco, I do not need to know the intricate details about legal immigration to know that illegal immigration is just that, illegal. If the legal process is a mess then it should be fixed. I know people who have been through the process. Its very hard since 9-11 for a reason. Illegals and their employers break the law under title 8 U.S.C Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VIII. Maybe you should read it and tell me how illegals are not illegal and how employers that hire illegals are not breaking the law and how you and others have a right to ignore this law. Here's a link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_II_30_VIII.html

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 11:34 AM

El Naco-

If you could snap your fingers and end all illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States tomorrow, how high would you increase the immigration ceiling into the United States? Would you allow more or less? Was 1 million legal immigrants too low in 2004? Is that number better served at 2 million? 8 million? 80 million?

My issue is that the number should be decided by Americans. Since illegal immigrants make that decision for us, the American people have no way to engage in a realistic legislative debate about how many and what kinds of people we want to invite into the United States. Every illegal immigrant that passes into this country unlawfully is one more Polish, Guatemalan, Russian, or Vietnmese legal immigrant who will be restricted by our immigration ceiling. Until such time that we can end the constant flow of illegals into this country the people who legitimately deserve to be here will have their access restricted. Do you agree?

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 11:35 AM

El Naco states:
" I mean if Congress makes a law that says you need to jump on one leg when conducting interstate commerce, it can do so correct? If you don't comply you are breaking the law, correct? If Congress wants to get rid of that bad law and pardon all of those who were convicted of breaking that law, it is at its leisure to do that too, am I right? Or am I mistaken about "how the law works"."

Interesting attempt to try to sway it to your point, but lets look at it this way:
Congress created a law outlawing Slavery. Some people don't like this and eventually lobby Congress to try to change it. If enough people agree that its a bad law, shouldn't it change? Congress gets enough backing, shouldn't it be alright to ok Slavery?

Personally I say no, as I would assume most want for changed is based on a biased opinion, similiar to the one you seem to display, 'El Naco.' What do you think?

The concept is, laws were created for a reason. And occasionally it can be found that that reason was flawed. This has yet to happen with illegal immigration, and most arguments made by the pro-illegal immigration/grant them citizenship have no real backing in fact or reality. Its all about assertations that we *need* them when we don't. Corporations and greedy individuals do to save money. Without illegal immigrants, fair wages would have to be offered and more Americans would be willing to perform these jobs. Otherwise, areas with low illegal immigrant populations would be in dire need of various services. Sure, life would change in some areas for a small time. Many people would argue that ultimately, it would be for the better.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 11:36 AM

The whole issue of illegal immigrants centers on the fact that they have broken the law, and, are repeatedly breaking the law, by coming into and remaining in the US not to mention working here.

What are we to do with egregious lawbreakers? Legitimatize their presence and "put them on the road to citizenship"?

And when will we actually begin to enforce immigration law and US immigration policy? Which says, as it stands, that such criminals can never be accepted into the country legally, period?

Is it "conservative" to support the legalization of an entire class of criminal activity?

Second, there are ways to deal with 12 million illegal immigrants. What are the punishments that they face, right now? Arrest and deportation, if they are caught. And they can get back in easily. They have no incentive to leave, yes? So, give them an incentive to leave. Begin to actually enforce the law and jail illegal immigrants for violating our immigration law. Instead of just deporting them to Mexico, we can set up a prison camp in Mexico. The Mexicans will be happy to run it for us. Many of these illegals have broken Mexican law, too, by traversing the country without documentation. Or we can set up an exchange program with each country. We will ship your illegals back to you and you hold them for 5 years, say. Sovereignty, you say? This is how we enforce it, mutually.

Mexico has no incentive to do this, you say? Gee, what a surprise. Fox wants to see free US citizenship for Mexican citizens? Great! Let's give it to them, no problem. Any Mexican citizen also has the right to live and work in the US, and vote in US elections. Is this reciprocal?

And this speaks to the ultimate issue here. What we are dealing with is a LOT of people who want to disregard the law, and act as if they are legal US residents, and legal US workers, and, the employers who want to hire them as well. They wish to turn a blind eye to the fact that they are not supposed to be here, and just be here...blithely going on about their interests in life. Saying, "hey, Americans will hire us, so we are useful to you, we are good!" I am sure that a crack dealer can hold a legitimate job, too. He's still a crack dealer. And it is illegal for American employers to hire these illegal immigrants. We have a process for people to come here legally, it's the immigration process. They have thumbed their noses at this process for years, working here illegally for years. Now they think that they should be treated "fairly"? Fine, let them report for deportation. Increase the visa quotas, fine, set up a guest worker program. Let's have some effective government review over who comes into this country. But!!!!!! even then, if you do not punish those who overstay their legal status here, if you reward them with citizenship, then what do you think will change? People will get these visas and stay illegally. They will not bother to get the visas, and sneak in and stay illegally. There MUST BE effective punishment of illegals. Or the whole of immigration law is a waste of time. It will just deter the people that we want from coming here, and entice the people that we don't want, to come here.

And furthermore, why do you want to grant these people US citizenship? If a crack dealer goes clean, does he get to just wipe away his past crack-dealing? Or does he pay the price for breaking the law, "paying his debt to socity" first? And what happens then? He has a criminal record. This is what we do to American citizens...why should illegal immigrants be freed of this burden? On the other hand, when we have to put 2 million of the 12 million illegal immigrants in jail because they are breaking other US laws in addition to immigration law, what do we do then?

This problem is a big problem and getting to be a bigger problem because we have not begun to control it. As you say, a secure border is essential. Enforcing the law, is also essential. Isn't it strange that so many people are arguing against these ideas? I wonder why.

But it has to be done. We must have both enforcement of existing laws and effective border control, for deterrence. Because we cannot handle all the people in South America (and Europe, Africa and Asia too) who want to sneak into our country and take up residence here.

To do otherwise doesn't make any sense, and, it is simply a bad idea. But for political reasons that is probably what will happen.

Posted by: common cents | March 30, 2006 11:41 AM

common cents:

Please explain how the U.S.Federal
Government would go about the task of
rounding up and deporting 12 MILLION illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 11:46 AM

Cassini-

This issue has been addressed over and over again. It would probably deport many of them the same way it deported 200,000 illegal immigrants last year. Presumably stricter enforcement of employment practices would prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers. Without jobs these illegals would have little reason to be here since they aren't generating enough money to send their global record breaking remittances back home.

The United States would not have to round up anyone, they would simply walk back to Mexico just as they walked into the United States.

Irregardless of this practicality issue, that millions of American citizens are drug users is not enough of a reason to decriminalize drug use.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 11:51 AM

...we must enforce the law or there is no point in having it.

That goes for immigration, it goes for the FISA courts, it goes for the Enron debacle, it goes for insider trading...you name it.

Even if we change the law, because it is unpopular or unwise, at some point, the law must be enforced. Even if we grant guest worker permits or change the visa quotas, we MUST enforce immigration law.

We cannot allow people to come here as they wish, and stay as they wish, and do as they wish, all in violation of the law, without consequence.

I thought that we all learned this lesson after 9/11...apparently, many still do not understand why.

If you do not enforce the law, people will break it without consequence.

If you CANNOT enforce the law, people will break it gleefully.


This is the time and place for our president and our Congress, and the US population as a whole, to make a stand and make a statement. Do they stand for law and order, or not. It's that simple.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 11:53 AM

Crack down, and crack down HARD on the employer employing them. That'll about halve your 12 million to start.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 11:54 AM

"Please explain how the U.S.Federal
Government would go about the task of
rounding up and deporting 12 MILLION illegal immigrants. "

...for one thing, we do not want to have to do that, yes?

The key is to incite them to leave if they are here illegally, as I said in my original post.

The second, is to NOT incite them to come here illegally. Or, give them sufficient reasons not to come here illegally.

The bottom line is that if they can get here and hide and make it, they will do so. We have to make it very difficult for them to get here, and to hide, and to make it, if they are illegals. And much easier and more pleasant for them to just stay out of the country...not breaking our law.

We do not have to physically find and deport them. Just change the current conditions and they will deport themselves.

As well as make it much harder for them to get in...lessen their desire to get in illegally...

it must be much more likely that they will be punished if they are caught sneaking in, or, here illegally.

If we do not do this, no "guest worker program" is going to make a damm bit of difference. And amnesty will just make it a lot worse.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 11:58 AM

Jean wrote:
===========================================
So I say, that if I was to go to Germany to work, I should learn German, and if I was to go and work in Argentina, I should learn their version of Spanish.
===========================================

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

My brother works in Germany. In doing so he now speaks German like a native (write, reads, speaks German fluently). He could've just as well spoke English in his industry, but when you're working/living in another country the POLITE thing to do (nevermind the best way to get a good paying job) is to speak/write/read the native language.

But I won't allow even him to speak German in my presence, as English is our native tongue.

The native language in the US, is English. And folks who immigrate here should BY LAW have to speak it, just like Americans abroad have to pick up the language of the country they're working/living in.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 12:02 PM

Cassini, just curious, but you seem to make it appear that common cents suggests we can get rid of them with a snap of our fingers. Maybe I missed it.

Second, there are ways to slowly round everyone up. Actions such as cracking down on businesses with illegal immigrants to deter people from hiring them, hurting incentive. Setting up task forces to target illegal i.d. creators. Forcing all patients at hospitals/clinics to display IDs and alerting the police if a person has no ID. Requiring parents to visit schools and show proof of citizenship/legal residency once a year if they wish their children to recieve education. If not, no education and notification of the authorities. The list goes on.

Granted, some of these suggestions are impractical or unAmerican. You simply asked for a list of possibilities, which ultimately would come from a commitee set up by the government with training in law enforcement and specific research regarding the issue, and not a debater stating his opinion and/or beliefs.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 12:02 PM

"Why all of a sudden has this become a major issue? Because the immigrants legal or illegal are settling into and taking over communities and cities that formerly
had caucasion majorities and they are up in arms about it. Saying that this is a law enforcement problem is a cover up for those who are complaining"


unfortunately for that "spin", it *is* a law-enforcement problem and one that has been a problem, neglected, for years.

The Mexican mafia and the Columbian drug lords would be happy to take over many of the border towns and states, too, to help them set up drug distribution networks. That is a *double* law-enforcement problem.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:05 PM

...Freedom...

of course many of the ideas ("solutions" ;) you mention will "drive illegals further underground", etc.

Again it is a simple question. Which do you care about most?

We see that many people do not really care all that much about obeying the law. I put it to you that these are the same people that want to grant these illegals US citizenship.

And leave the border open.

This is a cake that must be cut and eaten one way or another. And as such you will see the mettle of those who bake and those who consume.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:14 PM

Cracking down on businesses that employ illegals is probably the first, and perhaps best, deterrant. face it, alot of those companies that employ illegals aren't huge corporations that can absorb the cost of the fines imposed if they are caught employing illegals. Independent construction contractors, landscaping services, restaurants, small-mid size farmers, etc., couldn't long stomach a $10,000 per illegal fine for too long before they decide that it might be in their own best interest to check their employees status before hiring them on.

One element of this whole discussion that hasn't been brought up is that of the criminal element that is coming across the border due to our lax enforcement.

MS-13 anyone?

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 12:15 PM

Illegal Lawbreaking Thief wrote:
===========================================
SandyK:
You have no clue about legal ways to obtain SS. I didn't have to fraud it. It's fully legal. Since wikipedia is the only source of knowledge for you, I'm sorry for you.
===========================================

Look, idiot, I'm disabled. I KNOW Social Security MUCH better than you. You did NOT get your SSN legally, as SS doesn't issue them legally to undocumented aliens (which you said you are with an expired Visa -- how long have you been in this country on one, 10 or so years??).

I hope the INS gets the IP logs and track your butt down and export you, along with any other illegal. I don't care what country or what color or what gender you are, you come here illegally you need to go back home (and also pay a fine for breaking the law and for your one-way ticket back to Poland).

It's a privledge to be a US citizen, it's not a right.

Lawbreakers show their disrespect and have zero business being here along with legal and law obeying immigrants (which the USA welcomes).

You are a disgrace, and I hope to God you're tracked down and booted back with nothing but the clothes on your back -- ungrateful couth. >:(

My mom and my great-grandparents all came here legally, and I despise folks who feel they're above the law and come here just to make a living -- us American citizens have to make a living as well, and we have first dibs. >:(

SandyK
A damn proud English speaking US born citizen of legal immigrants!

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 12:18 PM

...to all...

if you want to foster resentment in someone, a good way to do it is to cheat, lie or steal to get ahead of them in life.

Then rub their noses in it.

After all, that is the American way, yes? If you can get away with it, it's o.k., right?

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:25 PM

"One element of this whole discussion that hasn't been brought up is that of the criminal element that is coming across the border due to our lax enforcement."

I think it's been brought up, over and over again.

The question is who is accepting it and who is denying it.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:29 PM

Illegal Aliens Eligible for Social Security Benefits

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html

Read the date and the contents. Especially about the Mexican Social Security give away. >:(

Oh, it's not just demanding equal rights, it's equal benefits since they feel they deserve it because they steal SSN# or use fake ones. >:(

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 12:36 PM

MADNESS, MADNESS! Stop babling about this and contact your local congressman and implore them to start building the wall and enforcing existing laws. Also, tell them to immediately deport anyone claiming Mexico has a right to our freakin land. I cannot because, as a resident of the District of Columbia, I have no voting representative or senator. I am depending on you guys to do the right thing and stop this MADNESS.

El Nochos, you are so full of crap with your open borders and assertions that we must know the history of immigration law to deal with this problem. Forget that, and instead look at this from an engineering point of view.

Build it, and they won't come.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 12:38 PM

I wonder what Putin would do if the US said that citizens in former Soviet Bloc countries had the rights of Russian citizens, to vote in Russian elections and to hold jobs and to freely travel in and out of Russia.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:42 PM

To the history element:

Why is El Naco so sure that an historical understanding of US and global immigration policies won't further undermine his/her assertions?

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 12:42 PM

...let's make one thing clear.

We can't enforce current immigration law.

We are not prepared to enforce it, either practically or ethically. Nor is it politically expedient to do so.

This is as much the problem as anything else.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:46 PM

El Naco-

"You still haven't answered my question about how immigration works, still mystified - read up on it. Might help fine tune your arguments.

Once you start posting about visa categories, work authorization, visa numbers, family preferences, consular processing, employer preferences, adjustment of status, and 245(i), then we might have what I call an informed debate."

I don't know why you keep ranting about Visas since this is an immigration debate. Visas are issued to non-immigrants.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 12:49 PM

Many of the comments on this debate focus on the issue of the Nation State, yet the conditions that have led to this debate is the so-called free trade business model that subjugates the interests of the Nation State.

Under the Globalization Trade Agreements and philosophy, national borders, nationalistic laws and calls for a national identity are impediments to free trade.

Multinational corporations and their investors visualize a world without borders where people and goods flow unimpeded.

In their view, Nationalism is an outdated political and economic model. They view the world as a large corporate entity made up of the classical engineering, production and service sectors where current "countries" provide their specialties in support of the larger entity.

Profit is the sole motivator, if production can be done cheaper in Asia then say in the US, Canada, France etc, the plants, technologies and equipment moved there. If illegals can lower the costs of farming and other activities in the US, then allowed them to come in and do the work since lower labor costs mean higher profits.

Considering all the international trade agreements that have been agreed upon by our politicians and bureaucrats, it is unlikely that the process will be reversed no matter how much Nationalistic Fervor is vocalized by patriotic Americans. The corporate managerial mentality that influences our political process does not adhere to democratic principles.

Posted by: camus | March 30, 2006 12:57 PM

"No one can say that illegal immigrants are not exploited -- they are, mostly by employers."


Yes

they want to come here illegally and be paid the same wages that legal people would be paid, for the same work.

By employers who are illegally employing them.

It is such a shame that the real possibility of that happening is what drove them to come here illegally. And to remain, and work here, illegally, under such exploitative conditions.

Why, if they were legal, they could just take advantage of the capitalist system, and move to a place and get a job where they would be paid fairly for a days' work. It is a shame that since they are illegal, they cannot do this.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 12:59 PM

Correction: The above doesn't reflect what i was trying to say. The majority of visas are issued to non-immigrants. And the work related H (like HB-1) are issued to non-immigrants as well.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 01:00 PM

"Considering all the international trade agreements that have been agreed upon by our politicians and bureaucrats, it is unlikely that the process will be reversed no matter how much Nationalistic Fervor is vocalized by patriotic Americans. The corporate managerial mentality that influences our political process does not adhere to democratic principles."

That's exactly why it is unrealistic. All of these globalization principles count on one thing: a functional trading network, with entites producing and consuming goods, bringing products to market in an orderly manner.

Profit is not simply determined by who is willing to work for what. There are other factors that determine profit.

You're not considering this at all, in your idealistic argument.

Neither are you considering the fact that *current* law is not being obeyed by those in the marketplace. But, Congress knew that the law would be broken. Those same bureaucrats that you speak of are still in control of the process. And they set the regulations.

And they are responsible for their enforcement.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 01:03 PM

enforce laws regarding illegal immigration is that no one follows through...


we need to establish a Rudy Guilliani attitude towards our Congress, lawmakers, Administration and bureaucrats including NSA, CIA, FBI and Secret Service...


IF they break the law, any law, not in the line of duty...they get arrested.


parking ticket, tax evasion, hiring illegals, stealing, dui, etcetera...


WE need a group of people passing laws that affect them too, that they are willing to abide by.....

enforcing the law against illegal hiring of illegal aliens should be easy....those that have to compete against them, can pretty easily point out the violations, perhaps we should have a bounty, for


turning in those that hire illegals.


It's a lot easier to lock up a few hundred, violaters for a few months with a felony charge that radically alters their ability to bid on jobs or to vote or to not register with local law enforcement...


you wouldn't have to do it for very long...


keep the bounty in place for 5 years.


try it.

quit talking about the rightness or wrongness of it...


it's illegal.

pendejo wants to convince you otherwise, it's in his best interest...he works in Georgetown, in an office, he hires.

.

Posted by: the only reason it's not politically expedient to | March 30, 2006 01:07 PM

"STILL I have yet to see a post of anyone indicating a rudimentary understanding of the legal immigration process (and why it is working, what its objectives are, etc.) or the history of immigration policy in this country (as in there was no process until the twentieth century). Come on all of you who are just again illegal immigration, tell me why the current law works."


It depends on what you mean by "working". Or, "not working".

It also depends on why you ask this question.

I see this as very similar to a magician waving his wand while he pulls the rabbit out from the table under the hat.

The more smoke and noise that people make in favor of legalizing illegals in this country, and the more that we debate what should have been done already to stop it at least to get it under control, the more illegals are entering the country.

It is, as I have said before, like the Titanic. It has hit the iceberg, and there is a big hole in the side. What do we do now, make nice on the deck while we grow fins and learn to breathe icy water, or patch the hole and pump the water out?

The more that we argue about this and do nothing, the more illegals are taking over this country, and that is what they are doing, when we cannot even vote to enforce past and present law: to put an effective border around our country and to deport those who are here illegally.

The more that we argue, the more we lose the argument.

Posted by: cc | March 30, 2006 01:11 PM

the illegals

_don't care_


how they affect the citizens.


they _are_ playing the pity card.


_THEY_ are _unwilling_ to make _their_

country a better place to live...


_THEY_ are willing to contribute to the

degradation

of services available to the citizens here.


that is only part of the problem.


The main problem is that the affluents, primarily an international group,

are selling their citizen out.


And you _the media_ are assisting that, by reporting on stories as-if

it were personal, when it's very impersonal...


and you're trying to make it appear as_if it were _racist_

.

Posted by: here's the truth regarding el heffie the one he is trying to get you to not see. | March 30, 2006 01:11 PM

That is right multi-name guy. The argument that it can't be done is pure BS. Just like the argument that we cannot deport them. I don't think we should deport all of them ... only the troublemakers. We can and must stop further invasion. Call your congressman now.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 01:13 PM

cc I agree with you, I only listed some of the items that influence profits

Posted by: camus | March 30, 2006 01:19 PM

"Why is El Naco so sure that an historical understanding of US and global immigration policies won't further undermine his/her assertions?"

I ask you all to take a look so that you can get off your high horses with your claims that "my great-granddady did it legal, these people should do it the right too".

Your great grandaddy didn't face the obstacles that a person seeking to immigrate to the U.S. today seeks in order to come to this country through legal means and obtain authorization to work (since this seems to be the hot-button concern for the immigration alarmists).

Your great granddady showed up one day in New York and said "I vant to become an Amereecan" and they sent him off to work in the coal mines of Pennsylvania, no work permits required, no employer certification required, no applications and 1 year wait times, none of that. Your great grandaddy (and mommy) may or may not have studied English and become citizens but they did it while here, not while in the old country.

Nowadays, Jose shows up to the US consulate in Cuidad Juarez and says, "disculpe Senor, I vant to be an American" and they say

why do you qualify?
Got any relatives in the US? (shakes head) You in imminent fear of death or severe bodily injury because of membership or association with a political, ethnic, religious, or tribal group? (shakes head)

You a computer engineer from India? (shakes head)?

You got a job lined up for you with a megafarm out in South Carolina that has passed all of the labor certification rules and their attendant fees in order to obtain a temporary visa for you? (head sinks down even lower and slowly moves side to side)

You a Cuban? (No Senor, I am a Mexicano).

Well buddy, there is really no way for you to immigrate, unless you win the immigration lottery! (no joke, this does exist) And even if you did want to immigrate to LA to live with your brother who is a Legal Permanent Resident and has lived here for 20 years, if your brother applies today, pays the $190 dollar fee for the application, the $70 for the biometrics card we gotta make for you, then you Mr. Jose, gotta wait for about 15 years before we let you in here because you are from Mexico (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1343.html), and then there will be fees for adjusting your status to permanent resident, along with more wait times.

"but senor, I just want to work at the Boorgoor Keen in LA, my brother is assistant fry guy". Sorry compadre, if you want to do it legal you gotta wait.

"but what about great grandpappy SandyK, he no have to wait, dey say breeng the huddle masses, jearning to bee free".

No way Jose, that was so 1900's , this here is the new century, Americans don't need no more new blood, cuz we already killed all the Indians off, don't need new pioneers and settlers. America aint no new frontier no more son, we got to protect our jobs from you boys.

Problem is boys, you work too cheap. Local boys can't compete with that so you gotta stay put, fix your own country. Now if you excuse me, i gotta go back to patrolling this here wall we put up to keep your invading horde at bay.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 01:21 PM

Muy estimado Senor "El Naco": We are talking about immigration TODAY. Not 50 years ago. Maybe the requirements were different then--his great grand-daddy didn't have to get a visa. So, now, there's a process. Does that give illegal immigrants the right to break the law?

And, what about groups other than Mexicans and other South Americans? Is it fair that we can be overrun with these people walking across the boarder when there are people around the world--Darfur, Afghanastan--who live under severe oppression, violence and genocide, who can't just walk across the boarder and get American jobs, Social Security, etc. Is that "justicia?" I think not.

Posted by: Fed up! | March 30, 2006 01:35 PM

El Naco,
My parents and sisters immigrated to this country being the only memeber of my family to ever do so. My brother in law's family (which is a second family to me), did so several years later. My most recent ex's family had immigrated from Thailand. Some of my close friends are Indian, South Korean, Palestinian, Armenian, and British, all living legally in the US. You can try your' you don't really know what its like' card, but believe me, I do. And I will stay up here on my high horse, thank you very much.

And you can try to play the pity card all you want. But the fact is, it is ILLEGAL. Please, explain what part of that you don't understand. They show BLATANT disrespect for our laws. So why should I show respect for them? They have no interest in being apart of our society. To show such disrespect speaks fathoms of their willingness to be a part of America.

Yes, life in other countries is hard. Well guess what? Living below poverty in America isn't a walk in the park either. So when your illegal friends drive down local wages, not because they work too cheap, but because they willingly participate in breaking MORE us laws regarding employment, please forgive me when I say, get out. America is the land of the free. But America also has a set of laws that are established and should be enforced. If you don't like them, you have two options. One is use the rights given to you as a citizen or resident to create a movement based on legally changing current law. If this doesn't work, deal with it, and obey current laws. Or, the second is to simply leave. Dissent is fine. Breaking the law? Not so fine.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 01:42 PM

El Nochos, that was so touching. NOT

Yes, this here is the new century, Americans don't need no more new blood, cuz we already killed all the Indians off, don't need new pioneers and settlers. America aint no new frontier no more son, we got to protect our jobs from you boys.

Problem is boys, you work too cheap. Local boys can't compete with that so you gotta stay put, fix your own country. Now if you excuse me, i gotta go back to patrolling this here wall we put up to keep your invading horde at bay.

Very well put. No regrets.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 01:46 PM

People, we're not talking about illegal allens, we're talking about invaders, overpopulation, and some Senator worried whether or not he has to cut his own grass.
I would like to have our streets safe again, but with illegals that's not going to happen. So close the borders and clean up America.

Posted by: Vic Bailey | March 30, 2006 01:46 PM

What's sad about the issue is, folks are really upset that ILLEGALS being here, but they're not showing it with their feet and protesting themselves.

How about a 1,000,000 peopled powered protest in all the major cities? That'll show the politicos who they REALLY better listen to if they plan to remain in office. Unlike ILLEGALS, such citizens vote and vote enmasse.

Will relish a protest of all groups upset over this matter, Democrat/Republican/Libertarian and independent, waving US flags, and from votes that actually vote. Then have the march right down Constitution Avenue!

Maybe that will instill some backbone in those jellyfish spined politicos.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 01:49 PM

El Naco,
And you argue that it was fine 100 yrs ago but isn't fine anymore. That logic is absurd.You argue that despite the fact that the world is not stagnant, we should not change with the times and go back to how things were. Slavery was legal in the past. By your logic, should we reinstate slavery?

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 01:52 PM

El Naco wrote:
"Problem is boys, you work too cheap. Local boys can't compete with that so you gotta stay put, fix your own country. Now if you excuse me, i gotta go back to patrolling this here wall we put up to keep your invading horde at bay."

Oh, so you really do understand the problem.

Now yesterday I saw a line of ants coming into my kitchen because we did not clean it up well the night before (damn me being a lazy American). Anyway, my wife took a napkin and started killing them. I said, look you can't get rid of them that way, you have to get rid of the incentive for them coming into the house, the dirty counter. So we cleaned and cleaned like illegal immigrants and today, no ants.

Crack down hard on employers hiring illegal immigrants and the problem will be solved, wages will rise to normal levels for unskilled labor and employers who cannot stay in business without cheap illegal labor will fail to the cheers of honest employers. Oh, and we'll still have our orange juice made from oranges picked by Americans and legal immigrants.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 02:07 PM

And so now the Post reports that "hundreds" of students in Arlington, Va have staged a walkout and a rally in support of immigrant "rights". What the hell do they think they are? French?

I love the way this is portrayed as an issue of immigrant "rights". This isn't about immigrant rights, its about ILLEGAL immigration. No one is against infringing upon the rights and liberties of immigrants who are here LEGALLY. but if you are here ILLEGALLY, you have broken the law and as far as I'm concerned, you have NO rights.

Now would be a good time for the INS to start snapping some photos...make it a bit easier to identify and track down those who are here illegally.

And don't think they're not.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 02:17 PM

D wrote:
"Now would be a good time for the INS to start snapping some photos...make it a bit easier to identify and track down those who are here illegally."

Problem is its not the illegals protesting, its their American born kids doing the fighting for them. Nice values they instill in their children to skip school and protest in favor of breaking the law.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 02:20 PM

first time offense...


for _those_ _who_ _hire_ _illegals_


look around your own neighborhood, wages are depressed in DC, even though there's more money there and cost of living is higher than some parts of NYC...because

YOU ARE KNEE DEEP IN ILLEGALS, and your congress people _LIKE_ _THAT_

do you think Ted Kennedy, has got to worry about his job or his families being stolen by illegals.......hell no.


IF YOU GIVE OWNERS/HIRING_AGENTS A FELONY CONVICTION, and a fine

THEN->

no more government contracts, no more government subsidies if they getting them...notification to law enforcement that they do hire occurs and voila, it's over.


make it a bounty situation, I guarantee that after the first 500 arrests it will be _OVER_


simple.

Posted by: that's it, make it a felony... | March 30, 2006 02:21 PM

As I have stated before in my ealier posts and some have also shown knowlege of this also. To stop the influx of illegals one must first dry up the demand side. The only way this can be done if by imposing Jail time and stiff fines on first time offenders, whether it is a mom & pop operation or a major hotel chain. Throw them CEO or mom & pop in lock up for a couple of years and a huge fine with no loopholes so they can weasle out by hiring a high priced attorney. You also need to let your lawmakers know that you are keping a close eye on them and demand that total transparency be implimented in any and all lobbying, all moneys either spent on our elected representivies, or donated to their election fund or their favorite charity be either totally stopped or be made totally visible by same day public discloser, no more soft money going into their coffers without full disclosure, and make the penalties extremely severe for failure to comply for both the elected official and lobbyist. Then and only then will we be able to get this under control. If you take away the incentive for the illegals to come here or to stay here then they will either leave or not bother coming in the first place.

Posted by: Lab Rat | March 30, 2006 02:25 PM

Illegal immigrants, Bush haters, Blacks, the MSM, gays, liberals, democrats, arabs, islam, the anti-Iraqi war movement, The Clintons & Muslims..

What do they all have in common?

They are all objects of derision/hate from hard right wing conservative movement and
base republicans. Just goes to show you that if you dont think, look or act like these people, you dont belong in this country according to their criteria.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 02:27 PM

El Naco-

Touching diatribe. So the guy with no necessary skills, no family, no impending doom in host country, and no labor connections in the United States is denied entry. Good. That's exactly why we have immigration laws, this is a prime candidate for refusal.

But you contradict yourself. He does have a brother in LA who has been a legal permanent resident for 20 years. Eligible for American Citizenship for 15. And because this guy *wants* his brother with him the brother deserves to be here? Why?

The reason the Mexicans don't get as much immigration lottery tickets for our Diversity Program is because there isn't any incentive to hand out "diversity" admissions to Mexicans... because the Mexicans are already overrepresented in our country and overrepresented by our family initiative immigration policies and by the 3 million illegal immigrants entering our country.

If the laws seem so ridiculous to you it's because we have to weight them vs. the mass of Mexicans entering the country illegally. There might be more diversity initiative programs for Mexicans... if we didn't have to factor in hundreds of thousands of Mexicans who get in for other exemptions.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 02:31 PM

Cassini, not sure what your point is, but this isn't a republican thing, or a democrat thing, a black/white/brown/rich/poor, etc., thing. Illegal immigration will impact us all if left unchecked, no matter what lever you decide to pull come November.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 02:34 PM

maybe you do some good acting...


but your intellectual insights are third grade....


there is a reason for a rainbow, all the colors are necessary...

all the emotional range of colors are necessary too...

you don't evolve by stuffing emotions o cold one.

nor do you act well if you only work within the set of "nice" ones...

you are a _pauper_ emotionally, and you are a false follower.

.

Posted by: dear mr Cassinni... | March 30, 2006 02:40 PM

what is in front of your face.


over and over again it has been said:
the illegals

_don't care_


how they affect the citizens.


they _are_ playing the pity card.


_THEY_ are _unwilling_ to make _their_

country a better place to live...


_THEY_ are willing to contribute to the

degradation

of services available to the citizens here.


that is only part of the problem.


The main problem is that the affluents, primarily an international group,

are selling their citizen out.


And you _the media_ are assisting that, by reporting on stories as-if

it were personal, when it's very impersonal...


and you're trying to make it appear as_if it were _racist_

.


and you, mister holder of "I'm so pure"


are a closet illusionist passing himself off as a caring personality...


drop it.

.

Posted by: the right wing left wing are irrelevant when it comes to | March 30, 2006 02:44 PM

You see until enough of the voting public informs our lawmakers in DC that we have had enough of their B.S. and that they are going to lose their free meals, their free tickets to pro sporting events, their free vacations provided by special intrest groups and will have to actually do some work for a change, unless they start doing the will of the people expect the status of things not to change.

Posted by: Lab Rat | March 30, 2006 02:47 PM


Congressman Tom Tancredo
(R-Colo.), 6th District


to look in on us and to have him ask other congress people look over here, maybe that will happen.

let us all pray that all of a sudden


the congress and government people get a soul.

Posted by: well, I invited... | March 30, 2006 02:53 PM

Funny thing is the majority of opposition to illegal immigration is from right wing conservatives and republicans.

Another funny thing is that the majority of immigrants legal or illegal think that "racisim" is the key ingredient to oppostion of their being here.

To put it more bluntly, those opposed to illegal immigration, legislation that would make them legal or amnesty programs are motivated by racist tendencies, an aversion to people of color, and discriminatory practices deep down.

The "they are breaking the law" mantra is nothing more than a smokescreen for their racist veiwpoints.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 02:55 PM

The majority of immigrants are not the authority on the motivations of those that are negatively affected by the illegal ones.

To assume that those against illegal immigration are only so because they are racist, because the illegal immigrants "think that" is foolish.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 02:58 PM

Freedom-

You still don't know b/c you are talking about categories of immigrants who have paths to LPR status and don't have to wait years for a visa number to become available to you before you could immigrate.

The illegal immigration debate is really not about all immigrants. It's about immigrants from a certain part of the world, namely Mexico and Central America. Notice that no one is talking about putting up walls on the northern borders.

Maybe, however, you can enlighten us on the process that your family had to go through in order to immigrate to the U.S. and be able to adjust status. I think that would be instructive.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 02:58 PM

bonehead?

same way.

Posted by: how does gurumayi do it | March 30, 2006 02:58 PM

Dear Mr. Cassinni,
It is quite obvious that you are a Right wing Republician, Do you realize who your party represents? Big Business that's who. Can you guess who benifits from all this cheap illegal labor? and who is getting richer by the minute? Don't you think it's time to denounce your affiliation with the party of Big Business, and become main stream, someone who is truely independent. Who picks not by party but by who will do the best for this country.

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 03:00 PM

1. Keep in mind that we are talking about human beings, whether their presence here is or isn't sanctioned by the law.
Many things have been legal that weren't right- look at the US history of legal slavery and segregation- and eventually the laws were changed. Just because someone breaks a law doesn't make them evil. Everyone breaks minor laws every day, so don't act like you are superior to them.

2. Illegal immigrants aren't "living like kings" as an earlier poster said. They have hard lives, they work for a living, they are (for the most part) good citizens, go to church, have families, and pay taxes. They shouldn't be lumped in with the 9/11 terrorists. Truly bad, violent criminals exist among the "american people" too, that doesn't mean we are all the same.

3. The House bill would make it a felony to provide aid to illegal immigrants- so churches, hospitals, legal aid groups, etc. would be felons? That makes no sense, especially for groups who are privately funded. And there are plenty of US citizens who are leeches on social services and health care systems. The health care issue is a whole different debate...

4. Last I checked, illegal immigrants always face the risk of deportation. I don't see why we need a new law to deport them when that is already on the books but not being enforced. The legal immigration process is so convoluted, time-consuming, expensive, and arcane that I don't blame people for going around it. It needs to be simplified and made more efficient and fair (ie don't give preference to certain groups just because they have a political powerhouse in a red state).

5. I saw the student rally in Arlington today- many of the students were carrying American flags, along with flags from their countries. People are marching to defend their rights as human beings, they are not just pro-illegal immigrant rallies. Until they came out, their voices weren't being heard at all.

6. Don't judge people just because they look different or speak differently. They probably have the same dreams that you do. And DC Dude, don't talk down to them and us in "spanglish".

Posted by: be nice to your neighbors | March 30, 2006 03:05 PM

No, I think its time you really admit what is going on in your mind when you witness your neighborhoods and cities being invaded and taken over by the hordes of legal and illegal immigrants, particularly those from South America.

You resent them being here and it has nothing to do with whether they are abiding by the law or not. It is based on the color of their skin and the fact that they dont look like you. You consider them to be a new underclass. As I said before your opposition is based on racism.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 03:08 PM

Cassini-

If opposition to illegal immigrants is merely racially motivated, then why engage it at all in debate?

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 03:13 PM

you mister myerson are behaving as_if it's a racist thing...


you are not acknowledging that you are unconcerned how _it_ affects others that don't have the privelege of working where you do...


quit saying _any_ protest is a good protest


the affluent are protesting about losing their cheap labor....

that's why there isn't any real action.

.

Posted by: how many times do people have to say it... | March 30, 2006 03:14 PM

Oh I get it now. If we are against ILLEGAL immigration, it must have to do with the fact that we don't like the color of their skin. Well, thats simple enough now isn't it? Nothing to do with the fact that we have no control over who and how many come across the border, pay no taxes, receive the benefits (social, medical, legal, educational, etc.) that those of us who are here legally pay for.

Nope, its all about the dreaded "R"-word.

Give me a break.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 03:16 PM

Will,

I engage in the debate, to counter the argument that opposition to illegal immigration is based on legal issues.

As in, "They are breaking the law"?

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 03:18 PM

you're too weak emotionally to deal with a rational exchange...


you just want to hawk your belief...


pathetic individual.

Posted by: you wish it were racism... | March 30, 2006 03:19 PM

Cassini-

Your counter to the argument that it is legal is that it is racist. That's not an argument, it is an opinion. As a matter of fact, crossing the border without permission is illegal and thus a legal issue.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 03:20 PM

be nice to your neighbors-

1. No one has disputed that illegal immigrants are human. I think they should be deported in air conditioned vehicles with soft seats. Fair?

2. No one has taken issue with the illegal immigrants life style or affluence, it is their behavior we are most concerned with. Specifically that they entered the country illegally.

3. The democratic process is going to determine that an unenforced misdemeanor needs to be treated as a felony to encourage enforcement. This decision is ultimately left up to the legislature and I commend their move.

4. We need a new law because the old one is unenforced. Immigration policies are currently unfair because they overrepresent certain countries, like Mexico, whereas other equally deserving countries are underrepresented. This is in no small part due to the millions of Mexicans illegally entering this country annually that the legislature has to factor in when deciding how many legal immigrants we invite.

5. The law that was protested today specifically applies only to illegal immigrants and those that aid them.

6. I do not judge people on their color or language. I judge them on their actions.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 03:26 PM

I happen to live in the state with the third largest illegal population. My son's principal was hit and killed by 5 illegals in a pick up nearly 3 weeks ago. I knew her as a friend, she had a family, and was well liked in the community. Those sorry sob's T-Boned her car pushing the drivers door into the passenger door. Those sorry bastards didn't call the cop or an ambulance. They ran away like cockroaches when you turn on the light. They hopped a bus to Chicago to try to avoid punishment for their crimes. My brother is married to a legal mexican immigrant and they have a son. she is a great person so don't say that it is a race thing with me, as you are just blowing smoke out your ass.

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 03:29 PM

"Maybe, however, you can enlighten us on the process that your family had to go through in order to immigrate to the U.S. and be able to adjust status. I think that would be instructive."

You dummass. That is completely irrelevant. Lucky them, lucky me. Your luck ran out. Try the lottery dude!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 03:30 PM

Bravo.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 03:30 PM

Its real simple. A nation that cannot control its borders won't be a nation for long. A nation that cannot, or will not, enforce its immigration policies doesn't deserve to be a nation.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 03:34 PM

El Naco,
My family had a hard time. They still have horror stories baout the process and how long it took. Sorry I can't provide details, but seeing as I was being born, my memory isn't too good. But I do know the sentiment and the length of time.

You make the claim it is harder for mexicans to immigrate. May I ask why you feel it is such? Im asking for possible reasons you can fathom as to why they would have to go through more bells and hoops.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that we think mexicans should have a harder time. What is this assumption based off of? That we don't like illegals being here? I assure you, if it was members from another nation, we would have just as much issue. You are trying to obscure the debate. If you think it is too hard, voice it to your congressman and start a grassroots group informing on biased practices, discussing why and how the government does it and why it is wrong. This is a debate about illegal immigration, of which Mexico is the greatest culprit. You're argument that "Oh it is too hard" will not have much sway as it doesn't change the fact that it is ILLEGAL. Difficulty does not give you a pass at breaking the law.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 03:36 PM

Will:

I never said it wasnt legal. I said those who oppose illegal immigration based off "breaking the law" are using that as a smokescreen to cover up what they really think.

Could it be that this is what is really bothering those in opposition? Consider the following:

Population Growth.

"In 2000, ethnic minorities represented 29% of the U.S. population. Over the next 25 years, the ethnic minority population is expected to grow eight times faster than the non-minority population, reaching 38% of the U.S. population in 2025."

also:

The Minority Population will account for nearly 90% of the total growth in the U.S.
population from 1995 to 2050.

"All racial and ethnic groups will grow during this period. Overall, the population of the U.S. is projected to grow from 263 million in 1995 to 394 million in 2050, a 50% increase. The minority population will acount for nearly 90% in this increase of 131 million people over the 55 year projection."

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 03:50 PM

Cassini rants:
"You resent them being here and it has nothing to do with whether they are abiding by the law or not. It is based on the color of their skin and the fact that they dont look like you. You consider them to be a new underclass. As I said before your opposition is based on racism."

Well I would agree with you if I heard a lot of talk about 'those mexicans' or 'those latinos' but I only hear 'those illegal immigrants'. What distinguishes them is not the status of their skin color but their legal status. No one, so far as I have heard on this blog or elsewhere, is against legal immigrants of any color or origin.

Now if you want to imagine that this is based on race, well, that is your opinion but I see no facts backing it up and I see no evidence in the statements made here or elsewhere. If you insist on calling this debate racist, please provide the evidence, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 03:56 PM

Cassini-

I do not guess at the motives of people who are against illegal immigration without evidence. You do.

If everyone who disagrees with your position is racist, why are you still engaging them in debate? If your purpose is to expose them as racists, hasn't their disagreement already sufficiently done so (in your opinion)?

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 03:58 PM

See the above. lol

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 03:59 PM

Ah but Sully, Cassini will simply counter that "illegal immigrant" is just a white code-word for "wetbacks" and "beaners". You can't get through to folks who insist on seeing everything thru the lense of "racism".

Of course he fails to mention the rising tensions over the years between LA's latino and black populations...but that doesn't fit the pre-approved script.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 04:00 PM

do you understand that when expansion doesn't work anymore...


because their is nowhere to expand to that you need to start thinking in alternative ways?


at some point you actually start managing your planet as if you didn't mean


to destory it by not thinking ahead.


we as_humans are beginning to saturate the planets capacity to absorb our pollution, population and thoughtlessness.


what you consider compassionate, is thoughtless...


YOU _want_ it to be a racist issue


because _YOU_ like saying, I'm better than that....


well go to your garden club party and say that, this is about reality, and you're not participating in viewing it...


you're listening to your garden variety 50's attitude towards "others" that apparently runs through your visions of your mother talking as you were growing up...


stop foisting your projections here.

.

Posted by: dear halfwit... | March 30, 2006 04:03 PM

Do you actually think that people who dont want illegal immigrants here based off of their race would actually come out and say it in public? get real..lol

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 04:06 PM

as projections?

are you want to create a mythology?


huh?

step up to the plate little man, mr cassini,

I'll take your head off and hand it to you.


it's easy to look pious sitting on a hill in South Falls burg....


but you don't walk the walk, you just follow...comeon weegit dance with me.

.

Posted by: you want to talk about your projections | March 30, 2006 04:10 PM

"You make the claim it is harder for mexicans to immigrate. May I ask why you feel it is such? Im asking for possible reasons you can fathom as to why they would have to go through more bells and hoops."

Freedom-

The wait time and the paths available for Mexicans to legally immigrate and become LPRs is what makes their situation unique. Cubans and certain Southeast Asians have special programs that allow them to have status immediately upon application and approval. Other groups of immigrants such as refugees and asylees also have special programs set up for them to give them legal status, a path to LPR adjustment, and work authorization. Mexicans have no such program. The easiest way for Mexicans to immigrate is through family members. Even if they have family members who live in the US and can petition for them, because of the quotas and caps set up for immigrants based on national origin, they are backlogged for years compared to other immigrant groups. At this time, visa numbers (which are necessary to adjust to LPR status for the highest priority of family members who have been petitioned for) for family based petitions for the world, not counting Mexico, India, and the Phillipines is April 2001 - meaning that if you applied for a family member in April of 2001, your wait time would be over and your family member could come to the U.S. and apply for LPR status. For Mexico that date is August 1994, for the Phillipines it is August 1991. (The main difference between the proportion of illegal Phillipinos is probably proximity and therefore facility of undocumented entry, or "entry without inspection" EWI in the parlance). Until you get your visa number, you can't come to the U.S. and get employment authorization (an EAD in the parlance). You have to wait in your home country. When you are ready, they schedule an interview with you at a US consulate and if you are approved you can immigrate with your LPR card (the famous green card). That's why the national origin of immigrants is important to know. Because it makes a difference.

On the employment side, I don't have a strong of a command of the law or the procedures. All I know is that the total number of visas given for employment based immigrants is capped according to different categories. There are special programs for ag workers such as the H-2A and H2B visas. From what I understand, these are temporary programs with no path to LPR status and thus no permanency.

I hope this is helpful to all of you.

Now a few years back there was a program that allowed those who were present in the U.S. and had a path to adjustment.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 04:10 PM

Cassini miffed:
"Do you actually think that people who dont want illegal immigrants here based off of their race would actually come out and say it in public? get real..lol"

So Cassini you agree you have no evidence and it is just your opinion. At least we have that cleared up.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 04:13 PM

Congressman Tom Tancredo: Economic cooperation is completely different than throwing open our doors to whoever wants to come here and work. It's pretty clear that the Mexican government has an interest in keeping our borders open and the money flowing south from illegal workers back to the country. They've even hired a lobbyist in Washington to advocate amnesty!


.

Posted by: How does Mehico feel about ILLEGALS?...is this El Nacho the Lobbyist in question..along with cassund | March 30, 2006 04:14 PM

Thank you El Naco,
Now I must ask what numbers of Mexicans immigrate legally (and predicted illegally) per year compared to other nations? The reason I ask is your explanation alludes to certain numbers allowed in as well as quotas and a cap.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 04:14 PM

Cassini,
The thing is, regardless of whether or not people are rascist and whether or not people are using this as a smokescreen, actual arguments are being made. And so far, I have yet to hear a good counter to any of those arguments. If someone makes a rascist statement, the first thing I will do is call them on it (as long as I see it and understand it for what it is).

The only smokescreen I've seen so far, based on warrantless accusations with no proof, is your own. Until you can provide details of this rascism you claim, I will not accept your comment for anything but a last straw attempt at validating your feelings and through them, yourself.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 04:17 PM

pissant.

Posted by: Your _hurting_ my feelings mr cassini.. | March 30, 2006 04:19 PM

So El Naco, if you understand the legal process for immingration why do you believe it is ok to ignore the process, and break the law, to get around it. If you feel that borders should be open, then you are against any immigration process. If you feel the process is broken then explain how 900,000 come in legally each year?

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 04:19 PM

Sully,

If you believe that racisim plays no part in opposition to illegal immigration and its strictly a legal issue then fine.

We agree to disagree.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 04:25 PM

El Naco-

"The wait time and the paths available for Mexicans to legally immigrate and become LPRs is what makes their situation unique. Cubans and certain Southeast Asians have special programs that allow them to have status immediately upon application and approval. Other groups of immigrants such as refugees and asylees also have special programs set up for them to give them legal status, a path to LPR adjustment, and work authorization."

These are diversity programs that are designed to increase the diversity of this nation. They do not extend to Mexicans or Mexico because Mexicans and Mexico are already overrepresented in our civilian and legal immigration populations.

"The easiest way for Mexicans to immigrate is through family members. Even if they have family members who live in the US and can petition for them, because of the quotas and caps set up for immigrants based on national origin, they are backlogged for years compared to other immigrant groups."

This is untrue if the Mexicans have immediate family who are US Citizens. There is currently no cap on the amount of immigrants allowed permanent legal status in the United States if they are immediate relatives of United States Citizens.

The only ceiling applies to the Family Based-Immigration. This ceiling was inapplicable in 2004 because it was not even met. The admitted applicants under the Family Based program was 12 thousand below the actual ceiling of 226 thousand per year.

In 1965 the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment outlawed the national-origin quota system.

"On the employment side, I don't have a strong of a command of the law or the procedures. All I know is that the total number of visas given for employment based immigrants is capped according to different categories. There are special programs for ag workers such as the H-2A and H2B visas. From what I understand, these are temporary programs with no path to LPR status and thus no permanency."

Work visas are not given to immigrants and are subject to completely different caps than regular Legal Permanent Resident status. We currently allow 17 million visas a year for tourists, employment, students, etc. These do not count towards or against the Legal Permanent Resident quota. You are getting work visas mixed up with this immigration debate when really these two are unrelated.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 04:27 PM

Cassini, we also agree you have no EVIDENCE of racism being involved.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 04:27 PM

you are seeking validation for your position as a way of validating yourself and saying,

I'm not like my mother...


well, life isn't about your relationship with your mother...

your projection is not my life....grow up and own your own garbage.

.

Posted by: dear mr cassini... | March 30, 2006 04:28 PM

dear mr cassini:

You sir live in a dreamworld seen thru rose colored glasses, where there is no prejudice, no racism & everyone is equal and we all live together in harmony here in the U.S. you sir are full of bs...lmao

I fully suggest sir that you go down in some of those southern midwestern border states and ask the "locals" what they really think about all those "illegals"
comin into their towns..lmao

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 04:35 PM

they talk about the obvious differences...


that's the level that they are at, not the level of the posters here.


I can find predjudice in downtown NYC to certain classes of people.


I don't have rose colored glasses.

I use "clear light"

I call a spade a spade and you sweetheart are projecting your family experience as a way of explaining

what is going on.

you are attempting to invalidate the stronger truth of a situation.


The _most_ true thing going on is that

the affluent are pitting the peasants against each other...


the fact that the American peasants don't like those other peasants


is incidental.


I'm advocating charging those that hire with a felony and generally letting the illegals see if they can find jobs once the hiring agents get carted off to jail...


I think a far greater crime that racisim


is the oligarchial influence of international affluents that seek to use countries and peoples as_if they didn't matter...


you spoke of a caste system earlier...


I would like to destroy that caste system within the United States, and you sir are pandering to it.

.

Posted by: right, there are instances, and in a certain class of people.. | March 30, 2006 04:43 PM

Freedom-

"Now I must ask what numbers of Mexicans immigrate legally (and predicted illegally) per year compared to other nations? The reason I ask is your explanation alludes to certain numbers allowed in as well as quotas and a cap."

The caps do not apply to the national origins of immigrants. That is a misnomer. The system of limiting immigration by national origin quotas was eliminated over 40 years ago in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment.

Mexico currently enjoys the highest amount of legal residents admitted into the United States of any country in the world. The United State generously invited 173 thousand (of about 1 million overall legal immigrants that year) Mexicans into the country. The second most invited country was India, though with 1 billion people they were still only allowed 65 thousand legal immigrants.

South and Central America are entirely overrepresented in our global immigration policy. In 2004 the Americas accounted for 400,000 of our 946,000 legal immigrants. Only 20,000 of whom were from Canada, which means a whopping 380,000 legal immigrants came from Mexico, Central and South America in 2004.

To put this generosity in perspective, the entire continent of Africa was only allowed 65,000 legal immigrants in 2004. That's half what Mexico alone was allowed.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 04:44 PM

To pound that point home: The United States invites more legal immigrants from Mexico per year than it does from the entire continent of Europe.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 04:45 PM

The process doesn't need to be so complicated. I don't think that a complicated process serves anyone's interest. People do immigrate every year, based on those narrow visa options available - but if you don't qualify for those visa types that allow you to work - you can't work. There are plenty of people who come on student, tourist, visitor visas, etc. and overstay because they found an under the table job. Maybe it was mowing lawns, who knows? (no evil corporation behind that one, eh?)

The system is set up to keep immigrants from working in the U.S. It is set up to keep too many people from certain countries from coming to the US.

If there 11 million already here, then our economy can obviously support them because they are working despite every obstacle that has been put in place to prevent that from happening.

Lets imagine that there was the same amount of red tape placed on foreigners who want to invest in American assets. Let's say we had a cap, and quotas, but we did allow it. Would there be outrage about the illegal investments? Probably. Does it make sense? No. Why? B/c the limits are artificial, erected for some long-forgotten purpose. You have to look at the harm a law is intended to prevent in order to evaluate whether that law is a sucessful law. You should also look at the harms it produces and the attendant costs of those harms. If a law does more harm than good, that law needs to be changed - would you at least agree with that. Show me the harms immigration quotas and the red tape process is intended to prevent. Show me the goals of this process. Then, tell me why any harms that the law produces and their attendant costs are outweighed by the benefits the law produces. I think this is a pretty simple way to evaluate whether a program is working or not.

But as you've said the law is the law is the law, except for when it is changed and it is the law anymore. So don't get upset if Congress and the president change the law, that is the right of the political branches. We all gotta lobby about what we believe in right? I happen to believe very strongly in this or I wouldn't be wasting my time talking about it so darn much.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 04:47 PM

One last thing to consider:

Those projections point to the FACT that by 2050 the U.S. will be nearing a point where the now MINORITY population will become the MAJORITY population in the U.S.

In other words The current white/caucasian majority population in the next fify years or so WILL be the minority.

There WILL be more people of color in this country than whites by then..many of the major cities and states in the U.S. are already inching toward this status

Doesnt that scare YOU and give you pause to think about race and limiting illegal/legal immigration?

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 04:49 PM

personal interest in it...


and the president isn't exactly interested in what is legal,

so you won't mind if we arrest him next week right?

.

Posted by: right as if you didn't have a | March 30, 2006 04:51 PM

are you the racist that you see?


if you stop the hiring of illegals, by creating a felony situation...

if you make the other countries _as good_ to live within as the United States...

and so on.


then handling the legal immigrants is not a problem...


it's the inability to provide services for the citizens of the United States that you're ignoring...


not everyone makes several hundreds of thousands a year and can afford to hire illegals....but if you are, hey, I hope you do time...

.

Posted by: are you trying to scare people mr hurt? | March 30, 2006 04:55 PM

No, it doesn't scare me because as long as they are AMERICANS, I could give a rats ass what color they are.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 04:55 PM

El Naco-

"The process doesn't need to be so complicated. I don't think that a complicated process serves anyone's interest. People do immigrate every year, based on those narrow visa options available - but if you don't qualify for those visa types that allow you to work - you can't work. There are plenty of people who come on student, tourist, visitor visas, etc. and overstay because they found an under the table job. Maybe it was mowing lawns, who knows? (no evil corporation behind that one, eh?)"

You are confusing immigration policies with non-immigration policies. People on student, tourist, visitor, or work visas are not immigrants. They are not granted permanent legal resident, they are not counted as immigrants and they are not the kinds of people we are talking about. Illegal immigrants are not people who have a VISA who stick around. And people with work (H), visitor and student VISAS (F or B) are not immigrants either.

And when people overstay their VISAs they are removed through a variety of processes fairly efficiently.

"The system is set up to keep immigrants from working in the U.S. It is set up to keep too many people from certain countries from coming to the US."

We have the most generous immigration policy the world over. We also have an enormously generous work-visa program. We allow 5 million VISA entries per year. You are getting two policies that are virtually unrelated confused with one another.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 04:59 PM

D.

then you must be a liberal democrat..lmao

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 04:59 PM

When did the government of the United States become more concerned about the welfare of mostly Hipanics than about the welfare of US citizens?
This "reform" is about cheap labor no matter what "compassionate" label they want to attach to it.

Posted by: Me | March 30, 2006 05:01 PM

El Naco-

"The system is set up to keep immigrants from working in the U.S. It is set up to keep too many people from certain countries from coming to the US."

The national-origin quota was repealed 40 years ago. The only countries that are misrepresented in the United States lawful immigration program are Mexico and central/south american countries.

You have expressed a fairly gross lack of understanding and respect for the "system" you profess absolute knowledge over.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 05:03 PM

Hardly, Cassini. Hardly.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 05:07 PM

El Nacho:


"We all gotta lobby about what we believe in right? I happen to believe very strongly in this or I wouldn't be wasting my time talking about it so darn much."


Mr cassini, I pity you your insular world view and the pettiness of your ego that you insist that you can not be wrong, when you so obviously are and methinks you doth protest too much....

ferry on Mr. perhaps next life time...you'll show some courage and address the stain of your beliefs vs what_is.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: the mexican lobbyist is | March 30, 2006 05:07 PM

Cassini, I have no idea why you continue to try to race bait this issue...

El Naco wrote:
"If there 11 million already here, then our economy can obviously support them because they are working despite every obstacle that has been put in place to prevent that from happening."

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume all illegals are working. You assume no American, legal immigrant or visa holder lost his job directly or indirectly because of an illegal. You assume the economy would not be stronger had the illegals not flooded the job market. In other words, you are speculating without facts.

Here are some facts from this website:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back206.html
"Advocates of legalizing illegal aliens and increasing legal immigration argue that there are no Americans to fill low-wage jobs that require relatively little education. However, data collected by the Census Bureau show that, even prior to Hurricane Katrina, there were almost four million unemployed adult natives (age 18 to 64) with just a high school degree or less, and another 19 million not in the labor force. Perhaps most troubling, the share of these less-educated adult natives in the labor force has declined steadily since 2000."

Sorry El Naco, the data shows illegal immigration hurts Americans, especially those in the unskilled labor force. You can plead about families and nice people but the data doesn't lie. Illegal immigrantion hurt America. Illegal immigrants are criminals since they break the law by being here. Employers who hire them are criminals. If we enforce our laws we will be helping Americans toward fuller employment and higher wages. Its all in the data El Naco, don't ignore it.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 05:09 PM

the one that says:

you gotta put up with it.


and _HE_ is talking to our congressmen.


that's pathetic.

.

Posted by: so this *hole is the Mexican lobbyist... | March 30, 2006 05:10 PM

Cassini: "Doesnt that scare YOU and give you pause to think about race and limiting illegal/legal immigration?"

No, I just want them all to be legal U.S. citizens. It's not racial, it's nationalistic. You are attempting to make this racial.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 05:18 PM

so this A-hole is the Mexican lobbyist...

the one that says:

you gotta put up with it.


and _HE_ is talking to our congressmen.


that's pathetic.

.

El Nacho:


"We all gotta lobby about what we believe in right? I happen to believe very strongly in this or I wouldn't be wasting my time talking about it so darn much."

Posted by: and who is this El Nacho? | March 30, 2006 05:21 PM

Well, Mr. Naco and Cassini are mind readers (cause they KNOW that the debate is not really baout illegals, it's about racists). This is very much like anyone who voices concerns about how Palestineans are treated--they are in some circles "anti-semetic." This is a way of silencing the opposite view point so you don't have to deal with the real issues. I say, get a job, and give up on the e-mails. Obviously, you haven't changed anyone's minds about this--and you won't.

Posted by: Fed up! | March 30, 2006 05:22 PM

lobby based upon the truth...


so perhaps you and I don't share the same value system...


I prefer to have the truth represented, I'm not interested in converting thugs..


I want 'em arrested.

.

Posted by: I'm okay about outing a lobbyist that isn't looking to | March 30, 2006 05:26 PM

"You make a lot of assumptions. You assume all illegals are working. You assume no American, legal immigrant or visa holder lost his job directly or indirectly because of an illegal. You assume the economy would not be stronger had the illegals not flooded the job market. In other words, you are speculating without facts."

you are assuming the complete opposite. Where's the proof? Where is the correlation b/w illegal immigration and a weaker national economy - jou gat studies, Ay gat studies.

Your study by the way was probative of nothing. Just that there are unemployed young people in the U.S. Doesn't indicate why they are unemployed, whether they are going to school, on mormon missions, disabled (like Mr. "I can't stand those freeloading illegals who live off the government" SandyK. Show me C-O-R-R-E-L-A-T-I-O-N.

"If we enforce our laws we will be helping Americans toward fuller employment and higher wages"

Talk about your assumptions.

I'm glad, however, that you have identified your immigration control policy goals. Now have you identified your immigration control externalities? Must weigh factors.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 05:28 PM

and talk about what that represents...

or would you prefer to tie up with gobbledy gook..

what you're really selling?

eh, pende - ho

Posted by: let's go back to your attitude... | March 30, 2006 05:32 PM

El Naco wrote:
"Problem is boys, you work too cheap. Local boys can't compete with that so you gotta stay put, fix your own country. Now if you excuse me, i gotta go back to patrolling this here wall we put up to keep your invading horde at bay."

Precisely put, El Naco, and as to the two essential points, economics and culture, with an admirably pithy brevity.

What you do not address however is, do we, as a nation, have the authority to control immigration based on our perceptions of economics and/or culture? Or must this give way to the force of "Natural Law", human rights, or just plain anarchy? You raised the question; where do YOU stand on it?

Posted by: Cayambe | March 30, 2006 05:33 PM

Cripes. What's with the pinhead arguments? Illegal immigration is just that: I-L-L-E-G-A-L. It doesn't matter if they are taking jobs, creating jobs, causing monkeys to fly out my arse, what have you, they are breaking the law. You do not reward people for breaking the law.

Posted by: D. | March 30, 2006 05:34 PM

Sully, etc:

I suggestyou guys read up on the Minority-Majority Population phenomenon that is taking place as we speak and what will happen in the next 50 to 75 years in this country. It proves that race is a major factor in the legal/illegal immigration debate.

later dudes.

Posted by: Cassini | March 30, 2006 05:38 PM

Thanks Cassini! Have a great afternoon, friend! Bye bye!

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 05:40 PM

Cassini misdirects:
"I fully suggest sir that you go down in some of those southern midwestern border states and ask the "locals" what they really think about all those "illegals"
comin into their towns..lmao "

Seriously, this is absurd. But I will spell it out, so maybe Cassini will understand. This comment you have posted has nothing to do with our discussion on racism. If you think it does, please reread our discussion. We are talking about THIS debate. Not all over the world, because "OMG there are people in mexico who don't like white people!1!!!1!1. WE CANT LET THEM IN!" is along your lines of thinking. That would be based off of racism that I can't back up as well.

See? This comment, while possibly true, has NOTHING to do with the debate in this forum. I asked you to point out racist comments in this forum. You have not. If you would like to, please do so. Until then, I will operate under the assumption that you have no argument for our arguments. You have resorted to the race card when regardless of people's intentions, they have been making valid arguments that you have not refuted.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 06:09 PM

Will,
Thank you for the stats. They were as I expected. I was trying to reaffirm that while hoping to bring El Naco along a set line of thinking, establishing why there might be certain rules regarding certain countries.

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 06:10 PM

Freedom-

Do not let El Naco misrepresent the facts. There is no conscious effort to prevent legal immigrants from Mexico over legal immigrants from Zimbabwe.

The "country of national origin immigration bias" is factually wrong. The United States ceased the practice of setting quotas by national origin in 1964. The cap was limited by hemisphere, but even this qualification has since been removed.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 06:16 PM

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: wiccan | March 30, 2006 06:29 PM

Emily's topic is "Immigrants' Attitudes on Immigration."

After reading today's exchanges on this blog, one can only conclude, regretably, that the attitude is "I owe you nothing."

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 07:00 PM

Cassini, just to let you know that many of us are against importing pink people too if they don't assimilate and renounce divided loyalties. Call this racist too if you wish. The actual racist divide is in the (concealed) mind of the prospective immigrant, not the mentality of the host.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 07:10 PM

I recently left a certain Southern city due to a little natural disaster that occurred there last fall. In that city is a school that is located in one of the most blighted neighborhoods. That school has significance to the African American community because it was one of the first schools in the state to allow blacks to attend and get an education. The school was eventually closed and sat abandoned for many years.

Finally, due to a concerted effort in the community, a decision was made to rennovate the building and convert the school into a community center. Money for the rennovation was secured from various sources and fundraising activities.

Work began on the rennovation a while back, and at first the construction labor was being done by black men who lived in the neighborhood. Then, as the work progressed, I noticed that the black workers were being replaced with Mexican laborers. By the time the work was in the final stages, there were no longer any black construction workers present on the job site, solamente Mexicanos. Now, I don't know for sure if these workers were illegals, but it's a pretty good bet. Yet, within a block of the building there were at all hours of the day quite a few unemployed black men loitering on the street.

Over this same period, I noticed the same trend of replacing African-American workers with Latinos in every sector of the local unskilled and semi-skilled labor sectors in this city: lawn care, custodial work, kitchen work, construction, etc. Now what about all those folks who used to have those jobs?

I tell this story to make two points:

(1) There ARE citizens willing to do the labor that is currently being done by illegal immigrants; they used to do those jobs. Only now, they can't get hired or aren't retained because the employers can increase their profits by hiring illegals. The illegals will work very hard for less money than most citizens are willing to accept. As a bonus to the employer, s/he can pay illegals in cash with no record of employment, and no necessity to pay those Social Security taxes. The argument that these immigrants only do work that no Americans will do is a smokescreen for greed. And, if all those employers had been paying their fair taxes into the system, maybe it (Social Security) wouldn't need to be "fixed" by our politicians.

(2) When illegals take jobs from citizens, the standard of living for those previously-employed citizens inevitably goes down and we all pay for the unemployment checks and other social services for those now out of work, in addition to the social services for the illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Buck | March 30, 2006 07:32 PM

"You are confusing immigration policies with non-immigration policies. People on student, tourist, visitor, or work visas are not immigrants. They are not granted permanent legal resident, they are not counted as immigrants and they are not the kinds of people we are talking about. Illegal immigrants are not people who have a VISA who stick around. And people with work (H), visitor and student VISAS (F or B) are not immigrants either"

Nevertheless, in order to immigrate you need to have a visa number available. Please, please please, look at the link, this stuff is bread and butter info for immigration lawyers:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2847.html

Now, you are right when you state that immediate relatives of citizens (think spouses, kids, parents) don't have to wait in line for 15 years. They don't need a number and they jump to the front of the line. Nevertheless, the numbers of people in line don't lie - there are more Mexicans waiting in line to immigrate than almost any other group.

Whether Mexicans are overrepresented is really a matter of opinion. I'm sure at some time during the history of US immigration Irish were overrepresented, Germans were overrepresented, Italians were overrepresented. The difference between that period in US history versus our current situation is that there is not this system of visa numbers. You can try and make the distinction between non-immigrant visas and immigrant "permits" (I'm not even sure how you would classify them, practitioners understand the visa number system and its role in the "immigrant" - LPR AOS process)all you want Will and Freedom. The point is that immigrants from different parts of the world are treated differently. This has a direct correlation (meaning there is a direct causation) to the high percentage of illegal immigrants from a certain area.

I'd like to present one more little tidbit for you to chomp on. Since we all seem to be relatively conscious of the US and its role in the world, as well as our history, let us look at another interesting correlation offered by Juan Gonzalez in his book "Harvest of Empire : A History of Latinos in America". The Latin American countries that tend to send the most immigrants to the U.S. are the countries where the U.S. has intervened the most in its domestic political affairs. Additionally, most immigration waves from the sending countries happens after a U.S. intervention. Let's take a look at this thesis:

Mexico: US interventions - 1846, 1914, 1917. Some might say NAFTA 1994.

Guatemala: overt US interventions - 1956, CIA support throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

El Salvador: CIA support throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

Honduras: US bases opened there to fight wars in the two countries mentioned above.

Panama: US invented Panama 1904. Invaded Panama 1989.

Nicaragua: 1930s, CIA backed contras 1980s.

Dominican Republic: direct action, 1930s? US backed coup 1968.

Cuba: 1900, 1961

Puerto Rico: 1900, US colony since then.

Colombia: military presence since 1980s.

Haiti: 1920s, 1990s.

Not in U.S. but worthy of consideration:

Vietnam

Phillipines

Cambodia

Laos

Korea

Iraq

Somalia

Maybe Gonzalez is on to something. I guess the US can't go out flexing its muscles in the world without bringing back a few stragglers who start to believe in the american dream. Can't say I blame them. Just a little cause and effect game for y'all to play.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 07:37 PM

"Not in U.S. but worthy of consideration:"

Sorry, I meant not in Latin America, but worthy of consideration.

Posted by: El Naco | March 30, 2006 07:42 PM

trying to cut a deal for your workers with your buddy bush eh?

no illegal drugs either right?

heh heh heh...


like for sure.

.

Posted by: Hey el natcho... | March 30, 2006 08:19 PM

to Sandy K:
As much you would like me to be an idiot as much I am sure I obtained my SSN legaly. Since I am also English speaking person at least we have this in common. Watching your behavior I don't want to have much more in common with you.
You claim to be proud of your heritage of legal immigrants. ...Well, people who established this country were illegal immigrants and moreover - rebels. Consider consequences of these facts.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 30, 2006 09:07 PM

a poltroon.

.

hey heffe'

what you got, a slice of the illegals action?

how much they payin you?


you don't got to believe to represent eh!?


just got to know the laws and spin it, right nacho?


kiss me, I'll take you down...

.


.

It's always nice to prod the bellicose...

it's about taking advantage of the peasants...

right heffe'

I guess if you can't win, at least you can lobby.....

.


Like I said...it's not about Democrats or Republicans

Posted by: Democrats or Republicans? how about | March 30, 2006 09:12 PM

Buck wrote:

"I noticed the same trend of replacing African-American workers with Latinos in every sector of the local unskilled and semi-skilled labor sectors in this city."
________

Hey, Buck, you don't have to explain it to me. I've lived all my life as a statistical minority but legal majority (pink person) in both large urban and rural places. The only exception was a few years in northern California during my military experience, where they really knew not a thing about black brothers and sisters.

Today, the average black male is crushed by the negative influence of imported poverty-wage workers. This happens for an oddly positive reason. Blacks are no longer servile, God bless them; but illegal Latino labor substitutes are.

There are multiple dimensions to the illegal immigration problem. The fact that black persons with family legacies in America, going back to the 1700s, are treated in the labor market like they are new arrivals, is an ugly, ugly distortion. Talk about preservation of families, as we have read repeatedly as a cry from anti-deportation criers; I say, we must help to preserve the families of some of our oldest and most loyal citizens, in peace and in at war, our proud and noble black brothers and sisters. We still have plenty to learn from them.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 30, 2006 09:28 PM

brothers and sisters

then you'd understand that many of them don't have the emotional training that they need to succeed and we need to intervene...

and that costs money...


money that would be well spent to eliminate a problem that is cyclic,

because we never eliminated it to begin with...

intervention is the most effective method for dealing with this, but,

if it were my buck I'd be trying multiple things in multiple cities trying to address the situation by trying different things...pilot plans

I'd try to give cities a little choice under a single federal program, that monitored all of the situations, peer review with substance abuse counselors, law enforcement, education, I'd look at Amesterdam...Britain

I do know one thing, where there's no hope there's very little to do except animal kinda things...immediate gratification, 'cause tomorrow might not be here...that's the reason for intervention


it wouldn't work on one level, you'd have to do multiple things,

1. grade school - social skills, working with bullies, shyness, agressiveness
2. middle school - sexuality, discourse, dating, the difference between friendship and sex, the importance of partnering long-term
3. middle school and high school, I'd start teaching alphas to be leaders, I'd inagurate a program to redirect power-over mentalities to power-with, have them direct student groups, work as hall monitors, reward them with a jacket or some program...peer review by other students...


right now in the poorer neighbor hoods, it's rule by alphas, domination, and a constant battle for position...

this creates schism in social and neighborhood settings, safety is an issue and strutting pays off...

in poor neighborhoods, teaching people to get along by practicing in all levels of schools helps train children to think of achieving by working together rather than becoming
the rap star
the basket ball player
the drug pusher
the controller

4. high school, business language as the spoken language

5. bring back blue collar jobs to inner cities, union, benefits, home buyers..

I could go on, but there are real things that you can do besides

punish people...if you want to actually _solve_ the problem...


right senator? chi chi

if you want to punish someone arrest the president, cheyney, rumsfield and a few others for foisting an occupation of a foreign country to control scarce resources, as a "war on effing terror, myass" on a trusting Americana public...

Posted by: Actually, if you've ever worked with or taught some of our noble | March 30, 2006 10:10 PM

El Naco,
I've tried for two days now to help educate you as to why illegal immigration first of all is illegal, second hurts the American worker, hurts the legal immigrant and those applying for legal immigration. I've given links to laws and studies and analyses. In the end, you ignore this information and then demand more to prove that illegals are hurting Americans and the economy.

First lets get one thing straight. It is the illegals who are commiting the crime. The burden is on them to prove their crimes are not hurting anyone. They are criminals first. Please show a study where immigrants have improved the wages of other Americans. Please show a study of how illegal immigrants have made life better for all Americans. Show how they have not been a burden on our schools, healthcare system and other social services. Your demands for the victims of their crimes to prove they have been hurt is like a drug dealer challenging anyone to show how his actions hurt anyone. The burden of proof is on the illegals, and because you defend them, on you as well. The evidence for the harm inflicted on American society and especially low wage earners has been given and ignored by you. If you continue to ignore evidence and not supply any of your own you have by definition lost this debate.

Posted by: Sully | March 30, 2006 10:47 PM

El Naco-

"Nevertheless, the numbers of people in line don't lie - there are more Mexicans waiting in line to immigrate than almost any other group."

They don't lie but they also do not tell any compelling stories of national discrimination. The line for Mexicans is longer than non-Mexicans because more Mexicans apply for immigrant status. In the interests of fairness, the United States cannot simply grant all Mexican requests and ignore those from Yugoslavia, India, Jamaica, and Columbia.

Further, some categories of immigration simply to not apply to Mexicans. The 55,000 diversity immigrants per year would not apply to Mexicans because Mexicans are already overrepresented in this country. It would serve no useful purpose to allow them in on account of diversity.

If Mexicans are overrepresented in the length of time they must wait they are also overrepresented in the amount of actual LPR statuses allowed by over 2:1 over any other country. Whereas India, a country with a population of over 1 billion people, is allowed only 60,000 someodd legal immigrants a year, Mexico, a country of less than 1/10th the population, is allowed 170,000. If anyone should complain about "fairness", it is the Indians.

You have already decided quite prematurely that Mexicans have to wait longer because we institute a system of national quotas. This system did exist prior to 1965 but was abolished by the 1965 Immigration and Nationallity Act Amendment.

"Now, you are right when you state that immediate relatives of citizens (think spouses, kids, parents) don't have to wait in line for 15 years. They don't need a number and they jump to the front of the line. Nevertheless, the numbers of people in line don't lie - there are more Mexicans waiting in line to immigrate than almost any other group."

Immediate relatives do not have to wait in line because immediate relative LPR status is given to all immediate family of US citizens and does not count towards the global immigration quotas. That more Mexicans are in line to immigrate through other means is a reflection of the amount of Mexicans who apply, not an indication of any nationality bias our immigration policy has.

"Whether Mexicans are overrepresented is really a matter of opinion. I'm sure at some time during the history of US immigration Irish were overrepresented, Germans were overrepresented, Italians were overrepresented. The difference between that period in US history versus our current situation is that there is not this system of visa numbers."

It is not my opinion that Mexicans are overrepresented, it is a fact. In 2004 Mexicans represented 170,000 out of 960,000 immigrants invited into the country. That is twice as many as India, who had the second most. They were also the most overrepresented in 2003, 2002, and 2001. Further, from 1991-2000 they represented 2.2 million out of 9 million overall legal immigrants invited, again they were drastically higher than any other individual country in that time period. The next highest were the Phillipines, at around half a million. That's over a 4:1 bias in favor of Mexicans.

The strange fact is that prior to immigration restrictions very few Mexicans were immigrating into this country. It wasn't until 1960-1971 that Mexicans becamse the largest emigrating to the United States country in the world, a status they have yet to relinquish.

"The point is that immigrants from different parts of the world are treated differently. This has a direct correlation (meaning there is a direct causation) to the high percentage of illegal immigrants from a certain area."

The statistics certainly suggest that some countries are treated differently than others. Yet the statistics force the exact opposite conclusion than the one you are making: Mexicans, more than any other nationality, have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of American immigration policy since national-origin quotas were outlawed in 1965. Yet you seem to suggest that Mexicans have been underrepresented in our immigration policy.

Some countries do get treated differently, but it has nothing to do with the racial or national characteristics of the population. Diversity LPR immigration permits are handed out in accordance with our national ideal of a diverse cultural country. Work ones are handed out in accordance with the merit of the workers. Mexicans overwhelmingly take advantage of the family preference permits. There are only so many of these permits available globally.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 11:51 PM

lobbying for Mexico...

he's using his best moves on you.


look up lobbyists for Mehico, he's the one from N.M.


honesty, isn't what he's about, but at least you get to see what he's saying to his old buddies in the senate.

.

Posted by: He's a lobbyist... | March 31, 2006 12:09 AM

is in Mehico

making it easier for _his_ friends to avoid paying you a fair price for your work...


international riche, working hand in hand to make you come up empty in when you reach for _your_

future...


need a country occupied, hey, I'm the presidente'

I've got more military power than you ever dreamed of...

PNAC and we deploy the troops against the "Butcher of Bagdhad" ignoring that we kill a couple of hundred thousands in parts one and two...

and Saddam gets 9 million in cash for his part...

.

Posted by: the presidente' | March 31, 2006 12:16 AM

Lawbreaking Illegal Thief wrote:
===========================================
to Sandy K:
As much you would like me to be an idiot as much I am sure I obtained my SSN legaly.
===========================================

How? When SS doesn't issue them to ILLEGAL immigrants. If you got your documentation to work in the US due to your VISA, it's now expired, along with your LEGAL use of that SSN# and any benefits of a VISA holder.

So you are indeed a Lawbreaking Illegal Thief.

Lawbreaking Illegal Thief wrote:
===========================================
Since I am also English speaking person at least we have this in common. Watching your behavior I don't want to have much more in common with you.
===========================================

Good! Since I'm not a Lawbreaking Illegal Thief!

Thank you!!

Lawbreaking Illegal Thief wrote:
===========================================
You claim to be proud of your heritage of legal immigrants. ...Well, people who established this country were illegal immigrants and moreover - rebels. Consider consequences of these facts.
===========================================

The Founders weren't illegal immigrants (where did you get your history lesson? From a comic book, or worse, from one of our public schools that refuse to teach AMERICAN history since it's too non-PC??).

They were rebels to want freedom from harsh colonial rule (who were taxed to death and had enough -- and we may have another Revolution if we have to fund Illegals!).

So due consider the consequences of those facts. Because this immigration issue is boiling over, all over this country. That little call for protests with waving Mexician flags was the final tipping point (even those not following this issue know, shoving other team colors HERE is like a red flag in front of a bull).

Maybe if that illegal immigrant cum citizen now DJ assimilated more, he'd understand the culture of the US better to know -- NEVER tread on the USA; NEVER flash colors of another country above the stars and stripes on our soil; NEVER allow criminals to protest for equal rights when they broke the laws in the first place.

If that DJ knew more about USA customs/culture/traditions, he'd never would've made that mistake.

So bye, bye chances of a more open border. Americans see what these illegals are really about -- and we don't want it (at least legal immigrants who had to go through the line like anyone else).

Psst...People here don't like folks cutting in front of the line. That causes bad blood.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 01:34 AM

I made my last post over on the Born in the USA I post. That is my closing argument. It is hard for me to leave the last word to someone else, but I had really better get back to doing my work full time.

This has been a really good debate. Last time i checked, 290+ posts. I commend you all for your interest in debating this subject.

Posted by: El Naco | March 31, 2006 09:17 AM

Here an article from that center of liberalism, Berkeley outlining the effects of illegal immigrants on the city of Austin and how they are exploited by the city and the corporations to the detriment of Americans:
http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/i9news/illegalfuelaustin12599.html

Posted by: Sully | March 31, 2006 09:52 AM

it has to do with _not wanting to be American_


just wanting American dollars...


not speaking the language, not spending their money here, bringing in their family and having relations with them...


not _assimilating_


you could make the same case for some jews, in all of their countries

but courage requires that you look at that as a fact

jewishness, is a lot closer to ethnicity than a religion...they enforce marrying within the faith for the orthodox...

not to digress, but I figure we'll see if people have courage or not...
.

Posted by: not assimilating... | March 31, 2006 02:10 PM

My husband and I are permanent residents who patiently went through all the legal channels, and paid all the immigration fees (not to mention lawyers' fees) for the last few years. This included a three year period when we were finally (after a very long haul) "approved" for permanent residency but had to wait for our greencards. This mean we could only work by applying for a "employment authorization document" that had to be renewed (and paid for) on an annual basis.

Now we have our greencards and after 5 more years, we can start (if we wanted to) the long process for citizenship.

Personally, I had no problems with this, despite all the many frustrating months and years of wait, the non-responses we would get from immigration officers, etc. We came to this country for better opportunities, we abided by the laws and we are happy to do what we needed to do to work as scientists and researchers.

What does make me feel somewhat like an idiot nowadays is the push to reward illegal folks with a much cheaper and shorter wait and easier path for citizenship than those of us who did everything by the book and by the law. Is this the lesson we are supposed to take away from this? Doing things the legal way puts you at the back of the line? It's very frustrating!

Posted by: feeling like a fool | March 31, 2006 04:53 PM

My husband and I are permanent residents who patiently went through all the legal channels, and paid all the immigration fees (not to mention lawyers' fees) for the last few years. This included a three year period when we were finally (after a very long haul) "approved" for permanent residency but had to wait for our greencards. This mean we could only work by applying for a "employment authorization document" that had to be renewed (and paid for) on an annual basis.

Now we have our greencards and after 5 more years, we can start (if we wanted to) the long process for citizenship.

Personally, I had no problems with this, despite all the many frustrating months and years of wait, the non-responses we would get from immigration officers, etc. We came to this country for better opportunities, we abided by the laws and we are happy to do what we needed to do to work as scientists and researchers.

What does make me feel somewhat like an idiot nowadays is the push to reward illegal folks with a much cheaper and shorter wait and easier path for citizenship than those of us who did everything by the book and by the law. Is this the lesson we are supposed to take away from this? Doing things the legal way puts you at the back of the line? It's very frustrating!

Posted by: feeling like a fool | March 31, 2006 04:55 PM

My husband and I are permanent residents who patiently went through all the legal channels, and paid all the immigration fees (not to mention lawyers' fees) for the last few years. This included a three year period when we were finally (after a very long haul) "approved" for permanent residency but had to wait for our greencards. This mean we could only work by applying for a "employment authorization document" that had to be renewed (and paid for) on an annual basis.

Now we have our greencards and after 5 more years, we can start (if we wanted to) the long process for citizenship.

Personally, I had no problems with this, despite all the many frustrating months and years of wait, the non-responses we would get from immigration officers, etc. We came to this country for better opportunities, we abided by the laws and we are happy to do what we needed to do to work as scientists and researchers.

What does make me feel somewhat like an idiot nowadays is the push to reward illegal folks with a much cheaper and shorter wait and easier path for citizenship than those of us who did everything by the book and by the law. Is this the lesson we are supposed to take away from this? Doing things the legal way puts you at the back of the line? It's very frustrating!

Posted by: feeling like a fool | March 31, 2006 04:55 PM

Alright-
1) The founding fathers weren't illegal imigrants, but it was infered they were tecnicly trespassers (Johnson v. M'Intosh)(just for referance)

2) OK for the real reasons. Legaly, illegal imigrants don't have a right to be here. Predicating your arguement on the fact that employers want them is exploitave. Don't they deserve a working wage. It's only natural that they will live in dangerous conditions.

3) This imigration debate has 2 extream and not very inteleigent groups who shouln't really have much say, but say the most. On one side you have the minuete men fanatics and the other, you have people who don't want to assimilate, and reap the benefits w/o sharing in the responsibility. THESE TWO GROUPS SHADE THE DEBATE.

4) The fact is, MOST PEOPLE WANT IMIGRATION BUT WANT SOME CONTROLL OVER IT. This is true for both IMIGRANTS AND NON-IMIGRANTS.

5) There needs to be some realistic way for a forigner to relatively quickly get access to the country, and for US officials to check these people. There will be rejections.

6) Don't expect people to follow the law when you don't enforce it. Make a sensable law and follow it.

7) Both cultures need to have reasonable expectations. Americans need to realize that imigration will be a constant reality. Imigrants have to 1) be mindful of their actions b/c one jerk spoils it for the rest and 2) you have to learn to navigate in American culure. You can't stick to ghettos (I mean this in the literal sence, not the negative way)

Posted by: HOW ABOUT COMMON SENCE | March 31, 2006 06:12 PM

ONE MORE THING

Don't lable illegal imigrants "illegals" because they broke some law that is an infraction. If this is the case, anyone who's gotten a speeding ticket is an "illegal." Its a stupid way to describe people, and if we're going to ask these people to be participants in this society, this is a bad way to do it.

Posted by: HOW ABOUT COMMON SENCE | March 31, 2006 06:15 PM

'HOW ABOUT COMMON SENCE',
I appreciate your words very much.
Since my interest goes into American history. Could you get me any link to casuss you mentioned above?

Thank you

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 31, 2006 09:44 PM

...I like this topic...it's so clear-cut, so easy to see, so well-defined.

And it is such a lens over American society, Americans as individuals and groups...

Do people understand how easy it is to see when they are illogical, or biased, or racist?

Perhaps.

Do people understand that it is possible to be all three, even? And be on either side of this issue?

Case in point, an earlier point by "graydawg" or someone, who tried to paint everyone who is against legalizing illegals with the broad brush of being an "anti-immigrant"...

and the post ahead of this one, where some moron is claiming that "anyone who has gotten a speeding ticket is an "illegal". Clearly he has a problem with the word...and the logic behind the general use :)

...I doubt that many illegal immigrants have gotten speeding tickets, relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, but that is another issue...

Well, people, my point it is that it is easy to see who is playing with emotions and trying to inspire knee-jerk responses, and who is playing with facts and logic, and the law.

Again: what do you expect from a group of people who engage in and support extended criminal activity?

...still, he's right, we should deport anyone in this country who has ever gotten a speeding ticket ;)

and anyone who is in favor of anything that would make it harder for illegal immigrants to get into this country and make it, is a racist, bigoted xenophobe.

I'm just slightly kidding.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 09:59 PM

I love it...the idiots speak...

"2) OK for the real reasons. Legaly, illegal imigrants don't have a right to be here."

Genius!

" Predicating your arguement on the fact that employers want them is exploitave. Don't they deserve a working wage."

not in this country.

Isn't it simple? If they do not have a right to be here, then, they do not have a right to work here, and thus, no right to have a "working wage" or anything, in this country. Except possibly to apply for political asylum.


" It's only natural that they will live in dangerous conditions."

Wrong again!!!!

Living in dangerous conditions is not a natural state of human existence.

One could argue very rationally that that would indicate a *suicidal* state of mind.

The question is moot, though, as illegal immigrants do not live in dangerous environments. They live among other illegal immigrants, yes? And as such are sheltered from the greater American society.

They clump together to form a protective group.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 10:07 PM

I am a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen in this country for 16 years.

The problem with illegal immigration is that it is against the law. I oppose it and find it shocking that it is not enforced. Illegal aliens break the law several ways:

1: They enter the country illegally.
2: They stay in the country without a valid passport or visa.
3: They work without a permit.
4: They don't pay income taxes.

However they cost taxpayers money:

1: They use emergency medical care without paying for it.

2: Their children go to our schools . One child's education is at least $8000.00 per year plus special ed. for language assistance.

3:They use social services.

4: They are in prisons . In California 30% of inmates are illegals.

We need to enforce our immigration laws as most industrialized nations do. We need to make empolyer verification mandatory and fine employers who hire illegals. We need to develop procedures on how to handle illegals once identified then train local police to enforce the law.

Once the rule of law is established we should develop legal immigration channels to bring in labor for jobs that American won't do.

I doubt that american' will not do those jobs that illegals do. Americans will not do it for the money that illegals get. Once hiring illegals becomes risky employers will start employing "legals" and the blue collar "legals" will be able to demand a decent wage.

The reason this has become an issue now is because the number ( 10-15 million! )of illegals have become alarming and the trend is that unless we act it will continue rising.

Posted by: kazmer | March 31, 2006 10:12 PM

SandyK:
I agree I shouldn't have taken your chalange because of very obvious reasons. I don't need to prove anybody the value of my education neither where did I learned certain thigns. When I entered this site there was no condition 'US citizens only' and this debate is a free exchange of thoughts. I'm not here to 'cause bad blood', neither I am here to be afraid of your 'threats'. But if you try to spread fear you better watch when you harvest.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | March 31, 2006 10:12 PM

"5) There needs to be some realistic way for a forigner to relatively quickly get access to the country, and for US officials to check these people. There will be rejections."


Indeed, and it's called "travelling through a controlled point of entry".

Dude, thousands of foreigners travel into this country every day. Legally. Quickly. And get checked by US officials.

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

The people who are sneaking into the US, or, overstaying their visas, are AVOIDING THAT PROCESS.

I mean, people like you seem to think that we are talking about people hanging around outside a bar after closing!!!!!!!

What we are talking about is the equivalent of a bunch of underage kids breaking into a bar through the backdoor with the help of the staff, and buying drinks from the staff without the owners knowledge, and the staff pocketing the money left over after buying replacement bottles. And the staff is making a lot of money doing it so they have no incentive to tell the owners. The owner, however, is getting a volume discount on his liquor due to the huge volume of liquor that his bar is moving, so he has an incentive to keep the staff on, who seem to be selling so much liquor. It's all a cycle.

But it's fundamentally based on illegal activity.


Now they will try to make a good part of it legal...but by doing so they will not be able to destroy the cycle. The cycle is based on the fact that these people are here illegally and cannot compete freely for jobs like legal US workers.

They can go to other countries and work, both legally and illegally...but none of those other countries will pay them anywhere near what they will make here.

It is a classic black-market. Stolen goods and illegal services sold cheaply to people willing to buy at low prices from shady dealers. Except in this case, it is not a black-market for goods or people, it is a black-market for labor.

Such markets depend on thieves to supply the commodities at low prices (the illegals who sneak over the border) and the "fences" who are willing to buy the stolen goods (the corporations who hire illegal workers). But even so, the fences will not buy what they cannot sell, and in this case they are selling votes to American politicians and cheap services to the American public.

Marx would love it.

Mao would have predicted it.

And we have a government that is lapping it up.

They think that they are going to change the market by legalizing the workers, but the American employer who is currently hiring illegal aliens, is not interested in hiring legal aliens, unless they will work for the same low wages that illegal aliens will work for. And what legal alien will work for the wages of an illegal? The employers' will then want the restrictions removed entirely, so they can have their pick and choice of any employee they want who can make it to the country. But no matter what, those who are here illegally will ALWAYS work for the lowest wages, and those are the ones who are going to get the most labor jobs.

Unless the system is changed, and the "fences" can no longer hire illegal labor and sell it.

And if they do that, then it won't matter what the quotas are. The quotas we have now will be just fine.

But none of the politicans or business leaders want to admit this.

American businesses do not want to have to compete with each other for employees. And politicians do not want to have to compete with each other, for votes.

It is just like any other scam. It is always easier to scam people out of their money, than to work hard to generate a product or add value to their lives, legitimately, for a fee that will pay your expenses and allow you to live well, in a competitive market. And certainly anything you can do to reduce your expenses and increase your profit, you will do. If you can get away with it, you will do it.

And that is what Corporate America is doing, by pushing for this guest worker program. The citizenship/amnesty part is coming from the pols.

...but...once the corporations get their cheap lunch, they will turn up their noses at it...and want to go back to getting their lunch for free. No amount of legal immigration is going to satisfy their desire for low-cost illegal labor. For people who will work crap jobs for almost no pay and no benefits, and not complain, and keep coming back to the same gringos saying, "senor, do you have work for me?".

Once they are legal, they can compete for any job they want. That is not what Corporate America wants to happen.

And granting citizenship is just a way to entice more illegals to this country.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 10:31 PM

...in other words...

they know exactly what they are doing.

and there are very good reasons for why this "debate" is taking place at this time, and not years ago.

But they have already worked it out. And they are probably just putting on a big song and dance to mollify the American public.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 10:36 PM

to cc:
"The cycle is based on the fact that these people are here illegally and cannot compete freely for jobs like legal US workers"
This is generalization and not exactly precise. Most of my friends 'illegals' found employment in large companies in some of them labor unions are established. Their only advanteges are skills, will and effort put to get such job. Pay schedule is the same for everybody.
"They can go to other countries and work, both legally and illegally...but none of those other countries will pay them anywhere near what they will make here."
Again, inacurate generalization. Probably term 'illegal immigrant' in this debate is limited to some particular nation(s?). But immigrants recruits from many nations and have many options. A lot of them are welcome to Ireland, United Kindom or Norway and other UE countries as well as Canada or Australia. Some of this countries provide immigrants with better pay and benefits. You might want to take under consideration the role of 'roots'. Immigrants are very mobile but with limitations. You dont want to jump from country to country and settle just for a few years and move again.

"Such markets depend on thieves to supply the commodities at low prices (the illegals who sneak over the border) and the "fences" who are willing to buy the stolen goods (the corporations who hire illegal workers). But even so, the fences will not buy what they cannot sell, and in this case they are selling votes to American politicians and cheap services to the American public.

Marx would love it.

Mao would have predicted it."

Writing 'Marx would love it' you mean he would describe it and criticize it. ...Well Marx did describe and did criticize any situation where the owner of a capital is getting profit from somebody else's work. Profit described as a part of a value of the labor. The part that is 'stolen' from emploee. If indeed the 'illigal immigrant' can take a job for less than the 'legal' it doesn't really matter. The fact that somebody is having profit out of somebody else's efforts remains. The figures change.
I'm sceptic if Mao would predict anything that could be able to come true. Since China got rid of him is getting significantly better and better. Frankly, talking about economics.

"and there are very good reasons for why this "debate" is taking place at this time, and not years ago"
In summer 2001 I was in US shortly. Just for vacation. It happened I was here during 9-11. Back then I experienced attitude of your countrymen toward foreigners. Now nobody will sell me PC. Its really more reasonable nowdays.

Posted by: illegal immigrant | April 1, 2006 06:59 PM

Illegal Immigrant threatened:
===========================================
I'm not here to 'cause bad blood', neither I am here to be afraid of your 'threats'. But if you try to spread fear you better watch when you harvest.
===========================================

Like what Lawbreaking Illegal Thief? What's the "better watch when you harvest" threat?

Do you mean we reap what we sow? Or that the illegals will strike and try to influence crop prices? We reap a better harvest with illegals out of our country; and my mom's garden is enough to feed the neighborhood if needed (but thanks for the reminder it's tomato season now, too). :D

Oh, and you BETTER watch YOUR back, illegal alien. For INS can be knocking on your door at any time. :D

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | April 2, 2006 06:53 AM

SandyK
I shouldn't expect that you would understand a metaphore. You know, spreading seed and harvesting. Go ahead and think it over again.
INS will not knock my door. There is a simple reason. Such authority doesn't exist. Your informations are not up to date.
...Maybe you better take care of your little garden and let me keep on paying your support;P

Kamil

Posted by: illegal immigrant | April 3, 2006 12:06 AM

Consider: In Texas there are 10 requirements to be a juror,but only 3 to become President. 1. Be able to Read and Write( English ) 2. Be of sound mind good morals. 3. Or under inditement for a crime. For families who allowed their kids to miss school-just another day where English was not learned. The families that allowed them to miss did not have good morals. For what the kids see from their parents,they will do in the future. The kids may be legal if born here,but crossing the border without being a legal resident is still illigal. If the US would enforce the laws on the books, their are many in business,agriculture,and Home owners who if found guilty of hiring illigals would not be eligible to vote on 5 November. I don' know if the Democrates or the Repulicans would be most effective. But if the price of gas keeps climbing their will also be many legal residents who will not be able to drive to the poles either. Vrspy Buzz Baer Kailua Kona Hi.

Posted by: Buzz Baer | May 3, 2006 09:06 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.