The Paranoid Fringe of the Immigration Debate

In the debate over immigration, perfectly reasonable arguments can be made in support of many different points of view. Even still, unreasonable arguments abound, generally championed by fringe groups consisting of those who are either racist, paranoid or both.

So let's get the wacky fringe out of the way before we go any further. We can have a good laugh (or cry) about the fact that people really believe this stuff, and then we'll stick to arguments of merit for the rest of the week, rather than digressing into the absurd.

The variety of absurdity to which I refer can be found at certain Web sites frequented by those worried about "anti-White legislation" and fretting that there won't be "enough strong white people with spines left to win a CWII." (That's "Civil War II" -- which apparently will be the result of immigration -- for those not familiar with the lingo of the paranoid racist crowd.)

Then there are the slightly more subtle references to illegal immigrants as "invaders" who can be equated with the Nazi occupiers of France. (On second thought, perhaps "subtle" isn't quite the right word. Let's call it "slightly less extreme.")

For a useful rebuttal to arguments that immigrants -- all immigrants except non-Hispanic whites, that is -- will drag our country down, read this opinion from Linda Chavez.

Finally, I'm sure they didn't mean it, but Secured Borders U.S.A. lists more than 40 so-called supporters of illegal immigration accompanied by this text: "Secured Borders U.S.A. and our supporters must continue to be vigilante regarding" those listed. Vigilante. I trust that's just a spelling mistake, and that they aren't really encouraging their followers to seek vigilante justice against those individuals and organizations.

Of course, incitement of that form -- listing offenders and encouraging Web site visitors to take violent action against them -- has happened before. When extremists are involved, one can never be too careful.

By Emily Messner |  March 20, 2006; 1:51 PM ET  | Category:  National Politics
Previous: This Week's Debate: Immigration | Next: The Facts: Congress on Immigration

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Quick the nativist wing of the Republican Party must disassociate itself from the religious wing of same party with regards to the latter's stand on non-marital sex and abstinence. More non-Hispanic white babies are needed now! Dubya's "I married a librarian" marriage and his brother Jeb's interracial one must be censured. Instead Bubba must be held up as the role model for all patriotic white Americans. We must encourage all forms of sex so more white babies will be conceived and born.

Come to think of it Bubba is not a good role model since Monica is Jewish. Newt and his three marriages is perhaps the better choice.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 02:28 PM

I assume there will be a blog post of those organizations who advocate "open borders". The looniness is not on one site.

Posted by: Jacknut | March 20, 2006 02:39 PM

We cannot continue, at the current rate, to absorb and support all these poor illegals coming into this country. It is not racist, it is economic. Playing the race card is the only thing the illegals have in their arsenal.

We must build a wall at the top and bottom of the country. It doesn't need to be an literal wall in most places because mechanized systems, such as armed predator aircraft, can patrol vast areas between inhabited, walled zones.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 20, 2006 02:41 PM

and ultimately,

peasants fighting peasants..


as the reich take advantage of both, and use them against each other...


that's what you're not addressing, and to some extent I consider that elitist cowardice.


as outsourcing takes hold and more jobs move overseas, and our citizens start being treated like 3rd world citizens...and the ones that are maintaining their tenuous hold on the middle class


look at this:

we just passed laws allowing unpaid overtime

we just passed laws reducing benefits for social security and medicare, reduced foodstamps by $380 million

with the incursion of outsourcing was a surge in bankruptcies that we passed tougher laws to protect the corporations

but not the citizens.

we increased tax breaks for the richest 3 percent...which in effect would pretty much embrace the corporations...


who would allowing illegal immigrants to come in more easily help?


those that want to pay less money for labor,

the corporations.


who would catering to illegal immigrants hurt?

those who would have to share an increasingly smaller pie...


americans peasants: service sector, which has been expanding rapidly over the last 20 years as

blue collar jobs with benefits move overseas.


we have enough tired and poor here, that aren't being taken care of.


you want the world to be a better place, you don't import 3rd world conditions into the United States...


you create a barrier between them and the United States and require that the osmotic financial and human rights equalize before the barrier is brought down...


we have lost blood, and our citizens are sick and have diminished financial capacity and diminished hope and future....


fix that first.

require that other countries meet or beat standards that we held in the 70's as far as labor laws and benefits are concerned and bring those same laws back into the United States

closing the border to goods that were made where labors laws are nonexistent, even if the companies that are using those peasants are "american owned,"


all arguments otherwise are not understanding the situation for what it is:

a capitulation of responsibility for American citizens rights and benefits, when WE made this country and it's corporations successful...


"your tired and poor"


makes sense when we are in an expansionist mode, and every person is needed...


that's why they sent prisoners to Australia..


we are creating tired and poor, working 60 hours with no benefits and working for Addeco, or other Temp labor organizations that can fire, lay-off, or not find jobs for those that don't meet their standards of employment....like taking a sick day

you don't do that on temp jobs.

in Europe they get 5 weeks vacation, on a temp job, _you don't miss work_

you figure it out college kids.


you're making it possible for the muckrakers to have something to right about,

and oliver twist becomes a reality again, already is for marginalized citizens in some communities.

cheers to the American affluent, who care less for you than they do for their dogs, because they don't know you.

.

Posted by: it's not rascist, it's preservationist... | March 20, 2006 03:04 PM

Corporate America is removing the benefits to being a United States citizen...


they're taking away sick days, vacation days and increasing the amounts that you pay for deductibles on dental and medical...


when the world changes for your little blue collar buddies, it aint long 'til it changes for you.

by importing 3rd world conditions to the United States.

the peasants from other countries are competing with the peasants that are citizens, reducing their benefits, and removing their chance to bargain.


temp workers have become pandemic in "white collar" jobs too...


looking online for computer work recently, I found that compared to 3-4 years ago, the overwhelming majority of ads were for temp worker companies...

like:

Addeco, ManPower, Kelly, TAD Technical services, and so on

that used to hire for receptionist, envelope stuffing, or secretarial positions


I also know of companies that have brought in on a regular basis, citizens from overseas operations to replace managers, trainers, et al, _at lower pay_, as a way of cutting salaries, benefits and intimdating US workers...


before outsourcing was so common, down-sizing and eliminating positions while keeping the still maintained staff working over-time without pay, "but at least they had a job," was a common practice...


what you are calling "illegal immigration," is in actuallity corporate America turning it's backs on it's citizens...


I was working in McLean, VA a few years ago, near MITRE Corporation Hdqtrs. along Rte 123, near CIA hdqtrs....and witnessed Mexican laborers, exclusively being used behind fences, building apartments on land that had been leased to MITRE, that they vacated, not too far from Tysons Corner....in full sight..probably 1993.


they were behind fences so they couldn't mingle, what's up with that?


What about the people that were denied working on that project?

DEAR DC FOLK:


IF you live and work in the DC METRO region...

then you know that they have a plethora of illegal immigrants that run the service sector...even though the cost of living is higher there than most regions of the country...


they have multiple families living in a single unit, check out Adams Morgan, Centerville, etc.


IF you live in Hawaii, and work as a waitress, because of the high cost of living you get paid a scale $10 hourly rate as well as getting tips...


in DC you'll make minimum, and if you work illegally, donate your tips to the owner...


since there is such a high rate of illegals in Virgina, DC and MD, there's always someone to do cleanup, service, yard work....that doesn't squeak if you cheat them...


why hire someone that knows what they're worth when you can hire Eddie from Peru, El Salbador, Guatamalea, or Mehico, eh?


clean up your own house, and neighborhood...might as well be Marion Barry running your congress....


as far as ethics go.

.

Posted by: | March 20, 2006 03:09 PM

re: Undocumented Aliens and the Paranoid Fringe

Yuppers, and they all live here in Southern Arizona. Even my parents who are normally sane people, say THEIR friends all have had aliens cross their yards and have seen their back packs on the fences ABOVE the check points on the Freeway.

So what do you do? Either put border patrol agents every ten feet along the border, which would END the problem, build up Mexico's economy, or build a wall impossible to tunnel under. (Which means solid rock.)

Fail to do any of (or most) the above and the creeping paranoia will become a mania which this country cannot stand.

Posted by: Kurt | March 20, 2006 03:47 PM

"that's what you're not addressing, and to some extent I consider that elitist cowardice."

Yes, this is right.

Illegal immigration is a tool of class warfare used by the upper classes vs. the native working classes.

The utter lack of empathy for the erosion of the standard of living among the working classes by the likes of the blog author is not simply a callous oversight--it is a strategy to preserve the writer's own privilege at the expense of the lower classes. This is the very heart of the peonage system.

Posted by: Phil Bazhal | March 20, 2006 03:52 PM

johnnyg in NE DC said:

"We must build a wall at the top and bottom of the country."

I agree. Gotta build a wall at the top of the country to keep those freeloading Canadians out.

Derek.

Posted by: Derek. | March 20, 2006 03:53 PM

Derek-

The reason we do not need to build a wall preventing Canadians from entering the country and we might need to develop more effective means of preventing Mexicans from entering the country is because of certain facts about the country of Canada and certain facts about the country of Mexico.

One of these important facts is not that Canadians are mostly non-hispanic and Mexicans are mostly hispanic. Some people use this coincedental racial fact as evidence that our hypocritical anti-immigration policy is racist.

The prevalent fact about Mexicans is not that their skin is brown, but that their standard of living in their home state is substantially lower than it is the United States. This standard of living is lower because prevailing wages in Mexico are tiny compared to the prevailing wages in the United States. So much so that Mexicans are willing to risk arrest to work below the prevailing American wage in America because it still represents a dramatic increase in earnings (among other things).

The same cannot be said for Canadians. Canadians have no incentive to illegally immigrate to the United States because their wages are essentially the same. They would not make a significant amount more in wages here in the States then they would in Canada, nor is the quality of life particularly more favorable (they would lose their health care, afterall) for them to risk arrest just to get low income jobs in the US.

This is why we need to have two separate policies for illegal Canadians and illegal Mexicans. It's merely circumstancial that one group happens to be white and one group happens to be brown. To make more of that fact is to play up the racial factor of this debate for your own advantage. But then again, it's a lot easier to disagree with someone if they are nothing but a xenophobe.

Posted by: Will | March 20, 2006 04:05 PM

I heard a really good comment on NPR last week. A guest on TOTN said that the day after the U.S. builds an 8ft fence there will be a huge new market for 9ft ladders. A wall, either real or metephorical, is not the answer.

A guest worker program is a realistic solution. OK, not ideal, but better than what we've got.

We can't shut ourselves off from the world. I kind of, sort of agree with an earlier comment, that it is not immigration that is the problem, but rather the practices of corporate America.

After all, unless your name is Sitting Bull and you live on a reservation, you are descended from immigrants. A lot of illegal immigrants don't come here for giggles - they often risk their lives, exposed to unscrupulous traffickers and the elements, with the hope of not just improving their own lot, but for their 52 closest relatives back home, as well. I am definitely NOT arguing that, well, they had a tough trip here so we gotta give 'em something. No. I am just pointing out that much illegal immigration is caused by economic desperation, not a desire to freeload.

Also, people seem to think that if we cut off Mexico the problem is fixed. I think we would find that a huge chunk of illegal immigration is people from all over the world coming here legally and overstaying visas. A wall (again, real or metaphorical) would not solve that.

Posted by: Matt | March 20, 2006 04:06 PM

Sorry, Will, I was trying to make a funny. Obviously did not succeed... (Also it was intended to be a veiled link to a Family Guy episode where Peter complains about freeloading Canadians).

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 20, 2006 04:09 PM

Your comments are absurd and smack of someone who's ready to paint illegal immigration opponents as white, ignorant extremists. You fail to see that these people are bread and butter Americans who feel betrayed by their elected officials and the press that is supposed to champion them.

Let me clear up a few things for those of limited minds who might read this. First, there is no such thing as a "white" person. The closest thing there is to a "white" person is a Caucasoid (excluding those rare instances where a person's body does not produce melanin due to a condition). Caucasians are a major ethnical population whose members have skin colors ranging from light to dark brown. These people, who are commonly called "whites," are indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, southwestern Asia and the Indian subcontinent. So, it's an irrefutable fact that we're all colored whether one likes it or not.

The fact that the vast majority of illegal immigration originates from countries whose citizens have a darker than white skin tone is irrelevant. Anyone who can't see beyond such a superficial notion is wholly ignorant of the facts about illegal immigration and is a fool to boot.

If you check your facts, you will find that illegal aliens who are Caucasian have been entered into immigration court proceedings whenever encountered. Do you remember the Super Bowl streaker from England? He was deported. What about all of the white Irish terrorists who have been hiding out in the United States? They're in immigration proceedings and being deported. And, the Baltic genocide perpetrators hiding out in Arizona? They're being deported, too. How about the white Africans caught in Georgia last year? The same... The reason there are so many deportations of Spanish-speaking people is because the vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic. Check the facts; they're important.

Second, did you even bother to check out "La Raz" and other like-minded groups? Do you even know what that group espouses or what illegal alien advocates think? If you are like most Americans, you do not know what to look for when going through the group's materials because you don't read and speak Spanish. I do, so I'll help you. "La Raz" is short for "The Race" and the group advocates making the U.S. a Hispanic state by literally overrunning the country through illegal immigration. What about the countless other pro-illegal alien groups out there and their racist doctrines? Did you even bother to check out what these groups' local advocates push? How about what members and supporters of "CASA of Maryland" promulgated at their pro-illegal alien rally at Blake High School in Montgomery County, Md? Check the facts; they're important.

This is not an issue of one or two illegal aliens telling their plights. Illegal immigration is an issue of literally countless millions who have surreptitiously entered the United States and are undermining this country. Focus on the facts: it's the large masses, not the ones and twos. It's a fact that if you stood all the illegal aliens in the United States shoulder to shoulder right now, the line would easily span the entire country!

Study after study shows that illegal immigration is destroying the United States. Note that I specifically said "illegal immigration," not legal immigration. Illegal immigration adversely affects every single facet of the United States: health care, taxes, employment, social benefits programs, communication, community crime, national security, and more.

If you just want to look at it economically, it is simply a plain fact that illegal immigration costs the United States taxpayers and businesses untold billions of dollars every year. We, the taxpaying nation, simply cannot afford it. Even the Washington Post Magazine demonstrated this when it ran an article the Sunday before last on an illegal alien's life here in the United States. The alien admitted that he doesn't pay taxes. With the nation's tax deadline looming, doesn't it bug you that you work four months of the year just to pay taxes while illegal aliens do not pay a single penny?

Even worse, small business owners --the primary employers of illegal aliens--not only exploit these people with low wages, but they do not pay for unemployment insurance, health premiums, or workman's compensation. The employers pay the illegal aliens with business checks that they cash for them (keeping it on the books!) or the aliens cash at storefront check cashing businesses, thereby avoiding paying Social Security! In the meantime, the Washington Post pays taxes to employ you and your cohorts just as my employer does for me. The upstanding shoulder the burden while illegal aliens funnel billions of untaxed U.S. dollars to foreign countries in a form of modern-day bootlegging; all while the Treasury Department looks the other way.

Every single person who is not a United States citizen has the opportunity to emigrate here legally. All they must do is wait their turn. Instead, illegal aliens choose to violate the sovereignty of our nation and its very generous immigration system and jump to the front of the line. They illegally enter the U.S. bearing false documents, without inspection, bearing diseases and with the intention of exploiting the opportunity here that you and me have worked to provide for our children. They do so without any respect or care for the laws we have painstakingly crafted to better our society. They, and illegal alien advocates, even have the audacity to refuse to recognize that simply entering the country illegally and without inspection is a violation of federal law. The reason it's the law is that it protects us: those who are entitled by naturalization or birth to be here.

Did you know that many scientists and doctors attribute the resurgence of disease once deemed "conquered" here to the fact that aliens entered the United States without undergoing inspection? Isn't it nice to know that Metro riders every day share poorly ventilated and crowded subway cars with illegal aliens carrying tuberculosis and other communicable disease? Enforcement of immigration law protects us in so many unseen ways.

You and your cohorts at the Washington Post should stop picking and choosing sides and be the journalistic American voice it's supposed to be. Americans want illegal immigration stopped. We don't want it slowed. We want it stopped. Americans want the immigration system fixed so more opportunities can be presented for legal immigrants such as our forefathers to pursue the American dream. We don't want it two or three years from today. We want it now!

Finally, you criticize those who are against illegal immigration because of a misspelling. Here something for you to mull over: a relative of mine, a citizen of Spain here legally, is a Spanish teacher. She went to obtain a drivers license and was asked if she would like to take the test in Spanish. She figured, "Why not? I'm Spanish, so I'll understand it better." She failed it multiple times because the "Spanglish" it was written in doesn't even comply with the rules for Spanish! She finally asked to take the English version and she passed on the first try. Don't criticize and label these folks for misspelling a word or two while they watch their country get stolen from them. Many of them are from older generations and their collective lack of formal education is because when they should have been in school they were too busy fighting for the principles of this country in World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada and the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: Manolo | March 20, 2006 04:19 PM

What I don't get is, the same people who say the "Mexicans" are taking our jobs would NEVER take a minumum wage landscaping job or work for min. flipping burgers. Which jobs are they taking exactly?? Without illegal immigration our argiculture industry would cease to exist.

P.S. Derek, great Family guy reference!!!

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

"Check the facts; they're important"

I think Mr. O'Reilly has already trademarked that phrase.

Posted by: Defender of Fox News Trademarks | March 20, 2006 04:24 PM

bring

back

American

Standards that

existed in

the 70's.


And support human rights in other countries

if they do business with us.


Rescind the ability of American companies to be treated as American companies when they use foreign labor,


and do not adhere to US labor standards and standards of living appropriate to the United States in those countries...


move the factories home, or make them pay import duties that let them know that they are foreign competitors of


United States Citizens.

don't pander to Robber Barons,


thanks so much for being realistic Emily?

not at all.

Posted by: you want the world to be a better place for everyone... | March 20, 2006 04:25 PM

an hour for yard work?


there are plenty of ways to pay that.


flippin burgers?


haven't you noticed that since the .com failure that the grocery store clerks and burger flippers look a little smarter...


the DC area isn't the rest of the United States, Rocko...


there's no reason flippin burgers can't earn you a home, it used to.

being a milk man used to.


.

Posted by: why shouldn't someone be paid $20 | March 20, 2006 04:28 PM

Monolo,
You do realize that the Spanish spoken in Spain and the Spanish spoken in Mexico do in fact have differences...its like the English spoken in England and English spoken in the US, different words for the same thing, etc. Not sure what your story had to do with the misuse of vigilante though.

Posted by: Rocko | March 20, 2006 04:28 PM

I have lived in Arizona and California - and its clear that only people from border states understand the issue. Sorry Emily but, you appear to be clueless. Last year 14.4% of the people the border patrol stopped from coming into the country were felons. It costs between 40 and 60K a year to warehouse these people. The border patrol also stopped Syrians, Iranians, and some individuals that just happened to be members of Al-Qaida. Then there's the billions of dollars worth of drugs that are moved across as well. In other words we need to act wisely and incorporate the immigrants that we need and not just everyone who wants to come here. But to do that we will have to have a President that's serious about controlling both borders - the current guy isn't.

Posted by: Jim | March 20, 2006 04:30 PM

I just wonder how the USA will be for white people once we are the minority? Do you think people will give us affirmative action or worry about our children? Probably not.

Posted by: no name | March 20, 2006 04:33 PM

One chap earlier said that "Every single person who is not a United States citizen has the opportunity to emigrate here legally. All they must do is wait their turn. Instead, illegal aliens choose to violate the sovereignty of our nation and its very generous immigration system and jump to the front of the line."

As a permanent resident myself (originally from England) I can tell you that the immigration is far from "generous". It is painful, expensive, intimidating and humiliating. Never before have I felt such a criminal as when I have to deal with immigration authorities. And I have been here for 5 years - I arrived legally at Dulles Airport and have paid all my taxes on time every year. I applied for residency because my lovely American wife did not want to live in Britain. I hold two Bachelors Degrees and a Masters Degree and work in a white collar job. I can only imagine how it must feel for someone who is trying to emigrate here a) without a good grasp of English; b) with lesser skills (remembering that all is relative - there are foreign brain surgeons driving cabs in New York) or c) without a connection, like marriage, to the U.S.

I am not advocating in favor of illegal immigration. Far from it. Given the horrible experiences (including threatened deportation even though all my papers were in order) I have had, I am outraged that people could jump ahead of me and not have to go through the whole process. But what I am saying is that the legal process is not all peaches and cream like I think some Americans think it is. Even for an Englishman like me.

Posted by: Peter Best | March 20, 2006 04:35 PM

Derek: "Sorry, Will, I was trying to make a funny. Obviously did not succeed... (Also it was intended to be a veiled link to a Family Guy episode where Peter complains about freeloading Canadians)."

I got it, and knew if I did not include those crazy Canadians, I would be called a racist:) Anyway, a fence is not just to keep out the poor and the "freeloaders", but also terrorists.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 20, 2006 04:57 PM

Ms. Messner:

Now that you've taken on what you consider the worst of the lunatic and racist arguments against illegal immigration, can we trust you'll be taking on the best of the sane, non-racist arguments against it? I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Keep in mind also that, historically, multi-racial countries are unstable. Does it make sense to make the U.S. more ethnically unstable than it already is? After the Soviet Union fell -- you remember, that other superpower whose reigning ideology stated that ethnicity and race were irrelevant-- the first thing that happened was that large numbers of ethnic Russians left the former SSR's for Russia proper.

It's easy to call people racists, but maybe Messner should go on a fact-finding tour in Southern California high schools, neighborhoods, and prisons before she tells us that continued mass illegal from Mexico is something only racists worry about.

Posted by: DCDude | March 20, 2006 04:58 PM


One other thing. Ms Messner writes that fearing anti-white legislation is irrational. I ask her only to look at Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa to see how quickly anti-white legislation gets passed in countries that are majority non-white.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:00 PM

Peter Best,

Just show you still have a lot to assimilate even for an Englishman. Here in the USA we don't use the word chap. It's dude, or guy, or fellow, or some more modern hip hop term...

Unless you are from Down Under, then mate is ok.

As for your experience with immigration, some of it probably had to do with the post 9/11 climate. Some of it is pure bureaucracy, ever deal with the local DMV here? They treat everybody the same, usually some form of mild disrespect.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 05:02 PM

"One other thing. Ms Messner writes that fearing anti-white legislation is irrational. I ask her only to look at Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa to see how quickly anti-white legislation gets passed in countries that are majority non-white."

I think there is a lot of anti-white legislation here in the District. But I have learned to deal with it over the past 30 years, and am patient enought to wait it out. (Hey, I know it was the opposite before the present waning situation.)

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 20, 2006 05:06 PM

A poster wrote in reference to your previous post:

"From the 15th century through the 20th century, it was the white man on the move all around the world, establishing his own dominance, displacing the cultures of less advanced peoples all around the world, most typically peoples of darker skins.

Now, it appears that destiny--or history--has taken a hand so to speak. All over the world, the dark skinned peoples of the earth are on the move. They are coming into every country. And, they are bring the richness of their own cultures with them.

Oh we can squeal and hiss in probably the same way they did when we came into their countries and displaced their cultures. But now, history is on their side. And I guess it is the white man's turn to taste what it is like to have an alien force override his society and displace his culture."

Now, do you find this kind of rhetoric acceptable? If so, then how can you call whites who are worried about being displaced "paranoid"?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:06 PM

The reason many folks suspect "anti-illegalists" of being racist stems from the fact that their emphasis is entirely upon the immigrants, not the prospective employers. Mexican peasants have seen their livelihoods destroyed by NAFTA and are simply seeking work. Employers are - in many cases - reaping a windfall of cheap workers. In many cases, employers secretly hire illegals so they don't have to pay unemployment taxes or workers compensation insurance. They're benefitting from a broken system.

Are anti-illegal-immigrationists racist? I'll bet most aren't, or don't intend to be. But, all should consider the real villans; it's not the Mexicans, it's the greedy business owners who are em;oying them. But, our Republican Leaders will never pass laws to punish business owners, will they?

Posted by: CT | March 20, 2006 05:09 PM

>> Keep in mind also that, historically, multi-racial countries are unstable. Does it make sense to make the U.S. more ethnically unstable than it already is? After the Soviet Union fell -- you remember, that other superpower whose reigning ideology stated that ethnicity and race were irrelevant-- the first thing that happened was that large numbers of ethnic Russians left the former SSR's for Russia proper.


DC Dude,

Comparing the US to the USSR will not win you major debating points. Secondly the US has shown that a multiracial country can be made to work so your argument can be classified as racist. More points deducted.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 05:11 PM

Expressing concern about illegal immigration is not the same as being some full-blown racist wacko. One need only to spend some time in the border states to realize the enormity of the illegal immigration problem. there are towns that are, quite literally, being overrun and the federal government is doing nothing about it.

On August 12, 2005, NM governor Bill Richardson declared a state of emergency in 4 counties along the Mexican border becuase, as he described it, "has been devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property."

He's hardly an extremist.

Posted by: D. | March 20, 2006 05:12 PM

Manolo: "If you just want to look at it economically, it is simply a plain fact that illegal immigration costs the United States taxpayers and businesses untold billions of dollars every year."

The minute illegal immigration costs United States business one red cent, illegal immigration will dry up.

Illegal immigration happens because employers are eager to cut costs. Illegal immigrants are ideal for this purpose, because employers can offer them sub-legal (hell, sub-human) wages and working conditions without fear of them complaining to their friendly neighborhood OSHA representative. Employers are then given their choice of two appealing options -- pass the savings onto consumers and undercut companies that employ legal workers, or charge the same prices as companies that employ legal workers and pocket the difference as profit.

The economics lesson Americans never seem to learn is, demand creates supply, but supply does not create demand. If you really want to end illegal immigration, take aim at the companies that employ illegal immigrants. Raise wages so that American citizens will take the jobs that are currently filled by illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs to do, nobody will come.

Posted by: cminus | March 20, 2006 05:12 PM

Borg wrote:

"Secondly the US has shown that a multiracial country can be made to work"

We have? Do we not read every day in the pages of the Post about the unending racial conflict in America?

It remains to be seen how well the recent experiment in multiethnicity in America will work. It might work out OK, or it might descend into something ugly. No one really knows, so why risk exacerbating the situation with continued mass illegal immigration?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:17 PM

Take the blinders off Emily...

Aztlán also gives its name to several Hispanic political movements in the United States, such as the Revolutionary Council and Provisional Government of Aztlán and MEChA, also known as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán). In this connection, it often refers to the irredentist struggle for independence or reunification with Mexico for those southwestern states colonized and occupied by the USA after the Mexican-American war and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.

"Aztlán" has been used as the name of speculative future-states that emerge in the southwest US and/or Mexico after the central US government suffers collapse or major setback. The novel Warday and the role-playing game Shadowrun offer two such examples

Posted by: | March 20, 2006 05:17 PM

The real question below this debate is: why the double standard for whites re organizing as a group? I take it Ms. Messner has no problems with groups like La Raza or the NAACP explicitly organizing for their racial/ethnic group's benefit. But any such group organizing on behalf of Americans of European descent is immediately labeled racist, extremist, and xenophobic, no matter how temperate their language. Is this fair? Discuss.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:23 PM

DC Dude - Come on, its the Post. Their stock in trade is playing up the racial angle to just about everything.

Multiethnic societies like the US work because of essentially two things (1) economic opportunity and (2) a strong incentive to assimilate. Identity politics undermines Number 2 and if unchecked, will lead to the failure of our little multiethnic experiment.

Posted by: D. | March 20, 2006 05:25 PM

D --

I agree that identity politics is the drop of poison in this otherwise digestible meal, but I don't see identity politics abating with the rise in illegal immigration, I see it increasing. Don't you?

I also agree that economic opportunity helps keep a lid on ethnic tensions. But what happens when the economy turns sour?

There are just so many risks to a multi-ethnic society, especially when the largest group is an economic underclass. Yet Post writers like Messner insist that anyone who talks about this is a lunatic, racist, etc. That needs to change.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:29 PM

being touted.


if you want to find the reason why "white people" are so popular again, talk to your presidente'


who uses crackerism as an election ploy.

Posted by: pandering to the moron vote gets you crackerism... | March 20, 2006 05:32 PM

DC Dude,

No one advocates illegal immigration. But to use the argument that multiracial countries are inherently unstable in this case is counter productive, if not downright racist since one can sense the fear of a competing dominant racial group in your argument. The US works as well as can be expected for any country, let alone a big multiracial one. It should be held up as a model not put down in the same category of the USSR, or Iraq for that matter.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 05:34 PM

As the husband of a legal, nonwhite immigrant I am clearly supportive of immigration. But my wife is skilled, fluent in English (though it is not her native language) and she went through the elaborate legal procedure of getting a green card. Though she is not a citizen she is vehemently against illegal immigration and I am with her. Granting amnesty or creating some backdoor loophole called 'guest workers' devalues her achievements, undermines our laws, and insults those of us who have tried to follow the laws.

Guest worker programs are dishonest because we all know that the 'guests' never leave. Be truthful and call it what is is - amnesty for people who broke the law. Will we get a rebate for legal fees and the cost of legal immigration? No.

I think reporters and politicians underestimate the anger and resentiment against illegal aliens among Americans. I am not a racist paranoid. I don't have nightmares of a civil war. I am supportive of legal immigration. But the current system is a vast tragedy that hurts millions of Americans and costs unimaginable sums of money. If politicians do not address it now in a serious manner then we may well see an ugly backlash later.

Remember Pol Sci 101: the essense of sovereignty is the control of a geographic area. If the federal government cannot control the border then it is failing one of its most basic responsibilities.

Posted by: tdneeley | March 20, 2006 05:44 PM

Borg,

On the contrary, lots of groups are sympathetic to illegal immigration. Most won't admit it outright, but La Raza certain wants as many Hispanics in the country as possible for its own membership rolls.

Look, the word "racist" is just tossed around in debates like this as if it's some kind of magic utterance that automatically decides the debate in your favor. It's not and it doesn't. Multiracial/multiethnic societies *are* inherently unstable. It doesn't matter whether you think that's a racist argument or not, because it's true. That's why countries formed without regard for tribes, races, and ethnic groups fall apart once their glue dissolves: Yugoslavia, Iraq, the USSR, many nations in Africa whose boundaries were drawn with a Frenchman or Englishman's ruler.

I don't mean to say that all multiethnic societies fail; I just mean that you've got to be really careful, since, no matter how smug and safe and beyond race you feel, race and ethnicity are real and can cause serious conflict.

But if those who worry about such conflict are smeared as racists in the Post, then such important debates can't take place.

I'd love it if the US experiment worked, and we can point to several relatively recent nonwhite immigrant groups, like the Taiwanese who came in the 1950s and 1960s, as American success stories. But let's not be naive about the possible problems here, and let's not cut debate off with the R-word.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:45 PM

This message board, BTW, is typical of the contemporary immigration debate: the comments from the people run 5- or 6-to-1 in favor of ending illegal immigration, while the young, elitist, no-experience-in-the-real-world newspaper columnist is all for it.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 05:49 PM

Regarding my posting earlier about "Spanglish" and the California drivers license exam, there is considerable commonality between Spanish languages to enable communication. I speak and read Spanish and English fluently and I am aware of the differences between "base" languages and derivatives. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of the Washington Post writer criticizing English-speaking Web posters for misuse of the word "vigilante" (one who takes the law into their own hands) when the person obviously meant "vigilant" (to be watchful). The California exam is rife with bastardized words. It's the Spanish-language equivalent to "ebonics." It would probably be more understandable to Spanish and English-speaking persons if it were written in Klingon.

Regarding Mr. Best from England who felt the immigration process was challenging here: the immigration process is one of individual experiences. Some take umbrage to it while others do not. Some people do not like going through the process and take offense to being asked intimate questions. That hardly makes the entire system or process grueling. My family will attest that it was not as difficult as some are led to believe and they were treated professionally at every step of the way. A friend of mine who desires to live in England and just returned from there said the immigration process there makes ours look downright friendly. Again, that's her perspective. But, as I point out below, governments have reasons for how their immigration processes are set up. How many people a nation can reasonably absorb without straining natural resources and infrastructure is a big factor in this.

As far as the expense of immigrating goes, I for one do not believe that American taxpayers should be required to shoulder the financial burden at all for someone who wants to emigrate here. If someone can come up with thousands of dollars to pay a human smuggler to lead them into the Arizona desert, then they can afford the comparatively cheap costs associated with applying to enter the United States. It has been U.S. policy for some time now that the desire to escape poverty is not an excuse to subvert the nation's legitimate immigration process.

The nation's leaders relied upon experts to decide how many people the nation can absorb through immigration. These experts were from business, academia and science. It was not done arbitrarily. The quota level can be adjusted through Congress. Illegal immigration levels, on the other hand, cannot be adjusted. Illegal immigration only grows if unenforced or unchecked (as England just did). Note that illegal immigration was so bad and immigration enforcement was so lax during Ronald Reagan's tenure that he actually granted amnesty twice. Obviously amnesty does not work. And, with the current structure and resources applied to it and the government of Mexico encouraging illegal immigration, it obviously can't be stopped without drastic measures.

You may recall that one of the key arguments for NAFTA, which George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and many other Democrats and Republicans alike endorsed, was that it would provide balanced trade, jobs in Mexico, and stem the tide of illegal immigration. Obviously we were all fooled by that one as American companies jumped the border in favor of unregulated business, a cheaper workforce, and the fact that they would be able to import their now-foreign made products into the U.S. without paying a tariff. Apparently, Ross Perot was right about that giant sucking sound. The tide of illegal aliens that has continued apparently weren't very much impressed by NAFTA, either.

When you have countries like Mexico openly subverting U.S. efforts to stop illegal immigration --comic books telling illegal aliens how to cross the desert, not prosecuting human smugglers, issuing consular identification cards to anyone bearing bogus documents, giving out free maps of the border, not stopping "La Mordida" (the bribe; corruption) and opening stating its biggest source of revenue is the money sent home by its citizens in "El Norte"-- and political flunkies doing only enough to make it election year fodder, then it's no wonder groups like the Minutemen are forming. Many people are starting to look at these groups like they're the newest chapters of the Guardian Angels.

Posted by: Manolo | March 20, 2006 05:49 PM

Dear "it's not rascist, it's preservationist...",

Re: Waaaaaaay back in the blog.

Keen observations and well put.

Posted by: smafdy | March 20, 2006 06:03 PM

DC Dude, Manolo and other are still missing the point. The villans here are the employers. End their incentive to hire illegals, and you end the influx of illegals. But, Republicans want it both ways. They want to make their business constituants happy by making the penalties for hiring illegals less than the cost of hiring them. And, they'll make the anti-illegals crowd happy by, oh, yelling and screaming (and doing nothing) about illegal immigration.

Worked so far, hasn't it?

Posted by: CT | March 20, 2006 06:09 PM

No CT, I agree with you on that. The employers are the villains here, seeking to maximize their profits while shifting financial responsibility (schools, emergency room visits, incarceration expenses, etc.) onto the taxpayer. You've got the right solution: simply start enforcing employment laws already on the books, and the illegal immigration problem dries up.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 06:14 PM

Pardon any spelling or grammar errors I make. I'm in a bit of a hurry. I disagree with Mssr. Cminus, who stated, "The minute illegal immigration costs United States business one red cent, illegal immigration will dry up." Etc., etc.

There are a myriad of ways that illegal aliens affect business. You need to bear in mind that the vast majority of business in the United States is small, not large, corporations.

Some fast examples:

- The Social Security Administration does not refund monies paid by a company for an employee who uses a bogus Social Security Number to obtain employment. What typically happens is the illegal alien employee, when found out, quits and gets a job elsewhere.

- Illegal aliens can and do sue businesses in civil court. If the business's insurance covers the issue, the insurance company will settle the case and hike the business's insurance rates. If the business tries to find another insurer, the insurance companies use a program called "CLUE" to mark them as high risk. The business WILL pay a much higher premium.

- Businesses employing illegal aliens undercut legitimate businesses by exploiting the illegal aliens through lower wages. The don't do this to cut costs. They do this because of greed. They want a larger profit margin. The legitimate business pays its taxes and fees and state prevailing wages (or more) while the illegal alien employer does not of this. When the worker gets injured, they go to the hospital emergency room through an independently owned ambulance, or get therapy or medical care from medical practitioners. These service providers are businesses. They are not welfare agencies. They pay insurance, taxes, make payroll, give services and collect debt. When the illegal alien skips out on their bill, the business absorbs the cost. The government does not reimburse them for it.

- When a bank makes a car loan to an illegal alien using a bogus ID, and the illegal aliens stops making payments on the car, the bank loses its money. The bank is a business, not a charity.

- Legitimate businesses fund "community compensation funds" through fees. When a consumer is victimized, the fly-by-night company employee illegal aliens disappears or declares bankruptcy and the victim collects from the fund, which was paid for by legitimate businesses.

- Furthermore, when an illegal alien who is uninsured or under-insured injures someone, who foots the bill? The victims and business. The business loses and employee due to sick days and time off for recovery. Yes, time off has cash value to businesses.

- When the United States needs money, say to provide 3,000 more Border Patrol officers and investigators, all of whom draw salary and special law enforcement pay, must be trained and equipped, one of the things the government does is increase enforcement of collections through the IRS. The IRS runs its computers overtime to cross-check tax returns. It then generates computer-generated "Pay up or else" letters to taxpayers and gives them less than 30 days to respond. This is done with then intent to scare the taxpayers into writing a check just to avoid the spectre of audit, regardless of whether or not the IRS is in error. Who gets the brunt of these notices? Subchapter S corporations; they are business owners.

On another point, raising wages is faulty logic, as demonstrated in Maryland where the legislature overrode the governor and raised the minimum wage. The result immediately showed up on the store shelves, where milk is now more than $3.65 a gallon. Continually raising wages is nothing more the political spin. The next time your state raises minimum wage, run to the grocery store and stand in front of the milk display. You'll be amazed how fast the clerks come out to change the price.

It's also not feasible for federal law enforcement to chase small businesses. There are simply not enough people to go after business. It takes considerable effort to build a criminal case and few U.S. Attorneys will take such a case when they're are murderers and drug dealers to go after. When a Wal-Mart subcontractor was caught employing illegal aliens, it took years for that case to be built. Wal-Mart ended up paying $11 million dollars to buy its way out of the mess, which Lou Dobbs pointed out was about 19 minutes worth of sales for the mega-retailer. If the government can't nail Wal-Mart, then how can it go after "Joe's Landscaping" or "Smith's Chop Suey Palace"? The next leap in this logic is to say, "Go after the people in Potomac who are getting their grass cut and their houses cleaned by illegal aliens." It doesn't work. The flow of illegal aliens must be stopped at the tap or before they cross the frontier.

Posted by: Manolo | March 20, 2006 06:38 PM

Speaking of jobs:
After getting frustrated at the length of the Q&A session of his speech in Cleveland today, Bush blurted out, "Anybody work here in this town?"

Bush inadvertantly hit upon a subject he otherwise ignored - unemployment in Cleveland. Economic conditions in the city have worsened considerably during Bush's presidency.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/20/bush-cleveland-work/

Posted by: Duh! | March 20, 2006 06:41 PM

INteresting how a new thread was added, patently insulting to many who oppose illegal imigration, so soon after the original thread was opened. Surely it couldn't have been because most of the comments were against illegal immigration that the old canard was toted out about how those who oppose illegal immigration are really racists and xenophobes, especially when it is those who favor immigration are the true bigots, viz. (I quote myself):

"notion that illegals do work that Americans will not do is a classic example of class and race bigotry. Until a couple of years ago, I was compliance manager for a Boeing defense division. Because our facilities were secure facilities, it was part of my duties, in conjunction with HR and Security, to make sure that only U.S. persons worked at our facilities -- not just our employees but those of subcontractors as well. According to the pro-immigrant bigots, our lawns should have been jungles and our bathrooms toxic because Americans won't do such jobs; but, in fact, we had no problem whatsoever recruiting Americans who were willing to do such jobs and do them exceedingly well. They tended to be black and white folks who had dropped out of school, or had high school diplomas but who were not fully functionally literate or just din't like office jobs. They were more than willing to do manual labor.

What was the secret? By virtue of being a defense contractor, we paid the "prevailing wage", they received health and other benefits just like the engineers and MBAs; and, just as importantly, the corporate culture treated them with respect as an important part of the team.

The problem is not that Americans won't work. The problem is that America's affluent class, whether its business-people or academicians/government, seem to think that anyone who is willing to do the hard, dirty work that they won't do for themselves somehow doesn't deserve to be paid well or treated with respect. We've lost sight of the Biblical wisdom that a laboror is worthy of his hire. There is a pernicious class and race bigotry that looks down on those without a degree, and even socially sorts the degreed by the status of their schools. Let's face it, a lot of those folks who coo over their Latin American nannie would run and hide from any candidate for that position with a black face or a red neck.

If market forces were allowed to work without being subverted by illegal immigration, then real wages for the under-educated native-born who were willing to do such "hard, dirty" would rise. Besides wages, many would be covered by either employer-provided health insurance or insurance through unions. Indeed, such workers would command a premium because of their willingness to do such work, and more people would be willing to do it.

There would be benefits for the tax-payer and society in general. Fewer on welfare and medicaid, less crime, less income disparity. Given that most illegals remit a sizable chunk of their paychecks back home, that money would stay in the US economy (at least for one cycle, until they shopped at Walmart). Such hard, dirty jobs are, by their nature, the type of service jobs that, but for illegal immigration, are not susceptable to being outsourced abroad, so there would be no adverse effect on "competitiveness".

Two generations ago, when some Southerners said that black folks were lazy and wouldn't work, they were rightly branded as racist. Now, when members of the intelligentsia say that about "Americans", they're using code for lower class folks. The fact is that the yuppies with a sheepskin are just as bigoted as a cracker with a sheet."

Posted by: Mike Deal | March 20, 2006 07:06 PM

Whenever I read something like Emily Messner's framing of the immigration debate so far this week, I think, "Who is this person? What made them the person who gets to frame the terms of the discussion?"

Answer: Emily Messner appears to be about 25 years old. Her Post bio reads:
"Emily has worked as a news aide on the foreign desk at The Washington Post since 2002, during which time she has written stories for Style, the Extras and the Sunday Source. In summer 2001, she was a Page One intern at USA Today, where she wrote Newsline for the domestic and international editions, helped write headlines and proofread pages. She edited several community newspapers as a copy editor at Patuxent Publishing Co. from March 2001 to March 2002. She attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where she was editor in chief of the Retriever Weekly, the campus paper, from May 1999 to May 2000, and the opinion editor from October 1997 to May 1999. A skilled debater, she has won several local, national and international awards and was the top-ranked female speaker at the American Parliamentary Debate Association's 2000 National Championship

So there you have it -- a 25-year-old with no kids in failing schools, no life experience working anywhere except the media, straight out of college, where -- as a "skilled debater" -- she learned to frame debates in terms like she's doing here, where one side is the "xenophobes," and the other side is those in touch with "America's glorious tradition of immigration".

Can't the Post do better than having a no-experience 25-year old as their point person on illegal immigration?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 07:09 PM

My wife and I are both legal permanent residents in this country, I am an MD and she is a PhD. I went through a process known as National Interest Waiver where I had to produce reams and reams of paperwork and letters from authorities (some, in case Ms Meissner is reading this, white) saying that my research was vital to the public health interest of the United States. And yes, in reference to the letter from another legal resident above, we stood in the same lines and faced the same borderline humiliation that everyone who goes through this prolonged process faces, but that's life.

In the ten years we have satyed in this country, we have paid taxes dillingently and tried our level best to assimilate into the system. When I read the utter flippancy in Ms Meissners attitude towards illegal immigration, it makes my blood boil. We live in Montgomery county, a place that is increasingly beginning to look like El Salvador or Mexico City. Is it racist to feel anger at the throngs who you know dont pay a dime in taxes, whose medical care costs eventually end up on our plates, who have almost come to expect a sense of entitlement to their automated benefits? And how can one explain the almost inexplicable paradox of amnesty for illegal immigrants, when even the slightest discordancy in the legal paperwork can mean your entire case gets thrown out? Its as if the system works to punish those who obey the laws, pay their taxes and be good citizens, while rewarding those who shamelessly exploit its flaws. I am deeply disappointed in the Post's cavalier treatment of such an important issue; I have to agree that with an assessment rendered above that Ms. Meissner's almost childlike and naive assessment of the scenario begs the question whether the Post wants serious debate or mindless drivel being discussed on one of the most important issues facing this nation today.
The United States is a country of immigrants, who have enriched this nation with their contributions. However, to call the swarth of illegal immigration that we face today as anything short of a scourge on this nation is delusional.

Posted by: aghast | March 20, 2006 07:40 PM

Listen you old geezers, it's Emily's blog. And she gets to pick the topic. She frames the debate to stimulate discussion from all sides. I don't agree with her 100%, but stop this ad hominem attack.

Besides it's obvious the Post is trying to attract a younger audience like all advertisers. There are enough old fart columnists and talking heads out there already.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 07:51 PM

Now that the recent college graduate Ms. Messner has introduced us to the dangers of the white supremacist fringe movement on the immigration issue, including links to lots of blogs she considers "paranoid," "racist," and "absurd," let me introduce you to some of the blogs Emily won't show you, because she's biased on this issue:

http://www.nationalchicanosummit.org/index.htm

This one specifically calls for the expulsion of whites from the United States, and refers to North America as "the Bronze Continent". Their address is listed as in "East Los Angeles, Califaztlan." Emily, don't you think this is a "fringe" group worth mentioning? I sure do.

http://www.aztlan.net/la_county_mexican_demographics.htm

Here's a site that proudly trumpets the demographic transformation of California from white to brown over the past few decades, and openly encourages more of it to effect the eventual return of the Southwest US to Mexico.

http://www.myspace.com/aztlanunderground

Here's the homepage of a Latino band in California that's openly calling for the return of California to Mexico and calling whites imperialists who need to be kicked out. "The Chicano giant has been awakened," the site promises. It has a lot of young Latinos commenting who appear to be highly supportive of the band and its causes.

There are thousands of such sites, and more every month. So whites who are concerned about (among other things) irredentism in the Southwest re illegal immigration are hardly "paranoid" and "absurd," Emily, but rather "entirely rational" and "smart".

It is odd and illogical that you, thousands of miles away and with little life experience under your belt, should be in charge of framing this debate.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 07:51 PM

Borg,

Sure it's her blog. The question is, why should Emily be the one framing this debate? She's clearly framing the issues not to "stimulate discussion from all sides," but to push forward her own views. That was clear enough on the first day, when she wrote the laughable sentence: "We will debate the clash between America's fondest ideals of immigration -- 'give me your tired, your poor,' etc. -- and the country's informal, but perhaps more ingrained, tradition of xenophobia."

She was called out on this by posters, but in the traditional of elitist commentators with nothing at stake, continued blithely on in her second post with a litany of "racist," "absurd," and "paranoid" sites. She's certainly not considering the best anti-illegal-immigration arguments; pro-illegal immigration writers like Messner rarely do, because these arguments are very strong.

Sure, she can write what she wants on her blog. But my question is, why her? Why should Messner have so much power to slant the debate in the pro-illegal immigration corner's direction? She's about 25 or 26 years old; does not ever appear to have lived in the Southwest; appears to have no job experience outside the media. She's probably a typically cocooned, elitist member of the mainstream media.

I don't mean to spring ad hominem attacks on her, but she doesn't seem real well-qualified to be writing on this topic, is very young, and she sure as heck isn't objective. Readers of this blog should know these things.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 08:00 PM

>> Its as if the system works to punish those who obey the laws, pay their taxes and be good citizens, while rewarding those who shamelessly exploit its flaws.

Welcome to the real world! You think politics in America is fair? You want straight talk? Here's the deal:

1. Hispanics carry increasing political clout as their population grows by leap and bound. Neither party wants to piss them off on election days. Look at California where anti immigrant measures give that state to the democrats. Or Florida where a small group of Miami Cubans swing elections the republican way for the past four decades.

2. The republican party will not 'buck' big business in this country. And big business needs cheap labor. QED.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 08:02 PM

Borg,

Hispanic political clout is overstated. Hispanics cast about 6% of the vote in the 2004 election (compared to 83% cast by non-Hispanic whites).

Additionally, over half of the votes cast by Hispanics were in two states that weren't in play electorally (California and Texas).

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 08:06 PM

Dude,

You forget the fact that in the last two elections the vote split right down the midde 50/50 in 2000 and 51/49 in 2004. In such a closely divisive environment even a tiny swing vote counts tremendously. While do you think the Miami Cubans get to dictate US policy toward Cuba for the last 40 years. And the republican party will never win another national election if they push all the Hispanics in Texas toward the democrats.

Posted by: Borg | March 20, 2006 08:13 PM

Well Borg, in such closely divided elections, you can make the case that any group, almost no matter how small, can swing the vote. My point was that the white vote was 83% in 2004 and the Hispanic vote was 6%, so focusing on the Hispanic vote over the white vote is illogical. And a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, of Hispanics who can vote want to enforce immigration laws anyway.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 20, 2006 08:18 PM

Phil Bazhal - "Illegal immigration is a tool of class warfare used by the upper classes vs. the native working classes."

I agree. And it is the elites in both Parties, the WASP and Jewish moneyed elites, and special interest groups like the Roman Catholic Church, Mecha de Aztlan, the ACLU, trial lawyers that perpetuate it despite 80% of Americans screaming outrage at what Bush, Kerry, Soros, Rubin, and others in the Richest 1% owner oligarch class have foisted on us in return for higher Ownership Society profits from cheaper 3rd world labor used in making their goods or service product.
***************************************

DC Dude - "One other thing. Ms Messner writes that fearing anti-white legislation is irrational. I ask her only to look at Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa to see how quickly anti-white legislation gets passed in countries that are majority non-white."


That is true. Anti-white hostility and laws facilitating mestizo seizure of jobs, lands are also now present in Peru and Venezuela.

It's worse where the Muslims are in the majority now. The usual pattern is that Muslims are an angry minority demanding full rights and equality...until they get a majority...then they fire up the Islamoids and jihadis to kill and subjugate the infidels until a nation is "pure" Muslim and subjugated Dhimmis.

Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Egypt are 95%+ pure Muslim for a reason. Infidels are killed or driven out. Same pattern in Sudan, Mali, Northern Nigeria. Watch out when the stupid multi-culti loving white liberal Euroweenies get majority Muslim population concentrations...starting around 2030 unless the Euros get smart and chuck the Muslims out who refuse to assimilate - or simply abandon the one person, one vote rule.
*******************************
Another good observation from DC Dude - "Keep in mind also that, historically, multi-racial countries are unstable. Does it make sense to make the U.S. more ethnically unstable than it already is? After the Soviet Union fell -- you remember, that other superpower whose reigning ideology stated that ethnicity and race were irrelevant-- the first thing that happened was that large numbers of ethnic Russians left the former SSR's for Russia proper."

Adding, ethnic differences tore not just the Soviet Empire apart but also the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire apart. The more diverse they got, the more divided, unstable, and weak they became internally while being blinded to the danger of collapse at the core -- due to outward manifestations of might like military power and rising GNP.

America could well follow those other collapsed civilizations if the nightmare of Aztlan becomes reality...Or it could be the Euroweenies on the 1st vote to put all of a major European city (Rotterdam, Marsielles?) under Sharia Law...or a whole country (France in 2040 when Muslims become a majority?)

The civilizations that last millenia are the ethnically and culturally pure ones (China, Japan, Persia, India, until recently Western European Civ..that only accept "diversity" coming at the point of a sword or gun and even then fight back and only take those elements the mainstream civilization is forced to take or are deemed "good" for all.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 20, 2006 08:29 PM

My suggestions:

1. Americans don't want immigration slowed, as various elites wish to have it made only so one of Bush's "willing owners" can be matched to "willing foreign employees willing to do the work no American wants" (At the "willing owner's" 5.00 an hour min wage offer for a job that once took pay of 15 an hour when natives did it...)
Americans don't want the Bush or Clinton "modified" immigration. They by 80-20 percentages, want it STOPPED until we can restore middleclass wages, assimilate the 40 million added plus their copious ninos and ninas, and try and salvage the black American natives that now have 51% unemployment of young black males + 8% in prison of black men in their late teens and 20s.

And by similar poll margins, Americans have become sick of "refugees" that prefer to flee conditions in their home country rather than fight and sacrifice to end them...then once here, tell Americans that American sons have a moral obligation to intervene and "end the persecution" they ducked out of in favor of the US refugee benefit package inc. free college and legal access to US jobs...all while swearing they will "always be Cubano patriots! Or Somali ones, etc,""

2. We want an end to dual citizenship. Be it Mexican, Israeli, Irish, Saudi...whatever. To be an American citizen, we have to make it clear it involves 1st loyalty. No voting in other countries elections, no more "internationalists" or "citizen of the World" cosmopolitans holding 3-4 passports deciding on who to be loyal to depending on the week...all while claiming full US benefits unless their Israel or Saudi citizenship gives them better breaks on other matters...

3. No more US citizenship simply by birth. No more illegals crossing simply let allowed to squat, spit out an "anchor baby", thus allowing the whole familia to come and stay permanently in Los Estados Unidos. The 14th Amendment was never intended on legitimizing spawn of illegals and facilitating chain migrations of families and whole villages full of related people, but making all ex-slaves citizens.

Make the law that a baby born only to one or both parents being US citizens is a US citizen, with no dual citizenship accepted at birth. Make the law retroactive 5 years so a ton of "anchor babies" presently dropped on US soil are no longer considered automatic US citizens.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 20, 2006 09:14 PM

i dont know why i'm writing, but here goes...

i see almost everyone arguing against illegal immigration, which is as it should be, but a lot of flawed arguments. especially the economic arguments, but i won't get into that, cause i want to make this short.

i guess if i had to pick out one thing that bothers me most, it is the use of websites to base your argument. i'm referring to websites by so-called mexican groups advocating the expulsion of whites from the US, or whatever other weird thing these websites advocate. its funny, but most of the illegal immigrants coming here don't have access to the web, never had access to it, and probably will not have access to it for a long time. they don't know what is being said on these radical websites, and certainly do not share those radical views.

for every handful of nutjobs advocating the explusion of whites from north america, you can find two handfuls of nutjobs advocating that we shoot the first group dead on sight. welcome to the highwater mark of civilization.

Posted by: sure buddy | March 20, 2006 09:30 PM

It's not about race or language (although I do believe that you should be proficient at English to become a citizen, as that's the language of the Constitution).

It's about economics.

We (our government and fellow citizen corporations) have committed ourselves to the global economic mean. The American middle class, as we have come to know it, cannot survive.

The next time I hear a politician talk big about American workers out-competing their foreign counterparts, I think I'll puke. That doesn't happen anymore - and it won't until we're ready to live like the Chinese or the Indians or Koreans or Mexicans.

The poster with the ever changing name, who advocates returning to the stricter laws of the '70s, is correct - the onus should be put on our corporations to hire only legal citizens and/or documented workers, and to operate under reasonable labor and wage laws. If this sounds like the revival of a "Great Society" program, then so be it. The alternative is cataclysmic.

Posted by: smafdy | March 20, 2006 09:45 PM

Everybody who has posted on this site from a US location is or was the beneficiary of immigration to the US, on what ever basis. Some relatives came long ago before Europeans, some when the Europeans invaded, some much recently. All from immigrants, every single one of us, whether ourselves or our ancestors.

Amazing how many want to shut the door behind them, call it illegal when someone else wants to find a better life, like the poster seeks, or his/her ancestors did.

Reality is can't have the door wide open - and we don't ... can't really close it tight - we won't.

Imagine a world where labor can move as easily as capital to chase the best opportunities -

Imagine if capitalists outsourcing work to China or Indonesia had to live where they invested, as labors have to live where they work

Why should the wealthy be able to go where ever they want when ever they want, but the poor not go where their feet or a boat can take them where ever they'd like?

Experience or living in a border state doesn't automatically make one anti-immigrant - ignorance and cherry-picking facts will though, if filtered through the right set of preconceptions

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | March 20, 2006 10:09 PM

bunch of stupids. nobury is better than outher. there is no illigal ou legal. we are all imigrants. and remember, the bible says ' God is God of all imigrants and He protect then.

Posted by: | March 20, 2006 10:21 PM

Regarding undocumented immigrants already here: There has been for decades a wide gap between law and policy. While the law prohibits their living here, government policy has actively encouraged this. The government needs to reformulate its laws and policies to coincide and deal fairly with undocumented immigrants already here.

Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2006 10:34 PM

Mill_of_Mn-

It's not about shutting the door on immigrants, it's about shutting the door on illegal ones because their proliferation in our society is both a) incurred with an enormous cost on the quality of life of many Americans who have a much more legitimate claim to that social wealth and b) economically insustainable.

The "Reality" is that we do have the door wide open, open enough for 3 million immigrants to waltz through every year. This door is 2,000 miles long and nearly impossible to oversee. Not that it would matter, since there is nothing to prevent someone from reentering our country once, twice, 12 times to sneak a peak at the American dream.

I feel for illegal immigrants, since my best friend married one (incidentally I was a groomsman at the wedding). I understand the human cost of moving back to Mexico for them and I sympathize. But the United States cannot let anyone who wants to be an American enter, and why should Mexicans be able to bipass the legitimate immigrant system while British, Indian, and Egyptians cannot?

This is not a wealthy vs. the poor issue, it's about the laws of the land. It's about cultures reasonably refusing to commit suicide just so that everyone can experience the "American dream" (which will die with the culture). It's about recognizing that the quality of many people's lives are affected each time a person illegally crosses the Mexican border.

The government has a responsibility to these people, not to the citizens of Mexico.

Posted by: Will | March 20, 2006 10:48 PM

Any new policy (a combination of laws and their enforcement, both are necessary) must include shutting down the border. However, when congress and the president over a period of decades engage in policy that is very different than the law, which is selectively used, than the country has created an underclass.

Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2006 10:57 PM

you want to have the world be a better place?

take care of your own place, bring back the middle class and quit pandering to the affluent and corporations....


remember the story "A Christmas Story," it was about a time about 150 years ago, that we're headed towards at light speed....


and scrooge is your congress.


they have paid medical, retirement in huge amounts, approximately their salary and they don't pay into social security, but they dip from it....


the other thing is these pendejoes during a time of moving everything offshore and outsourcing

made it almost impossible to declare bankruptcy...even though it was the corporations that were moving overseas...

they didn't act to protect the consumer, they acted to protect the corporations.

they also passed a law saying it was okay not to pay for overtime, at a time when job cuts, downsizing have made it so that a great many white collar workers do the work of 2 or 3 people.


do you know why sound bites work so well?


MOST PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TIME TO PAY ATTENTION


they trust and hope that the media is like it was during the 60's and 70's and is reporting something close to the truth...


that would be nice, do you all think you can handle that small thing?


do you think you can get us back 37.5 hour work weeks with benefits?

do you think you can bring the factories home?

do you think you can help arrest the presidente' and have us quit killing other people for oil?

like how about instituting reforms in legislation that require us to seek oil alternatives as part of the banking of excess revenues of oil companies?

or increasing oil prices to make it painful enough that people begin ride sharing and moving into the city, how about making the city safe?


how about making the already marginalized into safe citizens by redeeming them with intervention?


how about fighting for your country by being honest instead of grabbing your ankles any time someone ask you to by saying it's

the "right thing" to do, why don't you look under their skirts and see if they aren't cross dressing on you?

patriot act, how bout great satanist action?

plundering of the Bill of Rights,


good luck and good night.

Posted by: point of fact. | March 21, 2006 12:16 AM

It's sad that this topic is even a subject of debate. If you are an immigrant, like me, you are either here legally or illegally--there is no such thing as an "undocumented" worker. If you are here illegally you broke the law of this country and jumped ahead of people like myself who went through the legal process.

I keep hearing that refrain . . . something about we are a nation of laws. Well, then, enforce those laws by deporting all illegal immigrants and by punishing those employers who hire them. I, for one, am quite prepared to pay $2.00 more for an orange if that's the economic price we have to pay.

And hurry up and build that damn wall on the Mexican border! Walls may not make good neighbors, but history shows they can be quite effective in preventing the movement of people.

Posted by: KB | March 21, 2006 12:17 AM

We live on a small planet, with mostly finite resources, that can only support a large population for a short period of time and this can be said for the United States. Globally we may reach as many as 10 billion people in the next 100 years. When global population reaches such a level, resource needed for survival, such as food, oil, farm land, will fall short, the population will crash. Crash being defined as billions of deaths over a short period of time. The global economy is falsely based on expanding population and expanding energy resources.

For a any country or group of countries to achieve sustained desirable economic level over a long period of time, the population, energy, agriculture, manufacturing, etc .... must be in a renewable equilibrium. At present we are not managing our energy resources in regards to petroleum very wisely. Immigration will also need to be managed as a resource.

Illegal immigration is just that illegal. In the future illegal immigration will reach unprecedented levels, levels beyond the economic capacity for the United States to sustain. Republican administrations with closer ties to business have been lax on enforcing exiting immigration laws. As long as some countries have populations exceeding their economic ability to provide employment, illegal immigration will occur. Poverty is the major reason immigration. "In 1984, during a United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City, President Reagan announced a ban on U.S. government financial support for certain U.S. and foreign family planning agencies"( http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm and http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,974954,00.html ). This was lobbied for by the religious right and Catholic Church and contributed an already exploding population in Mexico as well as other developing countries. I hope in the near future we can have elected officials that address the economic realities of illegal immigration and do not cater to the racist few.

It does not matter where an illegal immigrant is from, it's still illegal. We can not afford to support all the poor in the world. And I'll take the flack for saying the following. Despite what some may think, the Statue of Liberty was just a gift from France and poem written on its base is not part of our constitution.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 01:19 AM

johnnyg in NE DC wrote:
===========================================
We cannot continue, at the current rate, to absorb and support all these poor illegals coming into this country. It is not racist, it is economic. Playing the race card is the only thing the illegals have in their arsenal.
===========================================

These illegals come here for economics. So why is it different to call them on their own card? Is it because the Washington Post recently acquired a Latino media outlet, and appealing to that readership???

See?

***Yes, Emily where's the bias disclaimer?***

The tone of this whole The Debate issue runs counter of what folks on the street are feeling. When poor Blacks are agreeing with the message of illegals hurting acquiring living wage jobs, it's not a race issue, it's one about surviving. They know their chances of acquiring a job get slimmer.

So for all those screaming racism and it's fringe talk to consider illegal aliens (hmmmm, no one using that term, is it because it's not PC too?) are wrong to be here, tell that to the very population that will feel this loss of work the most.

And run it in that Latino paper, okay?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 02:04 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701924.html

===========================================
Tom Rosenstiel, a former reporter and now director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, believes two problems have damaged usefulness and profitability. "Too many newspapers are edited for journalists, sources and prizes," he said. He also believes newspapers have made a mistake by ignoring immigrants, blue-collar communities and poorer neighborhoods, preferring a more elite readership. "They cut off their future." (The Post made a smart move in buying El Tiempo Latino, a local Spanish-language newspaper.)
===========================================

This "The Debate" issue needs a major disclaimer.

Emily: impartial journalism requires such disclaimers. Please don't make this into another Howell storm, just do the right thing and put up a disclaimer.

This isn't a personal blog, this has Washington Post stamped to it, and it appears corporate business is interferring with impartial journalism.

Two threads of late (this one, and the Ports deal) had this theme, without such disclaimers.

It's a disservice to the readers to not know possible bias based on the bottom line. This isn't Cross Fire, nor The O'Reilly Factor, this is a blog from the Washington Post -- not tabloid TV.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 02:14 AM

The whole business of how the cultural and moneyed elites have blocked 80% of the public really frosts me. So here's more beefs I have with the whole "pack the 3rd World in" crowd.

4. Demand Bush, Reid, Pelosi, Teddy and all the other tools of the Owner Class to start enforcing immigration laws on the books and begin hitting the employers - the pawns, agents of, or actual elites themselves - now shielded from legal consequence with jail or fines.

5. Adopt a national identification, pronto. We are one of the few nations that don't have a reliable system, and it is helping destroy our national identity. We have 30 million foreigners here we can't identify and we honestly don't know the background of. That is what the libertarian idiots obsessed with "privacy rights" of ANYONE within our Borders bleed from all 3 orifices about. Many were criminals who fled the law in their former countries and created a new fake identity here.

6. The Owner Class has set up a system where the costs of illegal immigration are designed to be paid locally in poorer regions of the country - free schooling of illegal spawn, free medical, welfare, police, insurance costs due to uninsured illegals, jail costs. But the profits from undercutting local natives and further lowering the tax base because they lose jobs or wages are cut - are sent to regions where the Fat Cats live, which have little illegal alien costs. The costs of illegal immigration are from the planned ineptitude in enforcing American labor law and immigration law the Fat Cats and their Federal politician tools devised. The costs of illegal immigration should be federalized, and all the bills sent to and paid by the Federal Government. And since much of the illegal immigration profits are sent outside America to Owner Class elites in places like Tel Aviv, Paris, London, Mexico City - the Federal gov't is best suited to pursue them for the costs of 300 Pedros and Juanitas at the nearby public school, and all the illegal alien bills from the bankrupt hospital next to the French-owned meatpacking plant where 100 illegals work. (But make an exception for any "sanctuary" city proclaiming they will violate law to continue to foot all their illegal alien bills until their "sanctuary" proclamations are rescinded)

7. The Dubai uproar will be nothing compared to when a major terrorist attack or celebrity killing is done by illegals. Already 1/3rd of the people in jail for serious felonies in the SW are illegals, and some 140 murderers made it back to Mexico and are in hiding. When the day comes, and as a Republican I do indeed hope it is on Bush's shoulders since he is an even bigger prostitute to corporate cronies than Clinton --- the firestorm will be "fabulous". And it will suck in other illegal "buddies & allies" like Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Jesse Jackson, and Fat Teddy...

8. The Statue of Liberty was a just that. A symbol of Liberty, not Open Borders. The whole "Statue of Unfettered Immigration" myth was foisted on us after WWII based on pro-immigrant media elites and wealthy pro-immigrant businesses, Hollywood - pounding a poem written by a Sephardim Jew, Emma Lazarus, on us...and recasting the Statue as a "Beacon of Welcome to All Wretched Refuse from Any Teeming Shore". A disinformation campaign that really began taking off only back in the 1950s.

I for one would like the plaque -the one with the Lazarus poem added to the base of the Statue later on - chiseled off and thrown into NYC Harbor.

And school textbooks revised to purge the Lazarus poem as the pro- open borders immigration propaganda it is. This is a different elite, the Jewish cultural elite, joined later by Catholics and some PC-gripped "diversity is heavenly" liberals
that have used the media to try and cast Open Borders as the essence of America - after Jews and others were blocked coming here by the need to assimilate after the first Great Immigration wave and the attendent communist and anarchist social disorder...then the Great Depression...

9. The Owner Class elites in America have also twisted the politicians so that smuggler networks of coyotes and snakeheads flourish unchallenged and are enriched by over 2 million illegals now working off indentured servitude 70-90 hour workweeks - some by prostitution - to pay off the 10 to 70,000 dollar fees demanded by the Mexican coyotes and Asian snakeheads.

Those networks can be smashed by a US law declaring illegals in America legally free of any illegal debt or bondage, set up hotlines everywhere to drop a dime on any coyotes or snakeheads here strong-arming payments - and notification to China or Mexico that any retaliation on relatives of those formerly in indentured servitude to coyote or snakehead rings before they were liberated of debt by Federal Law will result in the US blocking ALL remittances back to China or Mexico.

That freeing of literal "slaves", millions of them - and smashing the rings smuggling aliens and illegal drugs to boot will take a President of more honor and imagination than Bush, or the smarmy little trolls like Chuck Schumer and Pelosi. Because they consider the slavers either "entrepreneurs" (Bush) or "wealthy donors giving us millions of slaves that vote Democratic" (Pelosi, Schumer, Teddy).

10. The construction of more Border Fencing and Wall should continue. Even more importantly, politically, is if the 4 Frontline Governors tell Washington that unless illegal immigration is checked by employer law being enforced finally and costs of illegals born by the Federal Gov't, the 4 States will have no choice but to bar their National Guards from participation in duty overseas and instead reserved to deal with the immigration emergency bankrupting the 4 States, particularly CA, AZ, and NM.

That's a tough call, but the bankruptcy is real, particularly hospital after hospital is going out of business and schooling of illegal children is destroying the solvency of county after county. A state of emergency can be reasonably declared to deter the Feds from threatening to Federalize the 4 states guards. But the 4 Govs are also beholden to the Fatcats and Owner elites, and some might argue the pro-illegal immigration media and special interest groups that fund and help elect them. And Arnold and Perry are still beholden to Bush himself.

A worsening situation in the SW may force them to really ring Bush's or his successor's bell. Not just by pulling Guard away from overseas service in Iraq and training in other states, but through use of the Governor's explicit constitutional prerogative to declare martial law statewide or in selected counties...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 21, 2006 05:10 AM

This is the situation: Unattached persons, many with criminal backgrounds, lacking even a high-school level of education, not speaking or intending to speak the language, importing disease and dependency, acquiring false identities including those enabling them to illegally vote, now increasingly carrying weapons, and very basically just jumping ahead of the line of countless thousands who have shown respect and patience for a proper process to control immigration. Does any other overflowing country show such open-borders policies, or even a scintilla of remorse for Americans taking on this burden?

This seems to be a pretty revolting deal for this country to put up with, but if one says so the media instantly treats like trash the attentive observer of obvious facts and trends.

Since when did the WSJ and WP combine opinion desks? At least we know the WSJ motive is simple short-sighted greed through convenient exploitation and leverage to keep domestic working wages down. What now does the WP have to gain from social degradation and by name-calling and ridicule of anyone questioning the idea of rewarding blatant offenders of our society's requirements to have integrity in its immigration procedures?
Maybe there is a career track there on the WP opinion desk if you can demonstrate ad hominem argument skills when in an impossible intellectual corner.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 21, 2006 08:59 AM

i agree, unattached persons with criminal backgrounds importing disease who want to kill our babies and drive the "white" people out should be stopped. too bad those people dont exist.

without worring about what other people are doing, if you want to improve your lot in life then get educated and get a better job. if you are educated and have a good job already, focus on doing it better. always look to improve and no one starting at the bottom of the heap (immigrants) can take what you have built up.

people cry too much about immigration. worry about your own, do what you do best. if you deserve your job you will keep it.

as for benefits, illegal immigrants with fake social security numbers pay into SS, but never draw out - more for you.

as for free education, if you wanna kick all the immigrant children out when they are 6 and 7 years old, fine. dont complain when that same kid car jacks you ten years later because he has no job/life skills.

you want to put up a wall, fine. dont complain when the people who get here anyway are a little upset with your closed border attitude and fail to assimilate into a culture who they know doesnt want them here.

its simple, be nice and people are nice back, show respect and people show respect back. try that for ONCE america, and see how it works out. history is always evolving, always changing. why stand in the way and get steamrolled when you can accept it and enjoy the benefits? and yes, only a racist thinks the US is worse off now than it was 150 years ago. so what of 150 years in the future?

Posted by: sure buddy | March 21, 2006 09:58 AM

It's about money. WP apparently is trying to appeal to their Latino daily community, and going full throttle to be PC.

Meanwhile the rest of the country is wondering if they'll have a job, and wondering why in the hell they have to pay for illegals to live here to boot.

What they and apologists don't seem to understand is they're ILLEGALS. Illegals have no place in this country. They have no business taking jobs away from citizens (and don't say this country doesn't have enough carpenters/plumbers/electricians/machinists). Bad enough our jobs are being exported, it's a slap in the face when they take the middle class jobs IN the United States too.

Citizens get first dibs.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 10:00 AM

Sure Buddy wrote:

"as for free education, if you wanna kick all the immigrant children out when they are 6 and 7 years old, fine. dont complain when that same kid car jacks you ten years later because he has no job/life skills."

Nice Mad Max vision of America...if this is the best you can offer, then it's time to build that wall Robert Samuelson was talking about.

Emily: now that you've had your head handed to you two days in a row, we can't wait to see what you've got for us next. Your bias has already been called out, as has your lack of knowledge and experience on this topic. We're waiting, Em.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 10:03 AM

Borg wrote:
===========================================
Comparing the US to the USSR will not win you major debating points. Secondly the US has shown that a multiracial country can be made to work so your argument can be classified as racist. More points deducted.
===========================================

Serious points deducted to not realize this country works as a multi-racical society, because all cultures (until now) who came here assimilated.

It used to be shameful to speak another anything but English, now folks don't even bother to learn it, even while living here for 50 years (goto South Florida and get a clue how many don't speak English who been here since Castro took over). They're not dumb, they just don't want to assimilate.

Anyone who don't want to assimilate should get out of this country, period. We don't need any Iman types that live on the dole and preach hate; and we don't need folks living here as citizens for 50 years who won't bother to learn the native tongue. Few can talk/read English correctly (I know I'm no grammar major), but folks have to try and become a piece of the fabric of this country, not a rip.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 10:06 AM

Sure buddy wrote:
===========================================
without worring about what other people are doing, if you want to improve your lot in life then get educated and get a better job. if you are educated and have a good job already, focus on doing it better. always look to improve and no one starting at the bottom of the heap (immigrants) can take what you have built up.
===========================================

What an utter snot. >:(

Those in the trades ARE educated and skilled. Do you think it takes an idiot to build a home, wire it and install plumbing? Those folks are the ones who are getting jobs snatched from them, so some illegal can send money home (not spend it in the community as locals do). They DRAIN our country of capital AND jobs. Then they want their kids to get a free education and healthcare and better prisons than what they can get in Mexico. Meanwhile Medicaid is cut to the citizens that due pay taxes, do spend their dollar locally.

Illegals are bad, but their apologists are worst as they enable illegals to have a face when they should not. They broke the law, and then demand rights, rights they're not entitled too -- especially since they broke the law in the first place.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 10:16 AM

Posted by: che | March 21, 2006 10:28 AM

sure buddy-

I don't know if your post was sarcasm or just incredibly naive. I'll treat it as the latter.

"without worring about what other people are doing, if you want to improve your lot in life then get educated and get a better job. if you are educated and have a good job already, focus on doing it better. always look to improve and no one starting at the bottom of the heap (immigrants) can take what you have built up."

One problem is that, for whatever reason, here in the United States we have determined that is unlawful (substitute any other word you want, illegal, immoral, etc.) to pay someone below a certain federally tacked pay grade. Employers who pay illegal immigrants below that wage are committing two crimes: they are employing someone who is not welcome legally in this country and they are exploiting a human being by paying them less than the federally mandated minimum wage.

Immigrants do take from other Americans because the jobs they will do for 2.00 are actually good jobs that Americans would be willing to do for prevailing American wages. The losers in this are poor Americans who pay taxes and cannot afford to compete with 2.00 wages (nor should they have to according to federal law). You have an irrational bias towards the immigrants who violate laws to be here so they can be exploited by employees breaking two laws. Why?

"people cry too much about immigration. worry about your own, do what you do best. if you deserve your job you will keep it."

You don't, by chance, live in the Northeast? The problem is, one of the things that employers consider a "job deserving" attribute is one's willingness to work below minimum wage. Many "deserving" (by legal standards) American workers are displaced by illegal immigrants being paid illegal wages. It is not a matter of merit but one of profits. Nor should it even be a matter of merit, since American workers who pay taxes shouldn't have to compete with illegal workers that do not.

"as for free education, if you wanna kick all the immigrant children out when they are 6 and 7 years old, fine. dont complain when that same kid car jacks you ten years later because he has no job/life skills."

Why is it the duty of the United States of America to provide job/life skill training to Mexicans/Indians/Australians/Martians who enter this country illegally? Education ain't free, big guy, that's why illegals are draining the state resources in my home state of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Enlighten us where you are from?

"you want to put up a wall, fine. dont complain when the people who get here anyway are a little upset with your closed border attitude and fail to assimilate into a culture who they know doesnt want them here."

The alternative is to let them enter the country anyways knowing they have little interest in assimilating in a country that has already illegalized their presence? I'm not concerned so much with pissing off illegal immigrants so much as I am with keeping them in their place of origin because their presence is a constant drain on already thinly spread state funds. Not to mention it is ruining the lives of many Americans who have a legal claim to prevailing wages. Not to mention that it is unfair to the millions of lawful immigrants who didn't swim or jump their way into this country.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 10:30 AM

Posted by: Will

"Employers who pay illegal immigrants below that wage are committing two crimes: they are employing someone who is not welcome legally in this country and they are exploiting a human being by paying them less than the federally mandated minimum wage."

Will, it goes further than two crimes. Please add the employers are not paying taxes on the profit from the labor of the illegal, due to the fact the profits can't be tracked to a legal worker.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 11:34 AM

To the list of open-border enthusiasts (fast food operators, landscapers, chicken pluckers, print journalists), let us add lawyers:

http://www.usafis.org/_sys/EN/adz7.asp

Posted by: On the plantation | March 21, 2006 12:00 PM

Small hospitals in border states have had to close their ER's because they were swamped by illegal immigrants who didn't pay their bills - and a large number of those nonpaying illegals were pregnant women. This hurts everyone in the area, and makes emergency health care harder to get.

We have a finite amount of natural resources - uncontrolled immigration will bring us to a state of emergency much faster. Read up on the alarmingly low level of resources in this country (and around the world) before you say that millions of illegals continuing to come here won't hurt the average American.

It is easy to 'forgive' illegals taking the lower wage jobs when you are not a legal citizen seeking those types of jobs because of your skill level or education level.

What will happen to the 'lower class' that is already here when the lowest-pay jobs are largely taken by illegals who also drive wages down by their existence in the workforce? We will have a much larger base of permanent poor than we have already - and we will have traded away our most vulnerable employment population to be 'nice' to those who break the law to come here. How fair and noble of us.

Getting a better education does not guarantee you a job - there are plenty of underemployed and unemployed educated people in this country. What happens to them when even more enter the ranks of their competition because they have been 'driven upwards' by a lack of jobs in the lower strata? There are many more illegals coming in every year than there are new jobs to absorb them and those they displace - what do you think will happen if that imbalance continues?

People who live in the border states have a much better ability by virtue of proximity to see the affects of illegal immigration. Read the stories of countless home owners along the inroutes who have bought guns to protect themselves. Who commonly have strangers in groups roaming across their property all hours of the day. Who have their homes broken into, their belongings stolen, their children frightened, their properties inundated with trash and detritus. Who see the lower strata jobs in their town dry up and the wages plummet because of illegal workers, etc. Who see their ER's close because of non-paying illegals. Strangely, those in the border states are unanimous in their opinion that a wall is needed, and that illegal immigration is out of control. They are angry that their country doesn't seem to care about their situation. Try moving down there before you automatically condemn them as 'racists', folks.

It sounds 'unfriendly' to build a wall, but don't we lock our doors at night? Don't we lock our cars when we leave them? A wall seems extreme, but it is just a manner of 'locking our door' against a problem that is overwhelming. Sure, better policies are needed - but 'good fences make good neighbors', folks. Considering that it is the sheer number of illegals that poses the problem, anything that substantially reduces the numbers is a benefit.

Illegal immigration is, let's remember, ILLEGAL. Yet we reward illegals while countless others work very hard to come here legally, and have to wait years. It is absurd to 'reward' illegal immigration but expect it to lessen, folks.

I feel badly for those in Mexico who can't earn a decent living - but there are plenty of folks here in need, and we are making their lives even harder by allowing businesses to hire illegals which drives wages down, and sucks up jobs that needful Americans would have done otherwise.

We will wake up one day and realize that our 'good hearts' (and greedy corporations)
have given us an out of control population explosion of lower strata workers who
eventually displaced our own people -
and there will not be
enough natural resources to go around. By then, of course, it will be too late.

Posted by: watching | March 21, 2006 12:00 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Americans don't want the Bush or Clinton "modified" immigration. They by 80-20 percentages, want it STOPPED until we can restore middleclass wages, assimilate the 40 million added plus their copious ninos and ninas, and try and salvage the black American natives that now have 51% unemployment of young black males + 8% in prison of black men in their late teens and 20s."

Chris,

You have little regard for the "black American natives". You're only trying to play two groups against one another to achieve your own racist goals. My ancestors were here long before yours, so who made you elected king of immigration by race? The biggest victims are the "natives", the original inhabitants. Native Americans have been forces off of lands for......, but no one here has shown any concern, including Emily?

Illegal immigration is only one symptom of the much larger global problem of over population. Funny, I see so many issues brought up, but other than myself, forgive me if I am in error, no one has mentioned or commented in response to my postings of global over population. We can keep on bickering "till the cows come home", but until the major root cause of illegal immigration is addressed, the problem will not go away.

We invade another country under the premise of "pre-emptive strike", because of a terrorist. But we can not target birth control counseling as part of a foreign aid package? Most of the future terrorists and going to come from countries where a not enough jobs exist for all of its citizens.

Chris Ford, SandyK, both Wills, Emily, ......, Johnny, any comments?

Posted by: | March 21, 2006 12:01 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Americans don't want the Bush or Clinton "modified" immigration. They by 80-20 percentages, want it STOPPED until we can restore middleclass wages, assimilate the 40 million added plus their copious ninos and ninas, and try and salvage the black American natives that now have 51% unemployment of young black males + 8% in prison of black men in their late teens and 20s."

Chris,

You have little regard for the "black American natives". You're only trying to play two groups against one another to achieve your own racist goals. My ancestors were here long before yours, so who made you elected king of immigration by race? The biggest victims are the "natives", the original inhabitants. Native Americans have been forces off of lands for......, but no one here has shown any concern, including Emily?

Illegal immigration is only one symptom of the much larger global problem of over population. Funny, I see so many issues brought up, but other than myself, forgive me if I am in error, no one has mentioned or commented in response to my postings of global over population. We can keep on bickering "till the cows come home", but until the root cause of illegal immigration is addressed, the problem will not go away.

We invade another country under the premise of "pre-emptive strike", because of a terrorist. But we can not target birth control counseling as part of a foreign aid package? Most of the future terrorists and going to come from countries where a not enough jobs exist for all of its citizens.

Chris Ford, SandyK, both Wills, Emily, ......, Johnny, any comments?

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 12:02 PM

an informed public can vote from a position of knowledge...


if all the media does is repeat corporate spin...


well...

I'm tired of looking at fat, stupid, overworked Americans who look at thinking as a leisure activity something that they'll do someday...


bring back the middle class, and have them work ONLY 40 hours a week, and get 3 weeks vacation minimum


THEN the world will be a better, smarter, more thoughtful place for everyone, including other countries...


it'll be a lot harder to railroad bullsh*t through a country's congress when the populance is intelligent, informed and rested...


defeat the terrorists, arrest the perpatrators of 9/11, this congress, cheyney, rumsfield, poppie, and CIA operatives involved....


they couped america and enacted PNAC, along with some really fresh ideas about controlling the media, and getting riche.

Posted by: honesty in the press would be a big step forward... | March 21, 2006 12:29 PM

are who I continually compare the Iraqis to...


the similarities are important, it's necessary to out think and describe the situation _as it is_ not please the "great spirit" or adhere to some standards that you're enemy, rascists, unfeeling, thoughtless, powerhungry

leaders adhere to..


you have to do an endrun, and offer a better engineered solution that exposes the thoughtlessness, and inefficiency of Power Over mentality, by delivering a more thoughtful,

infinitely more efficient solution.


want to end the war, teach people, and create alternative energy solutions that involve the oil companies...

whilst destroying families that took us to war, by requiring that _they_ pay for it with their fortunes...


that would be a deterrent to future hitleresque manque' s don't cha think..


destroy the illusion, arrest them.

Posted by: look dude, Native Americans | March 21, 2006 12:35 PM

Jamal-

Overpopulation is not a "global" problem, it is a third world problem. Japan just joined the ranks of Germany and Italy among countries with lower birth rates than death rates.

The United State's has an unusually high birth rate among Western civs, but still low relative to third world. It is high in no small part due to the influx of illegal immigrants who routinely have 6 or 7 times more children than the average birthrate.

The reality is these kinds of birthrate models are favorable in countries like Somalia (or to a lesser degree Mexico) where death rates are so high that 9 children are necessary to have a few that live. In America pregnant illegals will enjoy American health care one way or another, not to mention access to our education systems and prison system.

The overpopulation you refer is that natural result when the Western tendency of having adequate enough health care to drastically lower mortality rates meets the third world tendency to have as many children as possible in the hopes that some will survive. A perfect storm, of sorts, that leads to overpopulation and an insurmountable burden on the societies that are forced to cope.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 12:45 PM

Posted by: Will

"Overpopulation is not a "global" problem, it is a third world problem. Japan just joined the ranks of Germany and Italy among countries with lower birth rates than death rates."

Over population is a global problem. It might occur predominately in third world countries, but its short term and long term ramifications on our country and others are happening. Will, what is going to happen as resources begin to decline? Agriculture is very dependent on petroleum for fertilizer, harvesting, and transportation of crops to market. I agree with most of your comment, but it's deputes your claim that over population is not global.

Many third world families have large families not only replace those that fail to reach adulthood, but also to have more offspring to support the parents/family. This perpetuates an endless downward spiral toward less jobs and resources in third world countries and mass starvation in rare cases. If our country bordered Africa or Asia and was not separated by oceans, the illegal immigrants from Mexico would be the minority of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 02:27 PM

The Dept. of Homeland Security is making, at most, only a token effort to enforce immigration laws. The CBP Port Director of an interior international airport told me a year ago that she had been instructed not to arrest any arriving illegal aliens unless there was an outstanding felony warrant or they were on a terrorist watch list. If you look at the ICE web-page, you'll see that they put what little enforcement effort they can afford (about $1.1 billion for detention and removal) exclusively on gangs and/or drug smugglers. There are over 300,000 "alien absconders", i.e., people who have been through the deportation hearing process, and ignored the order, that remain at large and unaccounted for.

I agree with Mr. FOrd that the States must take on this issue: The Constitution provides that if invaded, a state may defend, provided it applies to the federal government for defense. If even one state would do this, it would trigger a Constitutional debate crisis that would demonstrate just how corrupt most of the elected officials are.

Posted by: Mike Deal | March 21, 2006 02:59 PM

so much to respond to, not enough time. anyway, i am from the SW border, as close to the border as one can get, and spent a great deal of my life there. do i qualify? interesting how i am the only one being asked to "qualify" for the conversation by "enlightening" you all where i am from.

oh, thanks for calling me a snot, SusieK. name calling: always the grown up thing to do.

i never said people who build houses are uneducated, where did that come from? and you want to talk about people working here and sending all their money home "not spending it in the economy like locals." well, from my vantage point on the border (are you from the border too? do you qualify like i had to?) one of the biggest complaints from citizens was how all these mexicans (living in mexico, staying in mexico, no intention of migrating to the US) would come over and literally clog our malls up for weeks during the holiday season. yea, spending all the money they earned at their jobs in mexico in the US economy. so much that they have to rent cars to take it all home. lots of them even rent hotels JUST TO SHOP. renting cars and hotels, shopping for a week, and you people think the US gets NO benefit from immigration? none whatsoever?

also, i have yet to see the 2.00 wages for a job any of you would be willing to work at that you all talk about, so spare me the hyperbole, really. matter of FACT, the unemployment rate in my part of the border area is a lot higher than the rest of the country. reason: fewer businesses willing to locate there. why would that be if, according to some of you all, there is a wealth of potential employees willing to work for $2/hour?

another observation. why is it than when you all see so many people coming here who speak other languages, you spend more time complaining than thinking, "if i learn one of those languages, it makes me more marketable, no matter what job i do." not saying its your job, or responsibility, and i agree it IS their responsibility to learn english, no argument from me on that point. but taking the initiatibe to learn one of their languages (and pass that skill on to your kids) still seems like a good idea.

someone mentioned immigrants (legal? illegal?) living here for 50+ years and still not speaking english (cant or wont? there is a difference). someone else wants to kick the kids out of school (their best chance to learn english, since their parents dont speak it). someone else wants to take their jobs and give them to citizens (who wont do them anyway, ask the people in charge of the clean up effort in NO), someone else want to raise their pay. someone else says the policymakers have to listen to what the american people really want. funny

to clarify, i am not calling for immediate citizenship for all illegals presently here and lowering the bar for future would-be immigrants to be citizens. i never said i was, but i think some made that assumption (your fault, but i forgive you). just saying that no policy problem calls for one or another extreme point of view (like a wall and a firing squad). the problem is complex, i think we all understand that. but any real solution is similarly so, and will not please everyone (me included) completely. thats why i think those people advocating simple solutions to complex problems should focus more on themselves and their own situation in life.

Posted by: sure buddy | March 21, 2006 05:06 PM

Jamal, some "friend" of minorities you are! On one hand, you take me to task for outlaying some serious pathologies of the black underclass as racist. On the other hand, you strongly support immigration policies that worsen the situation of the black underclass and drive them into direr straights.

The difference between us is I want blacks to be productive and join the mainstream, which they can't if their wages and job opportunities are completely undercut by 40 million immigrants. You want to - what? Make them irrelevant and 100% dependent on gov't, except for the black elites???

The unemployment rate of young black males has gone from being in the 20s and a serious social problem to now being in the 50th percentile as immigrants, legal and illegal, displace them from "first rung on the ladder to success jobs" with no alternative. In the SW, and in more and more American cities, blacks are out, hispanics are in - it's that pure and simple - in construction, restaurant & hotel services, landscaping, janitorial, landscaping, retail, clerical jobs. A look at pictures of the workforce in Los Angeles in the civil rights era (late 60s) compared to today is startling.

What is holding lower socioeconomic income blacks together is expanding government jobs and the ability of the female head of household to get and keep a low tier, high job security position in state local, or Fed government.

Black males in some cities have a 6 in 10 prevalence of serious criminal convictions. And further disadvantaged as no employer wants a black convict - when a Mexican whose criminal record, if he or she has it, is expunged as soon as they cross the Border - can be hired. I mentioned the Katrina situation as contractors are mass-busing in illegals while blacks idlely sit by. Made irrelevant and passive parasites watching as a city they helped build is fixed by the Mexicans and skilled whites who can obtain work in the current social scheme.

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

The Statue of Liberty was set up as "Liberty Enlightening the World" not "Liberty Inviting the World In" from lands lacking enlightenment and teeming with wretched refuse who outbred their environment and economy's ability to sustain them comfortably.

We are dealing with 4 billion people that want to come to America and overpopulate us, overstrain our resources, and eventually lower our standard of living like their excessive numbers did in precipitating falling production, nighmarishly crowded cities, lack of opportunity, and social upheaval in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia.

We have 300 million. We use far less oil and other energy than in 1970 but consume 30% more because in 1970 we only had 225 million Americans. We will need 30% more when the US exceeds the population China had at America's founding (363 million) that will happen in 2030 assuming we still have Open Borders and high reproduction rates. Which makes all the proclamations of "Emma Lazarus send us your teeming refuse" liberals and environmentalists that "alternate energy" and a ban on SUVs will allow us to meet Kyoto and Drive the Saudis to Their Knees - utterly ignorant and fatuous.

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

They should chisel Emma Lazarus's poem off the base of the Statue of Liberty and throw it in NYC Harbor.

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

Mike Deal -

We are in an invasion that ultimately threatens our culture, our civilization, and Constitution if we let the pro-immigrant ideologues and the moneyed elites continue the invasion for their political power or profit objectives.

It is unsustainable if America wants to salvage it's way of life.

Consider what is happening to young black males a harbinger of what awaits the middle class if mass 3rd world immigration continues. The jobless and hopeless black males 15-20 generation Americans are just the canaries in the coal mine.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 21, 2006 05:10 PM

Just for a little perspective, Emily's opener was not saying all who oppose I-I are racist. It was saying, accept the fact that racists glom onto I-I for their own ends.

Doesn't expose a "bias."

PS- the definition of bias in the blogosphere apparently is, "Anybody who doesn't agree with me. But I'm evenhanded."

Posted by: proxl | March 21, 2006 05:16 PM

sure buddy-

For all your anectodal evidence the Mexicans are spending more in America, the US trade deficit with Mexico was 50 billion last year, a historic record for that country. In the grand scheme of things, it's nice that they crowd your particular mall and spend their valuable hard earned pesos for American goods, but could you remind them to spend 50 billion more?

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 05:39 PM

will
i never said mexicans spend more, just that its not a completely one way street (more of that hyperbole to set up an argument). plus, we will always run a trade deficit as long as we make more money and can buy more of their stuff than their citizens can buy of ours, that has very little to do with immigration. and i was talking about spending money IN the economy, thereby benefiting it, not importing goods into mexico, which mainly just benefits the exporting company. again, something very different.

understand macroeconomic principles before citing macroeconomic statistics, thank you.

Posted by: sure buddy | March 21, 2006 06:08 PM

sure buddy-

You continue to dispute a "fact" no one presented. No one has argued that it is a "completely one way street". We know that many Americans benefit from the cheap labor made available by rampant illegal immigration: small business owners, contractors, people who want to keep their homes clean or lawns short without paying legal wages, etc.

The problem is, despite your best efforts to characterize things differently, these *are* jobs that many Americans *are* willing to do, they are just unwilling to do them for below minimum wage. And they cannot be pushed around by employers because citizens have no problem reporting illegal wages to local authorities and busting the employer.

Illegal immigrants are another matter. They do not have the same access to local law enforcement to report exploitive employers. So employers can pay them below the prevailing wage without having to worry about being reported (and the Mexicans are thankful for the job anyways, because it's still many times more than they'd make back home).

This is one of many effects that Illegal Immigration is having on American society: it is lowering the prevailing wages which consequently decreases the wages/employment of many Americans whose jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. Since this is the United States of America, and not the United States of Mexico (although 10% of Mexicans live in the United States, so that could change) the government has a responsibility to these workers to enforce the immigration laws it saw fit to pass.

That is a discussion on the effects of immigration on labor. A more exhaustive inquiry would address the effects of illegal immigration on schools, on state and federal spending, on crime, on the resource burden, etc.

Your simplistic attitude of "Just worry about yourself" is naive. I worry about Americans and I have a right to do so. If you want to argue substantively about the effects of immigration, fine, but don't demand my apathy just because.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 06:30 PM

Some of you commentators are racist; just about all of you are selfish bastards. The glorious US was not JUST made through the hard work of it's past citizens, it was also made through dis-inheriting earlier inhabitants - and, later, bleeding the rest of the world of resources for it's citizens comforts; something it still does. But to keep those comforts it is SO important to keep the citizens of countries impoverished by the US out.
Fine, call this expedience - the poor of the world call it greed. None of your moral arguments stack up.

Posted by: Neil | March 21, 2006 06:33 PM

will,

i wasnt disputing a fact, it was a sentiment, and it was presented by SusieK. her sentiment was that immigrants here are sending all of their money earned to families in mexico, so none of it benefited the US economy. and my response was to show that sending money earned here to be spent there is not a one way street. hence the mexicans who earn money there and spend it in the US. if you want to disagree with me, fine thats what a debate is for, but disagree with what i am actually saying.

as far as your essay on immigration effects on labor, you focus on minimum wage. when i say "worry about yourself," it is to mean that no one, no one, should be satisfied with a job that pays minimum wage. that is where education and focus come in - to get one out of a position to worry about minimum wage. if you want to worry about other US citizens out of the goodness of your heart thats cool. give money to a charity or something, but it would sure be nice if you are making more than minimum wage so you have some to spare before you make that decision.

as for illegals being forced to accept wages below the minimum, you just argued for making them legal, giving them recourse to the police to stop businesses from exploiting them, and adding to the tax base. not my preference, but the logical response to your argument.

as far as your more exhaustive inquiry into the effects of immigration on schools, state and federal spending, crime, and resource burdens, news flash, the US has enough problems in all of those areas without factoring in immigration. to focus on immigration as the sole or even primary cause of those problems (as you and some others on here seem to think) is ill advised. this is not to say that illegal immigration doesnt add to those problems, it does, but those problems are symptoms of larger problems (poverty in general, to name one, and we have a lot of poor citizens messing up the schools, accounting for entitlement spending on the state and local levels, and committing crimes).

like i said, complex solutions for complex problems. but you seem to think its all so simple.

Posted by: sure buddy | March 21, 2006 07:17 PM

Ms Messner sounds like the typical neo-Intellectual that believes the spouting of words is some sort of productive endeavor.

Were she to hold a real job requiring trade skills or enginering skills that add economic gains to the Nation and understood the threat that illegals pose to "real workers" she would not be so flippant in her commentaries.

But then like a certain professor of economics at Harvard, she probably believes that flipping burgers at some hamburger joint is a "skilled manufacturing activity."

By the way, xenophobia is the new popular word among Liberal Arts school graduates.

Posted by: camus | March 21, 2006 07:53 PM

sure buddy-

"as for illegals being forced to accept wages below the minimum, you just argued for making them legal, giving them recourse to the police to stop businesses from exploiting them, and adding to the tax base. not my preference, but the logical response to your argument."

I disagree. Another at least equally plausible conclusion is that these people are sent home in accordance with the law which has prohibited their travel into the United States.

As a practical matter I don't disagree with forcing employers to pay illegal immigrants prevailing wages because the effect will be the same. The incentive to hire illegals is that you don't have to pay them as much. Eliminate this incentive and the jobs for illegals will dry up, and they will return home.

"...but those problems are symptoms of larger problems (poverty in general, to name one, and we have a lot of poor citizens messing up the schools, accounting for entitlement spending on the state and local levels, and committing crimes)."

And one of the "symptoms" of poverty is the presence of people working for below minimum wage. Also illegals do not pay taxes which are often times levied to alleviate poverty. As they are the logical recipients of much state and federal aid they excacerbate the problem two fold: by draining the public coffers without even offering their lot to fill them.

I do not think we should obsess about immigration to the point where we ignore other important social ills. But some communities along the border have already been destroyed by immigration. The sooner we recognize the problem and debate practical solutions the better. Please do not mistake me focusing on immigration, in a debate explicitly reserved for immigration, as over emphatic obsession.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 08:16 PM

Chris Ford wrote:

"What is holding lower socioeconomic income blacks together is expanding government jobs and the ability of the female head of household to get and keep a low tier, high job security position in state local, or Fed government.

Black males in some cities have a 6 in 10 prevalence of serious criminal convictions. And further disadvantaged as no employer wants a black convict . . . "
___________________

Of course, there are exceptions, but in general the average black guy, a multi-generational citizen of this fine nation, is getting economically and spiritually crushed. Far too many are getting dumped into prisons, and then put more-or-less permanently under the supervision of social workers.

City or countryside, office or construction site, the black young man is a beaten man, so often. He has some "prior rights" in my estimation in our society, at least to equal opportunity. Those who endure and maintain self-respect should receive a special gold medal, issued at age forty to every black guy who avoided prison and stayed with his kids. How humble blacks (and white blacks) fit into our society is the deepest reflection of what we value as humans. Let's pay attention and respect our brothers.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 21, 2006 08:18 PM

If you really want an informed debate on illegal immigration, go talk to your 18-25 year-old sons. I have, and I'm scared. Let me tell you, there is a coming race war, and it's not too far away. My son is 20, white, and underemployed. My adopted son is 22, black, and underemployed. Both of them, rightly or wrongly, blame the Mexicans for taking jobs that they feel belong to them. "Look, Mom, not all of us can be rocket scientists. I'm not scared of work. But I want to come home with more money than it takes to rent your basement." Direct quote from son #2. Don't give them a trigger. God and Goddess forbid that a terrorist attack happens again because someone got across the Mexican border, because Route 7 in Falls Church will go up in flames. Talk to your 18-25 year-old kids. It will scare the hell out of you.

Posted by: wiccan | March 21, 2006 08:32 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Jamal, some "friend" of minorities you are! On one hand, you take me to task for outlaying some serious pathologies of the black underclass as racist. On the other hand, you strongly support immigration policies that worsen the situation of the black underclass and drive them into direr straights."
Chris,

If your intent is to help the black community or any other community for that matter, then I whole heartedly support your comment. However, based your past comments pertaining to the black community, in particular the Hurricane Katrina debates where you set forth, what I perceive as, an antagonistic insulting approach to the black community as a whole.

If I have misunderstood your intent in this current debate, based on knowledge of previous debates, then please accept my humble apology. In those previous debates you never once tried to explain your comments about the black community. If you inadvertently insulted a group of people, at least you could have offered a simple apology.

I have noticed in your comments a growing discontent with GWB. I personally don't see the man enforcing any laws accept the ones that will advance his own cause, whatever that may be? Whatever legislation congress passes, the current administration will not enforce it any more than it's enforcing the current immigration laws. As GWB said in news conference today, "I'll leave that to Chertov", now I feel so relieved about immigration, not.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 10:03 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"you strongly support immigration policies that worsen the situation of the black underclass and drive them into direr straights."

Chris,

You haven't been reading my comments, in no way do I support, illegal immigration. Nor am I aware of reading any comments supporting it.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 10:10 PM

you're really opinionated and not really into listening are you?


if there are no standards, what's to enforce?


what's to aspire to?

corporations are not United States citizens...pull your head out of that darkspace behind your stomach...


you want justice work for equity, in the United States and require US corporations to treat foreign citizens as they would US ones...if they don't they can't import.

The way it's turning now, 3rd world standards are becoming US standards...anyone that's done any blue collar work can tell you that is a fact...computer work is becoming similarly slanted, longer hours, no overtime, and the imminent threat of having your job shipped to India if you give any back-talk.

Posted by: impoverished by the US? | March 22, 2006 12:06 AM

Ms. Messner:
Since you're sure that the term "vigilante" was a "spelling error," as it was used on the Secured Borders USA website (and, if you even thought about it, it was an obvious grammatical error), THEN WHY DID YOU DANGLE IT OUT THERE? That's the cheapest of cheap, sensationalistic journalism.
You, me, and the whole world KNOW the phrase was intended to say that the members of this group must continue to remain VIGILANT.
But, since you label them as extremists and paranoids, I suppose a little manipulation of reality on your part (twisting an abvious typo into a statement of mission), simply helps you work your dishonest point.
How ironic! Who's really got a grip on reality here? Not you.

Posted by: Alex | March 22, 2006 03:17 PM

Dear Neil:

You posted :
"Some of you commentators are racist; just about all of you are selfish bastards. The glorious US was not JUST made through the hard work of it's past citizens, it was also made through dis-inheriting earlier inhabitants - and, later, bleeding the rest of the world of resources for it's citizens comforts; something it still does. But to keep those comforts it is SO important to keep the citizens of countries impoverished by the US out.
Fine, call this expedience - the poor of the world call it greed. None of your moral arguments stack up."

My main question to you; can you engage in this debate without trying to hurl the exessively shopworn and abused epithet "racist" at people. I am pretty sure you think that label can render moot your opponent's position, but it doesn't, and it is merely a roadblock to real debate-and God forbid- the chance of progress.
A person need not be a racist to defend their culture, simply put. Cultures the world 'round, throughout time, have, and continue to do so.
If We were talking about the innundation of any tribal or third-world culture by Anglos, you would (I'm willing to bet) be 100% for that third-world culture, in their (rightful) attempts to stem the immigration. They'd simply be defending THEIR space, THEIR ways. It is well and good, and I support peoples everywhere, in their quest to remain independent, and free from unwanted outside influence. Your living room, your house, is your own, no?
(If you think not, then YOU take in a dozen Mexicans)!
Preference for one's own ways, and people mostly simmilar to one's self is not RACISM...and if it is, you can tag that label on probably 95% of the world's population, and much more so than in the West. How ridiculous that you cling to this (I hate to say it) knee-jerk response. Use something higher up than your brainstem, when you try to refute immigration-restriction arguments!
Oh, and for one, undeniably strong anti-immigration argument (yes, I'd even say it is a "moral" argument), you know the type of argument you say none of us have:
Remember conservationism? Population control? A healthy, beautiful environment? The future we are going to hand down to future generations?
Well, Neil, America's population now sits at a whopping 300 million...up an astonishing 40 million or so in merely the past two decades. That is a moral outrage...it is wrenching this country, this economy, this LAND, this CULTURE into an existence almost all AMericans were vehemently against. Crowding, polution, sprawl. Highways and more highways. Strife, flight from strife, the continual development of more and more open land. Get out there and open your eyes. This country, east to west, has been so built up in the past twenty years, it is simply disgusting. The Everglades. The plains. The mountains.
Neil, none of those precious spaces are ever coming back. They're gone forever.
And since well more than 70% of US population growth is from immigrants and their offspring, the obvious MORAL question is "why on earth are we allowing our country to be swallowed up in a population explosion from outside, and one almost no one wants? Immigrants pour into urban areas, and Americans-quite understandably move away, to get out of the crowding, the noise, the crime, the strife, and yes, the culture clash. That is THE reason for the "housing boom." It is simple numbers, and they are easy to trace. No one has ever tried to refute it, because it is as hard to refute as the sun shining down on your face. The moral argument here? We should not crowd and ruin this country. The majority are, and have always been against it. We are being forced into a change by elite businesspeople and sell-out politicians, anlong with all the profiteers, and, also, the wave of Latinos who at the very least, would not mind one bit, if they eventually assume control of this nation. They know their numbers will dictate it one day, and they like it.
I DARE YOU TO TRY AND REFUTE THAT MORAL ARGUMENT.

And Neil, two wrongs never made a right. You say earlier Americans disinhereted the natives of their lands. True. Also not good. By the way, the Indians did it to eachother all the time. And none of them were "native," anyway. Nobody on the earth , save for, perhaps, some Africans can claim to be native. Everybody disposessed someone. But we are living in the year 2006, no? Can we dispense of past evils, and concede that the United States has been here over 200 years? Did you know that since Colonial days, America (excluding the Indians) was almost always more than 90% of British descent? (If you doubt it, read Washington, Jefferson and Franklin about the dangers of importing even too many Germans or French)!

America was about 90% Anglo-Saxon as late as 1965, when Teddy Kennedy put up an immigration bill that mandated huge immigration from the Third World. That's when America's demographics began to change. And Most Anglos have been against it, even though we are usually affraid to speak it in the general public (fear of being labled a "racist," you know).

The plain, objective truth is, America was almost entirely Anglo from its inception as a civilization, and has continued to be up until the VERY recent past. It is still probably 70% Anglo. We, yes, even WHITE PEOPLE (so evil, huh)? have every right to keep our society, our institutions, our culture, our lands, as we wish them to be. That's not xenophobia, or hate, it is called preference. Every human on the planet has their preferences. (By the way, I have no problem whatever with a healthy dose of cultural diversity, or people of color). What we are experiencing, is the wrenching, unbalanced change of a society, against the will, and even the laws of a people.
And you think to brand people with insults for railing against it?
You need a dose of morality yourself...in the most basic sense. Grant to Anglos the same rights and freedoms you would grant everybody else.
Sincerely.

Posted by: Alex | March 22, 2006 04:00 PM

Hey Matt:
You wrote;

"I heard a really good comment on NPR last week. A guest on TOTN said that the day after the U.S. builds an 8ft fence there will be a huge new market for 9ft ladders. A wall, either real or metephorical, is not the answer."

You are essentially stating that we might as well not try. because no fence, or wall, or barrier is impregnable.
Actually, you are repeating something that someone else is repeating. Perhaps you have not really thought about it.
Do you think two or three million mojados are going to get over, under, or through a series of barriers covering the entire southern border? Really. Do you think even a hundred thousand will?
We could EASILY turn this torrent into a tiny trickle with any number of wall-fence-barrier plans. Detractors will trot out the same nay-saying objections; " it is impossible," "it would be fantastically expensive," "they will just get in another way," "it sends an ugly message." etc.

As to its feasability: give me a break; The Panama Canal...Every skyscraper in every modern city, the Space program, every military endeavor we've had for fifty-plus years, a tiny sliver of a fraction of our interstate highway system...all these things evince an industrial, monetary, military and economic capacity to build a wall around the world, if we want.
As to cost: Add up the cost of the war in Iraq for a month. Now think about it for a moment. The wall would actually SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PROTECT THEM TO SOME REAL DEGREE. Consider that it is also money spent on construction...that is, money which flows in the public sector (though, ironically, Mexican firms would probably underbid Americans for the wall they so demonize)!
Anyway, a real WALL, or even a network of walls and roads, recon towers, and a full staff of guards is truly chump change. The cost of illegal immigration is staggering. The wall would dramatically reduce that cost. (Of course, stiff employer sanctions are equally needed).
As to mojados getting in another way; A trip by sea would be very difficult indeed, for most. And in any event, you don't say "to hell with fixing the crack in the leaky basement, the water will just get in another crack, anyway." Not unless you are a lazy defeatist who wants to let his house, his home,and his investment crumble and collapse. Are you that guy?
Matt, it takes responsibility...a commitment to doing the difficult, and even the unpleasant. World War Two was unpleasant.
Which leads to the last objection; that it sends an ugly message. Yes, would that fences and walls were not required anywhere. I don't like them, myself. But locks on doors, fences, walls, borders...they all serve needful purposes. When a country's population exploded with forty million immigrants in twenty years...when upwards of two million foreigners amble willy-nilly acrosss our border (these are just the ones who don't get caught), and when WHOLE STATES are in a real, and a legal STATE OF EMERGENCY, when the populace is screaming ENOUGH, maybe it is time for folks like you and I to accept the necessity of a wall, or fence network, even if it offends us, esthetically or philosophically.
There are priorities here, and they are starkly outlined. We have greedy businessmen who will sell you and your whole family away for a cheap laborer from Mexico. When the Mexican demands a raise, they will hire a Guatemalan. When the Guatemalan protests, they will get a Salvadoran.
It already happens. But you, Matt, you WERE an American citizen. Where did you end up? You're toast, pal. You're too expensive, what with your sense of entitlement to fair consideration, and dignity in your labor, and your whole middle-class value system. You are a replaceable part, and way too persnickety for someone like the CEO of Tyson Chicken, or Mc Donalds...or Wal Mart, or...hell, even Microsoft. (Dear Bill gates, the philanthropist is a massive glutton for foreign high tech workers who work at cut rates).
These are just the tip of the iceberg of economic rammifications of this mass immigration tidal wave. Everything about your life, your future, and your history will be changed by this huge demographic, social and economic transformation that the open borders crowd wants so badly. But heavens, a wall?
( Gee, Mz. Messner, am I a racist, a xenophope, or a crackpot yet)?

Matt, a wall is an easy choice, compared to what is happening due to unchecked immigration. If you want to lay down in a ditch, and shovel dirt on yourself, do so. Resign your rights and your life. But consider that such defeatism helps doom an entire society.
Also, we have to be tough sometimes. But it soesn't mean we'd become some totalitarian state. We can build a wall, sanction employers, repatriate the illegals, bring immigration to replacement levels (unless you want the USA to be as crowded as India), and slowly return to order. Then, with a stabilized and proper relationship visa-vis the billions in the Third World who want to come here and live next to you, partake in your wealth, and probably be supported by you, we can maybe one day dismantle the wall.
But right now, consider it a dam, in the face of a flood. While you consider its feasibility, or its effect on the landscape, a two-hundred foot wall of water is going to crush you. ( And I will get absolutely zero satisfaction in saying I warned you). I will be crushed, too. And my children, and theirs.

Hey Mz Messner...too emotional? too metaphoric? Am I kook yet? (Assuming you're not just yanking everyone's chain to sell copy).
Hell no, I could write for your paper...I could write YOUR column. But then again, an inexpensive Pakistani journalist will probably displace you before someone like I can.
Enjoy.

Posted by: Alex | March 23, 2006 04:19 AM

If indeed Bush's approval rating is around 35%, this means that approximately 15% of voters wised up since the 2004 election. Would it be asking too much for these people to THINK before voting next time, rather than swallow whole Karl Rove's pack of lies? Honest to God, this is like being a passenger in Jackson Pollock's car. I blame that 15% for being just as dumb as Rove takes them for.

Posted by: Robert B. | March 26, 2006 11:59 AM

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.