Patriotic Assimilation (Go Patriots!)

We left off the last post discussing a paper by Donald Huddle. I found myself quite confused when Huddle claimed that Karl Zinsmeister supports open borders. I can only assume this is the same Karl Zinsmeister who wrote in 2000 of "an over-heavy saturation with poorly educated peasants from Mexico and other Third World countries" causing "unwanted poverty, crime, social dysfunction, educational mediocrity, economic drags, and ethnic division."

That doesn't strike me as the outlook of someone who desires an open-border policy.

Zinsmeister argues for an increase in the number of skilled immigrants possessing "desirable occupational capabilities," and a decrease in the number of immigrants let into the country simply because they're related to U.S. citizens. While pointing out that America's capacity to absorb immigrants is not unlimited, he believes that the capacity can be greatly increased through successful assimilation.

Essentially, he's describing a concept dubbed "patriotic assimilation". The conservative Heritage Foundation invited Emilio T. Gonzalez, director of U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, to speak at a forum on the subject, the video of which can be viewed here.

Gonzalez says the United States abandoned its dedication to Americanization years ago "in favor of a more laissez faire, multiculturalist approach today" -- a shift he believes was a big mistake. That's why "USCIS has revived our historic Americanization traditions with the creation of the Office of Citizenship" (which, among other triumphs, produced this handy guide.) As a prime example of what can happen when immigrants fail to assimilate, Gonzalez mentions the riots in France last year.

A perfectly fair point, of course, but it should be noted that France also has a severe lack of multiculturalism, exemplified by the infamous headscarf ban. I would posit that the best approach to integrating immigrants would emphasize assimilation while recognizing that cultural traditions cannot simply be stripped away. Americanization is possible even as we appreciate those differences that make our culture richer.

Think about it: The United States has a long history of borrowing from various cultural groups to supplement and enhance our language, food, architecture, decor, music -- indeed, countless aspects of American culture have been influenced in some way by other cultures.

Should we continue to embrace multiculturalism wholeheartedly and brush up on our Spanish? Or should we take the "Resistance Is Futile" approach and enforce absolute assimilation, complete with education and government documents in Englishonly? Can we find some workable middle ground?

One last thing for today:

GO MASON!!!


As the day has worn on, I've realized my legs are really sore from jumping up and down while watching the game on Saturday. To the folks at Bryon's restaurant: I trust you managed to re-hang the picture I knocked off the wall in my excitement. And sorry about my mom almost starting a brawl.

By Emily Messner |  March 27, 2006; 4:47 PM ET  | Category:  National Politics
Previous: Guest Workers: Importing Poverty? | Next: Andy Card's Resignation (Open-ish Thread)

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In some ways, France is actually the _most_ multicultural country. They won't keep racial statistics because they believe as official ideology that all French are French irrespective of their race. For the same reason, they refuse to have affirmative action -- officially, it isn't necessary.

In the United States, assimilation is breaking down not because of multiculturalism alone, but instead because we have too many immigrants from one place -- Mexico. They reached a critical mass and now have no need to assimilate, learn English, etc. They can effectively live Mexican lives in the United States, from one generation to the next. This is a big problem.

Professor Huntington explained it best:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2524

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 27, 2006 05:33 PM

When I say "George", you say "Mason"!
When I say "George", you say "Mason"!
When I say "George", you say "Mason"!
When I say "George", you say "Mason"!
When I say "George", you say "Mason"!

Posted by: | March 27, 2006 05:38 PM

If Huntington is right, you better be ready to chant:

Jorge! Mason!
Jorge! Mason!

;-)

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 27, 2006 05:40 PM

"an over-heavy saturation with poorly educated peasants from Mexico and other Third World countries" causing "unwanted poverty, crime, social dysfunction, educational mediocrity, economic drags, and ethnic division."

I'll bet this was said by the Anglos about Irish, German, Polish, etc., immigrants not too long ago. Nothing new about this line of argument here.

----------------------------------

"I would posit that the best approach to integrating immigrants would emphasize assimilation while recognizing that cultural traditions cannot simply be stripped away. Americanization is possible even as we appreciate those differences that make our culture richer."

This has been the American model all these years. It works more or less. No one can argue with that.

----------------------------------

"In the United States, assimilation is breaking down not because of multiculturalism alone, but instead because we have too many immigrants from one place -- Mexico. They reached a critical mass and now have no need to assimilate, learn English, etc. They can effectively live Mexican lives in the United States, from one generation to the next. This is a big problem."

This is the real fear isn't it? That there will be a large enough group to create a permanent subculture speaking a different language here in the US.

----------------------------------

One should also add the fear, real or imagined, spoken out loud or not, of the currently dominant European descendent group of a new dominant competing ethnic group for political, economic, and cultural power whether they assimilate or not. No, especially if they assimilate, politically at least.

Posted by: Borg | March 27, 2006 06:28 PM

A great place to look in America to see if assimilation has worked for several decades is in Miami, FL. I have lived and taught in both Texas and Florida, and Miami, much to the dismay of the rest of the state, has done a much better job than, say, Dallas. In Dallas, immigrants are still treated like 2nd class citizens, or a type of post-modern form of slavery. Collect them from a sleazy street corner in the back of your pick-up truck to go do menial labour at your house for dirt-cheap pay, then take them back to live in hovel-like accommodations. A great place for them to raise their kids, right? Then send their little ones to school to reap the benefits of the Free Lunch and Title I programs. Oh, and watch the No Child Left Behind state and federally mandated test scores in the school district hit below the marker, because these children are not ready for school in the first place, and they move from school to school in search of more itinerant work. Both issues that affect the test scores.

Of course, employers are upset that they may not win to keep their form of today's slavery going. And of course Pres Bush is trying to sell the country on this, like some slick used car salesman. He's probably hired a few illegals himself to help out with his rich ranch life-style. It's a popular thing to do in Texas, and helps a lot of people stay above the poverty line. What American would be crazy enough to give up their dirty little secret?

Yeah, we're such a caring nation, stellar role models for the rest of the world. We can juggle human rights and the bottom line at the same time.

Posted by: DS | March 27, 2006 06:38 PM

OOPS! I forgot to mention the 'nanny club' the upwardly mobile moms in North Dallas pay into for illegals to take care of their children. Some of these nannies can live in. How nice. But it's even nicer for the posh moms, who save on medical insurance or other benefits, and don't have to worry their pretty little heads with IRS headaches.

Hey, the American Dream ... what a scene.

Posted by: DS | March 27, 2006 06:47 PM

When are we going to realize that this is an economic issue and not an immigration issue? Are we as a nation so delusional to think that everyone wants to be an American? These people come to make money to support their families and for no other reason. I was talking to a man from El Salvador just the other night and he had been studying to be a lawyer there, but decided to come to the US when his brother convinced him he could make more money here in Maryland as a cook for a private golf club than as a lawyer in El Salvador. I asked him why things were bad in El Salvador and he said that local businesses there could not compete with American products, including farm products. I'm not sure this is all correct, but certainly American economics is impacting South America and probably contributing to the immigration problem. If we believe in the force of markets, why are we blind to the fact that our immigration problem is the result of market forces? These people need work and we need cheap labor to compete globally. If you want to solve this problem, then you have to address the economic forces which are driving it. My wife is Mexican and I come into contact with many Hispanics, legal and illegal. Many would go home if they could support their families there. In fact, billions of dollars flow south across our border every year - sent by illegal workers to their families back home. Perhaps this is a natural economic "force" to try to establish economic equilibrium - to offset the concentration of capital that we have in this country.

As to the question of whether they take jobs that Americans don't want to do, Hispanics are going to practically every state in the union as far as I can see. Some I know are moved from state to state by construction companies to work wherever they are needed. Many Americans would not work like this. A friend of mine who has a landscaping business in NY says that he cannot hire Americans to work for him, young men simply don't want to work that hard - so he hires illegals. They also work for my neighbor who is a contractor and my wife's niece runs a thriving house cleaning business in California. I see them working for hotels wherever I travel. I read an article that reported that Hispanics have the highest accident rate at work because they often take the highest risk jobs. As far as my limited observation can tell, they have taken on all the lower tier, less desirable work that this country has to offer and do so because the alternative back home is worse. The truth is that we want them here to do this work because we can pay them less than anyone else; without them, everything in this country would be more expensive. If it wasn't for this, we would be working harder to try to help Latin America solve their economic problems. If you want to really address the immigration "problem", we need to focus on the economic relationship between the US and Latin America and not on putting up a fence on our Southern border.

Posted by: BT | March 27, 2006 07:15 PM

Interesting topic, many different facets.

According to what I have read, the fundamentals to modern civilization require the nation state.

I think of nations as people in a community (the international community) each having a nation character or personality (culture).

This national cutlure might promote some tribalism (buzzword of the day) or "school spirit" also known as patriotism which is good for getting the citizens of the nation state to cooperate (essential for the establishment of a nation state) but also it may be bad in the sense it may be misused or a nation might get "carried away", giddy so to speak, with the glory of their love for their nation.

If this nation were a person, we might characterize that as an ego problem or maybe some sort of psychosis, which sooner or later will be corrected by reality setting in, but not after the damage is done.

So it is a double edge sword. One would want to manage a national identity for the good. But I digress.

So.... I think there should be some sort of understanding, maybe in the Teddy Roosevelt kind of way, as what it means to be an American. So we can have national unity. Does not matter your race, color religion, or whatever.

IMHO We would want a national language because it reflects our culture.

It's okay if you want to speak other languages, because in my experience with reading translations from many different countries around the world, the language defines and reflects the culture of that nation.

So we would be enriching our Americanish Language even more with other, different languages.

Like KAWABONGA!!!!!
Just my opinion
Richard Katz

Disclaimer: I can't speak Spanish.

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 27, 2006 07:29 PM

Virginia wrote:
"In some ways, France is actually the _most_ multicultural country. They won't keep racial statistics because they believe as official ideology that all French are French irrespective of their race. For the same reason, they refuse to have affirmative action -- officially, it isn't necessary."

The riots last fall proved this wrong. France has a "Ministry of Culture" to maintain the French culture which sort of proves they are not multi-cultural. For the French government to acknowledge racism and the need for affirmative action would be to accept the fact that they are a country of many cultures. Something they cannot seem to do.

Posted by: Sully | March 27, 2006 08:39 PM

BT wrote:
===========================================
When are we going to realize that this is an economic issue and not an immigration issue? Are we as a nation so delusional to think that everyone wants to be an American? These people come to make money to support their families and for no other reason. I was talking to a man from El Salvador just the other night and he had been studying to be a lawyer there, but decided to come to the US when his brother convinced him he could make more money here in Maryland as a cook for a private golf club than as a lawyer in El Salvador.
===========================================

And no doubt the lawyer in training is around with a torch, gasoline and legal briefs to push the agendas of these ILLEGAL aliens -- like multi-language documents so they don't even have to learn English.

Like in France, immigrants don't want to assimiliate, then will riot because the country doesn't accept them. Damn right! Citizens don't accept folks who buck our society, it's traditions and mores.

Now look at our lily-livered senate. More interested in getting elected than being true to their idealogies.

Poor Lindsay Graham, he may be eaten alive now (because the Blacks in SC aren't very favorable of Hispanics taking their jobs).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 27, 2006 09:16 PM

Emily wrote:
===========================================
I would posit that the best approach to integrating immigrants would emphasize assimilation while recognizing that cultural traditions cannot simply be stripped away. Americanization is possible even as we appreciate those differences that make our culture richer.
===========================================

That's mindset is what brought France to it's knees (and the headscarf issue was coming as Europe is evaluating it's own immigration/assimiliation programs). France is so open, what even you Emily consider liberal is conservative over there. It's not that the French isn't open, but France is VERY patriotic. When they feel their culture ebbing away, they pass laws to enforce their culture.

The USA needs to do that, or we'll have Hispanic riots and civil war talk. Part of the reason that Minute Men watch formed is because the concern of civil strife -- of illegals coming in to try to influence our government policies, much like Poncho Vila and his border raiding.

It's you pie-in-the-sky folks that have the problem. You REFUSE to see the consequences (or look up help from partisan websites or affiliations for data). You think if everyone is one big happy family there won't be any problems. Yeah, if you're living in white bread subdivisions and don't have to see, feel, smell, taste and experience the hell of being non-WASP. Sitting around with your neighbor from India singing Kumbaya isn't any more multi-culturalism (let alone heritage building), than yelling honky in a Black nightclub.

This issue is so trivial, even college sports are talked over it -- since it's all a game, right?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 27, 2006 09:27 PM

Wrong forum, Che.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 28, 2006 03:55 AM

BTW, did the WP bloggers have a pep talk on sports before posting this morning? What next, the weather report??

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 28, 2006 03:58 AM

BT wrote:
"When are we going to realize that this is an economic issue and not an immigration issue?"

I don't know quite what you mean by this BT. It appears to me that it is both. The economic issue is one of supply vs. demand, in this case the supply of labor vs. the demand for labor. Within a given market, normally wages (price) will rise or fall to keep supply balanced to demand. Were we to expel all of our illegal labor supply overnight, and it appears to amount to about 5% of our labor force, we would immediately see wages go up as demand would exceed supply. Of course we also have about the same percentage of our labor force unemployed, so theoretically, in a perfect world, we could just drop to a 0% unemployment rate and everyone would be happy. Reality is somewhat more brutal since our illegal labor is concentrated in certain specific markets and labor skills, to which our unemployed are not necessarily very well matched. So in actual practice this would be quite disastrous done overnight.

Be that as it may, the real economic question here revolves around satisfying the demand for labor. It is simply not true that there are jobs Americans don't want. For every job there is a price (wage) at which an American can be found who will want it and do it and do it well. Somewhere else in the world, there is a non-American who will do it for a lower price, often a very much lower price. If you can move the job to that cheaper person it is called "out-sourcing". If you can move the person to the job it is called immigration; essentially it is simply importing less expensive labor.

Both of these threaten our "rice bowl" as the Chinese so succinctly put it. Effectively we, as laborers, are forced to compete in the free world market of labor. We don't like it since we either have to lower our price or lose our jobs. Businesses that can export work to cheaper labor markets do it that way. Businesses that can't export the work want to import the cheaper labor instead. If they can't do that, then they have to raise the prices they pay for local labor here until the supply of it comes into balance with the demand for it, and they have to raise their prices to cover the added cost. There is no free lunch here.

The political question in front of us is the extent to which we as a nation want to limit the import of labor into the United States, the extent to which we want to erect what is a "protectionist" barrier to the import of foreign labor, to establish import quotas you might say. This for the purposes of halting the erosion of our wages and securing our rice bowls.

This has gotten out of hand because it has simply been left to the free market work its will in the lower portion of the labor market. Thus we see the largely uncontrolled flow of labor from Mexico, Central America, and South America. Businesses have become addicted to it, dependent on it. The flow has been so large that it has created overwhelming local effects on the Border States as well as in other places in the nation where immigrants have been concentrated; threatening culture, overwhelming schools and health systems, and causing other problems (real and imagined).

I hope McCain and Kennedy prevail in the way they deal with our current inventory of illegal immigrants. I hope House prevails in the way he deals with getting physical control of the border. Just tacitly leaving the market to control the flow across that border is an invitation to continuing social conflict. Don't we have enough of that in the Middle East? :o)

Salud, pesetas, y tiempo para gastarlas!

Posted by: Cayambe | March 28, 2006 04:21 AM

While on a direct short path to rapidly liquidate our laws (not by mandate of the citizenry, one is reminded, but by craven and cowardly "reform" through a simple majority of 100 members of Senate), the question must be, "What must follow?"

The rather odd thing was that it started with giving breaks and further future rewards to freely-mobile, law-breaking, unassilimated foreign aliens. Wouldn't it be logical to expect some sentiment and follow-up demands for parity from presently locked-up assimilated natives of America?

I don't do it myself, but I would certainly rate personal use of marijuana below border busting in the crime scale. Don't assume for a moment that the novel concept of decriminalization of whole classes of people is not lost on millions of Americas tried and found guilty of various offenses, or in fear of same.

We can fully expect demands for equivilant treatment for many other classes of illegality, past and present, including amnesty, pardon, expungement of crimes from records, reparation, and decriminization of vast varieties of behaviors now deemed offenses by law. This is a dead certain implication of what we are now seeing transpire about illegal immigration.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 28, 2006 07:49 AM

Our immigration policy resembles the ineffective war on drugs. For decades we've spent billions of dollars on interdiction and law enforcement yet trafficking only increases. Similarly, the federal government continues to increase spending on border patrol and enforcement to no avail. I think we can all agree we haven't gotten our money's worth. In spite of our efforts, 11 million illegal immigrants currently live underneath our radar. Both the human and economic dimensions of this issue are complex. A new immigration policy that combines compassion with rational innovation is in order. Sadly, our political class appears incapable of rising above the passions, fears, and even greed of their respective constituencies.

Read, "Our Immigration Conundrum", in the *Intrepid Liberal Journal*.


http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | March 28, 2006 08:05 AM

The democrats are pushing this bill through the Senate to give illegals the ability to stay, work, and be given a road to citizenship ahead of those who are following our legal process and staying in their own countries as the law says they should. Its amnesty pure and simple. Its being done not out of anyone's goodness of heart but out of pure political consideration of the Hispanic vote.

This was a repuiblican issue the republicans were going to have to take care of and accept the consequences. Instead the democrats stepped up and took this issue and are running with it. It will cost them dearly this fall. The democrats are on the road to retaking the house and senate, or at least narrowing the republican lead, but this fall you will hear how the democrats are trying to sell out this country to the illegal alien. And they will loose if this bill passes. The democrats are effectively snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with their eyes wide open. What are they thinking...

Posted by: Sully | March 28, 2006 09:08 AM

This maybe the straw that breaks the camel's back for both parties.

The popular sentiment is real strong on this issue, as it has the ability to directly affect the majority (i.e., the middle class, who are too poor to hire help, yet know their jobs can be on the line, too).

Will be interesting if a dark horse third party candidate (much like Perot) can come out of the fog, and how the public will respond to him/her.

Because at this stage, I'm ready to vote for some third party candidate that isn't looney left or looney right. It's appalling that these senators voted just to stay in office, despite their voters don't like this invasion.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 28, 2006 10:03 AM

I think someone will do a poll which I expect to show that a vast majority of Americans do not want this bill passed. Hopefully the poll will be done soon. It should shock the government a lot more than the weekend's protests.

I heard a great analogy on NPR this morning. I forget who made the analogy but he said this bill was like an usher catching a kid who snuck into a movie, and tells the kid he had to pay with those outside at the end of the ticket line. The kid is then allowed to stay in the movie theater and pay when the last person in line pays. In the meantime the kid gets to stay in the theater and watch the movie while those obeying the law wait outside.

Posted by: Sully | March 28, 2006 11:00 AM

What I want to know is why are so many liberals and Democrats supporting pro-corporate immigration reform policies that increase poverty and erode wages for less-educated native workers?

Like the Republican elite, the reform rhetoric parroted by many liberals and Democrats blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. While legal immigration strengthens our society, illegal immigration divides it by race and economic opportunity. Conflating the two places liberals and Democrats in the untenable position of vanquishing the hope of economic justice for the most vulnerable members of the native workforce.

According to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies, "illegals are overwhelmingly employed in only a few occupations done mostly by workers with only a high school degree or less. In these high-illegal occupations, native unemployment averages 10 percent -- twice the national average."

This finding among the less-educated native workers puts the lie to the discordant claim by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that comprehensive reforms are needed to help "immigrant" workers fill low-skill jobs that over-qualified natives are unwilling to take.

The truth is that there are no jobs working-class natives won't do given an opportunity and a fair wage.

The large inflows of illegal laborers into the U.S. is caused by Mexico's negligence to provide sufficient employment opportunities for their citizens, and by corporate America's desire to drive down the cost of labor by any means necessary.

The real danger of enacting current reform proposals favored by Democrats is to help corporate America build a bigger, better cheap labor trap, which reduces fair-wage opportunities that enable working- and middle-class citizens to pursue their own personal goals and dreams.

Helping corporate America widen the cheap labor trap is unfair to working- and middle-class natives who do not now earn enough money to afford health insurance, or buy a home in a safe, healthy community, or send their children to a good school, or save for retirement.

We need reforms that place the interests of working- and middle-class families ahead of the economic interests of corporate America.

Common sense reform must first turn off the corporate magnet attracting foreign laborers entering the U.S. illegally. This means heavy fines and the threat of long jail times for company owners who repeatedly hire illegal laborers.

Second, we need policy objectives that motivate Mexico to get off the dime and use their common wealth for the common good to create employment opportunities for their citizens.

Third, illegals who are in the U.S. should not be granted immunity or "guest worker" status, but be allowed the same opportunity to apply for legal status as those who play by the rules.

The ultimate aim of immigration reform is government subsidization of corporate cheap labor, and the immoral erosion of wages and job opportunities for less-educated native workers.

Posted by: fafnir | March 28, 2006 11:09 AM

I hate to bring up the obvious, but does the phrase "You can't see the forest through the trees" mean anything to anybody. I would like you to think about what I an about to perpose very carefully. The American intelligence units have and do monitor all global comunications to include internet, hard wire telephone, e-mail, all radio frequencies, cell and sateliite telephone conversations. They have been caught red handed using data mining on american citizens and monitoring even peaceful religious groups such as the Menonites in Florida. They have spied on anti-war protest groups. They have spied on all para-military groups that operate whitin the borders of the United States, these are all facts that are known. They have either been divulged by the press, or the government agencey that has done the spying on these groups ie: FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.

Now here is where you have to start using logic and start putting the pieces to the puzzle together. In 2001 King George orders the intelligence community to start spying on the American public in general. He tells the public once he has been exposed as doing this, that they are only listening to call inside the U.S. that are to or from suspected terrorists where one caller is outside the U.S., but here is the contradiction, they have been listening to international communications all along, therefore they would have already been listening in on those calls, because they are an international call already. Therefore he has been caught in another bold faced lie. What he did is authorize the spying on the American people. It has been proven that when ever groups of people congragate that they are being spied upon by government intelligence personel. Now here is where you need to look at the whole picture. The Republican party which is known as the party for "Big Business" uses their standard spin that the airing of any of the secret programs the government is using will tip off the terrorists as to how intelligence is being gathered on them, including the interception of telephone conversations which has been public knowlege for years. Therefore with some arm twisting by the White House, they pull the Republicans back in lock step, and block the Democrats from holding hearings on the domestic spying program Bush authorized, even closed door hearings. Now the Republicans introduce a bill to authorize the spying on Americans without any oversight for 45 days, after which time they have to report to 8 members of congress not who they were spying on only that they want to continue without a warrant, because they say that they don't have enough information to obtain a warrant. Why do you think that they want to spy on Americans? I just showed you that it isn't to obtain intelligence on terrorists abroad communicating with Americans because that has been monitored for years. Now let me fill in somemore little details that have gone on that congress has passed and King George has signed into law that they have kept as hushed as they can. As they have taken more and more freedoms and used the same old BS spin that it needs to be done under the guise of national security. Over a year ago they passed a bill mandating that every prescription that you have filled must be reported to the DEA and your doctor must provide medical evidance to support the writing of that prescription, therefore giving the government your medical history. The ATF monitors every sale of any type of chemical that can be used to manufacture explosives and or drugs. Not large quantities all quantities. Do you realize that everyday household chemicals that you purchase can be used in the manufacture of either drugs or explosives, and you are monitored to make sure that you don't purchase more than they think you should have. Also even though we don't have a firearms registration law thanks to the NRA, the ATF knows who has firearms. If you have ever purchased a gun you have to fill out a paper that is sent to the ATF stating that you are not mentally ill or have not commited a crime or are under indictment for a crime under penelty of Federal Prison time.

I hope the picture is getting clearer, but if not I'll explain it to you. The elitests in this country by using the proceeds from their businesses to fund the party of Big Business. Our lawmakers are bought and paid for from the profits of Big Business as was recently exposed by the Jack Abrahmoff indictment. If you have been following the news about Lobbying reform, that congress has basically decieded not to take away any of their bread and butter by stopping the flow of soft cash into their coffers. Their greed has ruined our country and Big business wants what? Only one thing to get bigger and to make more money for the elite few. How do they do that? Cheap labor. They know that Americans won't work for slave wages, so they have congress pass laws to allow them to get cheap labor without penalty. Our congress passed laws allowing american companies to pack up and move our jobs to third world nations where they can get away with paying slave wages and giving no benifits to the people they hire. the companies that didn't leave due to some quirk in the laws, the lawmakers allowed them to outsource the more technical jobs to countries like India. The rest of the jobs that are available, the lawmakers and King George diverted funds away from the borders and the border patrols by inventing the war in Iraq, and using the scare tactics that they always use to shift the money away border security, by saying we need to protect against terrorists. There by opening the borders to the major influx if illegal immigrants. Without funding to stop this influx and a lax in the federal prosecution of the illegals under violation of ferdeal laws and the government turning and looking the other way on businesses hiring these illegals the elite now have what they want, a pool of workers to whom they can hire for slave wages under the excuse that there are jobs that no american will do. They can now eliminate the more costly american workers, and fill their jobs with illegals.

Now the point of the data mining and spying on everyday Americans. The government and big business knew at some point that Americans would start to get fed up with what is happening to their higher paying jobs, being taken away and given to illegals. Our elected officials in the federal government hope that by appeasing sections of society by going through the motions of doing something that they would be able to passify a majority of society before things went too far. They also know that one person can't stop them, but groups would form of like minded people for example the "Minute Men" anti-war protest groups and alike. They figured that sooner or later someone would figure out what has been let to go on, and a resistance movement would be born from these groups demanding something be done. This is how this country was born!!!! The only way the government could stop an uprising of its population, is to have intelligence on its people. That is why the data mining, spying on e-mails, phone calls and the gathering of any like minded groups. So they can quell any uprising before it catches on. This is the reason for the enemy combatant label and being able to detain american citizens indefinately without access to a lawyer or the courts or without being charged with a crime.

Think about it, as this can be the only logical reason for what has been allowed to go on in this country.

Posted by: Lab Rat | March 28, 2006 11:34 AM

LabRat, I think you are taking what is actually political expediency and pure incompetence and making it into a very well played conspiracy. Think about it, what has this administration done right? They can't get anything right yet you believe in this case they are executing perfectly. Never confuse conspiracy with incompetence. Its Occams razor. Which is the simplest explanation ... Bush is a genius or Bush is incompetent???

Posted by: Sully | March 28, 2006 11:48 AM

It is part of American history and tradition to begrudgingly accept the influence of new cultures through immigration. New York City, which once embraced the attitude of NINA (No Irish need apply), is now awash in fountains of crappy green beer every March 17.

The 800 pound gorilla in this struggle over Latin American immigration is language. I am opposed to making English our national language, not for any of the sentimental arguments that the left usually makes (We are a nation of immigrants, cultural imperialism, etc.), but because it is unnecessary. As the children of the current immigrants grow up, they will be surrounded by people speaking English. English is needed for success in most jobs, and when these children grow up they will use English to get ahead, something that a lot of their parents were never able to do. I am usually not a fan of "the market will solve any problem" arguments, but in this case I think it will provide the solution.

Posted by: William | March 28, 2006 12:18 PM

William says: "As the children of the current immigrants grow up, they will be surrounded by people speaking English. English is needed for success in most jobs, and when these children grow up they will use English to get ahead, something that a lot of their parents were never able to do. I am usually not a fan of "the market will solve any problem" arguments, but in this case I think it will provide the solution."

The problem is that with so many immigrants from the same country (Mexico), there is a real danger that they will not be surrounded by people speaking English. Already, Latino immigrants in California have a lower rate of switching to English than other immigrant groups.

And as you saw in the Los Angeles protests, there are many here who for identity politics reasons do not want to learn English.

It's a real problem. The Senate's proposed amnesty would only make it worse.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Virginia Dare observes:

". . . Mexico), there is a real danger that they will not be surrounded by people speaking English."
__________________

Adding to English-language isolation in their ordinary domains, is the reality that Latino secondary school completion rates are dismally low, with drop-outs happening very early. Spanish language cable television and radio even further reduce their exposure to proper English. Construction sites don't seem to call for either.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 28, 2006 01:00 PM

Previous waves of immigration to the United States were always accompanied by a sense of national pride among the immigrants in their newly adopted country and a strong desire to become citizens at the earliest opportunity. Immigrants sought to become Americans in every way, while still maintaining pride in their heritage. They generally learned English, and insisted that their children quickly become fluent in the language of their adopted country.

Today's wave of illegal immigration is more like a tsunami. These folks do not come here to be Americans, which is why the statement that "we are a country of immigrants" is not a germaine argument for tolerating this invasion. They come here only for economic reasons. Indeed, to refer to them as "immigrants" implies the desire to become assimilated like all previous immigrants. I think it is more accurate to refer to them as "economic colonists."

The parallels are striking. Like the colonists during the heyday of 19th century European imperialism, they see no reason to learn the native language (see India, South Africa, Central African Republic, Brazil, etc.) or make an effort to embrace any aspect of our national identity or culture. Just look at the large number of Mexican flags on display during the recent demonstrations.

Like the native peoples in 19th century European colonies, our national and cultural identity is threatened. And like them, conquest is only possible because there are those among us who would sell us out for wealth and power.

Posted by: Buck | March 28, 2006 02:57 PM

William is right, second generation immigrants master English in overwhelming numbers. You often see children interpreting for their parents. Of course there are exceptions, but there have been several studies of this issue and every one I have heard about or seen comes to this conclusion. You also have to distinguish between immigrants and "guest workers" - many documented and undocumented aliens are here solely to earn a nest eqq to bring back to their home country.

Posted by: JimD | March 28, 2006 03:01 PM

I believe that we need to boil the entire immigration debate down to two key questions: what kind of country are we, and what kind of country do we want to be? The United States has always prided itself on being a nation that was founded on principles, and has evolved over the years to adhere to those principles and expand the application of those principles to everyone who lives within its borders as well as exporting those ideals abroad. We are not a country who is defined by a national culture, other than the culture of liberty, respect for rights, and a belief in commerce. We accept any and all people who are willing to adhere to those core American values and contribute to our society.

Throughout our history we have confronted the issue of national identity and citizenship in many different contexts. Who is an American? Who should enjoy the rights of citizenship? These were questions that the framers addressed in the Constitution, and policy makers, courts, and the citizenry have chosen to review and revise during every succeeding generation. I am always proudest to be an American when I reflect on how this country has struggled to correct the injustices it has encountered and even inflicted on other humans, at any expense. Usually our country adopts an inclusive posture, and an expansive view of rights. Our society isn't stingy with granting people equal standing before the law and avoiding the sanctioned creation of castes or social classes.

By failing to address the issue of undocumented immigration in accordance with this expansive view, we would be abandoning our tradition and our history. We would be abandoning our tradition and our unique American values. We are supposed to be a society that values freedom. We should seriously consider the type of freedom that we are trying to encumber by taking a restrictionist stance against immigrants. We would be advocating restricting the freedom of people to seek a job at the best wage that they can find. We would be advocating restricting the movement of people (remember the Berlin Wall?). We would be denying the rights of families to live together due to mixed immigration status. This is not the American way.

You may ask why should we allow people who have broken our laws to be rewarded with legal status? I think we really need to ask ourselves if the law itself is fair. Just as discriminatory laws were found to be in violation of our innate sense of justice, I think that if the majority of Americans were truly aware of the limitations of the current immigration system and the bureaucratic nightmare of those who attempt to manuever their way through it, they would realize that most illegal immigrants would not be able to immigrate to the U.S. in any other way besides swimming the river or in the trunk of a car. Nobody wants to risk their life to work at Wendy's. If there was an easy way to immigrate, the illegal immigration problem wouldn't exist on the scale that it does right now.

Posted by: El Naco | March 28, 2006 03:02 PM

Here's a worthwhile op/ed on the question of Mexican nationalism and whether it is incompatible with assimilation into American society:

http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060327-091535-6668r.htm

Sample: "Isn't it obvious in many areas that Mexicans are pushing out Americans, refusing to speak English and establishing de facto Mexican enclaves? A growing number of Mexicans despise their northern neighbor. American soccer fans, to cite just one example, have repeatedly witnessed the outrageous behavior of Mexican crowds during the playing of "The Star Spangled Banner," including cheers of "Osama, Osama"-- a reference to the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11."

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 28, 2006 03:15 PM

Virginia, anyone who refuses to speak english in this country is doomed to isolation and is placing a severe limit on their ability to get ahead in this country. Now if they do not plan to stay in the US, fine, but if they do plan to stay they are harming no one but themselves.

Well, maybe their children will be harmed if their parents insist on only speaking Spanish, but I would imagine that is only a few. And any kid growing up in such circumstances will learn english on their own and in school. I mean, have you watched Spanish language TV? Any kid would gladly turn to english language TV. I thought daytime TV was bad but spanish language TV is really lousy at anytime of the day.

Posted by: Sully | March 28, 2006 04:08 PM

Call me what you will, but I think these demonstrations, especially by the adolescents are just excuses to take off of work and get out of school.

And, frankly, I'm sick of this "We built America" and "You have us to thank for what America is" bunk...Where do they get off saying such things? America is what it is because of MANY different cultures and races meshing together and working together...

Furthermore, they pride themselves on their hard labor and work ethic, but what? When, all of a sudden, they may have to do some reading and paperwork to get themselves legalized, they throw a fit? I figure, if you want it badly enough, you should have to work for it. I did, my parents did, my grand-parents did and so on and so on...

Respect yourselves and your heritage and prove that you should be here. Taking the "easy road" is so p^ssy.

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | March 28, 2006 04:12 PM

El Naco writes:

"We are not a country who is defined by a national culture . . ."

"We accept any and all people . . ."

"Who should enjoy the rights of citizenship?"

"We would be advocating restricting the movement of people . . ."

"We would be denying the rights of families to live together . . ."

_" . . .we really need to ask ourselves if the law itself is fair."

___________

Sure sounds like a person who is fixated on what America can do for them, not what they could do for America.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 28, 2006 04:53 PM

"Furthermore, they pride themselves on their hard labor and work ethic, but what? When, all of a sudden, they may have to do some reading and paperwork to get themselves legalized, they throw a fit? I figure, if you want it badly enough, you should have to work for it. I did, my parents did, my grand-parents did and so on and so on...

Respect yourselves and your heritage and prove that you should be here. Taking the "easy road" is so p^ssy."

I think that this attitude is a product of most Americans' misunderstanding of our current immigration system as well as a mistaken conception of immigration throughout U.S. history. For most of our history there was no limitation on immigration. People showed up at a port told the officer their name and place of birth and they were admitted. The first limitations on immigration were specifically designed to keep out people of bad moral character, those with contagious diseases and the Chinese.

It wasn't until the 20th Century that the immigration bureaucracy as we know it began to develop. Quotas on immigration were created to restrict the number of immigrants that came from certain countries. Although the quota system was eliminated, vestiges remain. Today, immigration is controlled by categories mostly national origin and purpose (i.e. family based, employment based, visitors, students, etc.). Additionally, Congress has created several different programs to give different classes of aliens and aliens from certain countries (most notably Cuba) preference in obtaining visas and work authorization. Not every immigration category gives the holder the right to work. Only certain classes of visa holders may apply for employment authorization.

The way that it works in practice is that there are priorities for different immigration purposes, and each of these purposes has a certain number of visas available depending on the national origin of the applicant. For example, if you are in the highest category of preference for a family based petition (a US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident applying for a visa for a family member to reside in the US) you may have to wait up to 15 years for a visa number to become available to you if you are immigrating from Mexico because there are so many Mexicans waiting "in line" for those visa numbers to become available. As far as applying for employment based visas, these usually require that you have a job already lined up in the U.S. and the employer has certified that there is no one in the U.S. workforce who will take the job (a very expensive process, which means this is available only to high skill employees). There are separate programs for agricultural workers, but these people are not allowed to work in any other industry and are essentially slaves to the growers who sponsor them.

My point is that it isn't as easy as most Americans think. You can't just show up at the Bridge in El Paso, pay $200, fill out a form, and wait a couple of months. The opportunities to immigrate are few and far between. That's why people risk their lives to cross a desert just to wash dishes for $7 an hour. Sounds real "p^ssy" to me.

Why do people oppose someone risking everything for a job? Precisely for the reasons stated by most of the restrictionist posters on this roll - because it is easy to blame immigrants for America's problems. High crime rate? Blame immigrants. Social services taxed to the limit - blame immigrants. Terrorism - blame immigrants. Why not? It's not like they can fight back, they are completely at the mercy of our government.

Posted by: El Naco | March 28, 2006 04:54 PM

"Sure sounds like a person who is fixated on what America can do for them, not what they could do for America."

I'm not even sure that On the Plantation knows what this means. Last time I checked, America existed for its people, not the people for America.

Posted by: El Naco | March 28, 2006 05:02 PM

"Last time I checked, America existed for its people, not the people for America. "

That's right, Naco -- its people. Its CITIZENS. Not just any person who shows up and declares that just because he does some low paying job, he's entitled to claim the title "American."

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 28, 2006 05:39 PM


El Naco quotes then responds:

"Sure sounds like a person who is fixated on what America can do for them, not what they could do for America."

I'm not even sure that On the Plantation knows what this means. Last time I checked, America existed for its people, not the people for America.

__________

To decode and understand the quote, El Naco, you don't need to look very far back into the modern history of quotations of American Presidents.

Posted by: | March 28, 2006 06:00 PM

Thanks, Crazy Peasant "El Naco Mas Maco", for filling us all in on the immigration system...

With all your immigration knowledge, I can't help but wonder, what are you, El Naco, doing to help these folks? Posting defenses of them here on the WP web site seems a bit like small potatoes, no? If I was you, I would try to educate those sad cases who are risking their lives for penny wages here in America - are you teaching them how to read English, informing them of the resources that can assist them without them having to cram into airless tractor-trailers, are you telling them that their lives and health (and those of their families) are important enough that they SHOULD learn how to speak English so they can go further in life than just washing dishes for $7 an hour, are you telling them that they are worth MORE than $7 an hour?

And...in response to this - "Why do people oppose someone risking everything for a job? Precisely for the reasons stated by most of the restrictionist posters on this roll - because it is easy to blame immigrants for America's problems. High crime rate? Blame immigrants. Social services taxed to the limit - blame immigrants. Terrorism - blame immigrants. Why not? It's not like they can fight back, they are completely at the mercy of our government." - all I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. Just read the news.

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | March 28, 2006 06:28 PM

Funny you should ask what I do to help. Because besides just posting on this roll, I spend my time assisting immigrants navigate their way through the system. I have seen people risking it all just to get their foot in the door, for a variety of reasons, and none of them ill-intentioned. The most oft cited reason I hear is that they want to help their children get ahead. They want their kids to have an opportunity at a better life. They want their kids to learn English, go to school, get a degree, buy a house, marry a nice person, have some grandkids who will also have nice lives. I know because one half of me lived that dream. My grandparents left Mexico after the revolution of 1910 fleeing violence and poverty. They had kids and moved around the country picking crops. My mom has 8 brothers and sisters. All of them went to college. Three of them have advanced degrees. Five of them went back to college after raising their families. My grandmother lived 86 years on this earth, and probably 65 of those were in the U.S. She died not speaking English. But it doesn't matter. They don't do it for themselves. They do it for their families. It is really easy for people to sit back at their computers and play armchair gods with other people's lives. It is a lot harder to get out there and find out what is going on every day and understand that people are struggling for a dream. That is what made America great, and will make America a great country. This country is exceptional in theory. The minute that we abandon our principles and close the door, we will begin our slow descent into mediocrity and second class status among the nations of the world.

You are right Sicka Hearinit. Maybe I should not waste my time trying to educate you about the immigration system, and instead let you all just wallow in your ignorance, xenophobia, and delusions. But I rather enjoy the debate so keep it coming.

Posted by: El Naco | March 28, 2006 06:54 PM

El Naco writes:

"They want their kids to . . . go to school, get a degree, buy a house, marry a nice person, have some grandkids who will also have nice lives."
___________

My sincere questions for you are: What keeps them from pursuit of those goals in Mexico? Why aren't their energies focused on dealing with their ambitions as a Mexican issue?

Posted by: On the plantation | March 28, 2006 07:10 PM

Because they want to do it here. What difference does it make? If you want to do something anywhere, why should anyone stop you? Aren't you free? Don't you think that freedom of movement is an important right?

Posted by: El Naco | March 28, 2006 07:38 PM

What role has the North american Free Trade Agreement played in all this? I have often wondered whether NAFTA has lived up to all its promise since it was passed back in the mid-90's. As I recall, it was supposed to have fostered economic development in Mexico and the improvement in the lives of Mexican workers.

I also seem to remember some debate at the time over whether NAFTA should have included requirements for all participants to have and enforce minimum labor standards. As it turned out there was eventually a side agreement negotiated regarding labor issues. This agreement establishes panels to hear complaints between countries about labor issues, but it is generally considered to be weak on enforcement and extremely slow.

Actually Mexico has extensive labor laws that are not well enforced. The net result is that many workers are exploited to the point where the lure of coming to the US for the "big bucks" (big bucks from their perspective not that of our low wage workforce) is irresistable. The overall result is a lowering of low skill worker wages in the US and a widening income gap between educated and non-educated people in the US.

I've done some reading on this recently and there seems to be some agreement among experts that NAFTA could have done much more to create stronger incentives and more effective requirements for establishing equitable labor environments within the US, Mexico, and Canada.

Here are some links to some interesting papers on the subject:

http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1046

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm

http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back293.html


I found the last one to be especially interesting - note that it is dated 1993 and when you read it it seems quite prescient.

As I understand it the NAFTA agreement is up in 2008. At that point it will be time to improve the equal labor standard aspects of the treaty so that the free trade is actually equitable to all participants and there will be greater incentive for the millions of Mexican workers to to stay and work in their own country.

As to what should be done with illegal workers already in the country? If we as a nation were willing or had the resources to catch illegals and deport them, that is what we would be doing now. Any plan that seeks to have workers go home and register for a guest worker program seems unlikely to work without a greatly increased commitment to enforcement by us, which of course, will require a lot of money. Practically speaking, an in-country guest worker program is more feasible, but those workers should not be able to leap ahead of legal immigrants in line for citizenship.

Meanwhile we still need to secure our southern border for homeland security purposes as much as for cutting down illegal immigration. This should be done through a combination of physical barriers (walls/fences), increased border patrol, assignment of some army units to coordinate with border patrol for helping to watch the border (some army units get assigned to fight fires in the west at times, so why not border patrol duties - hey its better than a bunch of vigilantes doing it), and increased surveillance through remote sensors (Infrared, multispectral) much like what are on satellites, but instead mounted on remote control blimps. I've read about these devices and actually seen some being tested in the DC area near the Pentagon.

Posted by: DK | March 29, 2006 12:14 AM

El Naco writes:
"Because they want to do it here. What difference does it make? If you want to do something anywhere, why should anyone stop you? Aren't you free? Don't you think that freedom of movement is an important right?"

Differences illegal immigration make:
1) Legal immigrants are continually shoved to the back of the line as illegals cut in front and take the jobs legals would get.
2) It breaks American law and is therefore a crime.
3) Illegal immigrants risk their lives and requires Americans to assist and save their lives at Americas cost.
4) Illegal immigrants use the social services of Americans.
5) Wages for many American jobs are depressed. This is proved because there are now jobs that Americans used to be glad to have that now "do not want" because the wage has been depressed due to the illegals.
6) Freedom of movement in America is a right of citizenship and is not the right of criminals. Get that straight.
7) The depressed wages of unskilled jobs due to the illegals drives many Americans and legals who used to make a decent wage into poverty.

You see El Naco, the actions of illegals have effects on other people, effects that hurt other people. This is not a victimless crime. If you help illegals you help criminals. No explanations of how nice they are or how they just want a better life will do. Jewel thieves want better lives too but that doesn't cut it with most people. Like jewel thieves, illegals want their better life at the expense of legal immigrants and Americans. If you want a better life in America, do it legally or risk jail or deportation. Illegal immigration is a crime.

Posted by: Sully | March 29, 2006 08:54 AM

Jaywalking is a crime too. I hope you've never jaywalked because it isn't victimless either. Speeding is a crime, so is driving without a seatbelt on. Until recently certain sexual acts were also criminal in Texas.

You have to consider the roots of why certain human activities are criminal when evaluating whether they should be criminal or not. Is the act in and of itself bad - malum in se, or is it a "bad" act because of an act of legislature or declaration of law - "malum prohibitum". Illegal immigration really falls into the latter category. The good/bad news for those who violate the law is that Congress has complete discretion on changing those laws to accomodate societies needs and goals.

BTW, illegal immigrants only represent 5% of the workforce. Part of the reason they depress wages is that employers can scare them with threatened deportation and so they are docile. You get rid of the "illegal" label and that negotiating tactic is nipped in the bud.

Look at the big picture. If we want the world to be fair and for humanity to advance we have to address these inequalities globally. We can't just build walls and hope that these problems will go away.

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 11:01 AM

El Naco,
You could replace "illegal immigration" in your posting above with "illegal drugs" and your paragraph above and it would make as much sense. You seem to think that because you do not consider it a crime that it is not. Who made YOU Congress. And what a pathetic statement, that Congress has the power to change the laws. Maybe you should read the American constitution and you would not be so amazed since that IS Congress's job.

Look, a crime is a crime. Congress made it a crime. Don't say those who knowingly committed a crime did not because they, and you, do not believe it is a crime. That is irrelevent. According to Section 8 of the criminal code it is. Here is alink if you want to educate yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=alien%201325&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html

And stay out of the street because if you do get a ticket for jaywalking you have broken a law and deserve the punishment.

And you pathetic statement:
"Look at the big picture. If we want the world to be fair and for humanity to advance we have to address these inequalities globally."
uses the word "we" as though any American had any say in your solution, to invade and take jobs and use social services at the expense of the American citizens. If you want a fair world, crimes cannot be committed to make it fair. Illegal immigration is far from fair.

Posted by: Sully | March 29, 2006 12:14 PM

My point, in case you missed it, is that there are many types of "criminal" acts, and varying degrees of criminal penalties. Some infractions are punished by fines and some by prison sentences depending on their relative harm to society. (I would point out that 8 USC Sec. 1325(b) establishes a civil penalty between $50 and $250 for entering the U.S. at a place other than at an recognized entry point, which is a pretty small penalty, indicative of the low priority and low harm of such an infraction) That's the reason that jaywalking usually garners you a ticket, not jail time, and most of the time won't get you any penalty at all. Same with speeding, even though thousands die every year in car accidents related to speeding.

Now the law is the law, if you speed you are breaking the law. But Congress can change the speed limit, right? Congress can change legal status of immigrants at its whim as well. My argument is that Congress should change the law, because the law doesn't really reflect our reality any more than 55 MPH speed limit reflected the reality of our driving needs a few years back. The immigration laws weren't always as restrictive as they are right now. Congress changed them to keep people out, they can change them again to let people in. As I said in my original post, it all comes down to what kind of world you want to live in, that is the choice that our society has to make. Do we want to advance freedom and equality, or create categories of people who are allowed to share in the prosperity.

The reality of our current world system is an integrated and globalized economy. Products and capital flow almost seamlessly accross international borders to meet the demands of consumers and investors seeking the best services and the highest returns, right? So why are people not allowed to do the same? Why can't people seek out the highest return for their labor? Why be constrained by these archaic concepts of national identity and national economies.

You may find this hard to believe but Mexico was the country that faced the biggest changes as a result of NAFTA. Why? because Mexico was a very closed and insular economy. The state owned a lot of the industry, and private industry was protected from global competition. Now you can buy pretty much anything you can get in the U.S. in Mexico. U.S. companies have made a fortune selling to Mexico, and there is arguably mutual benefit for sectors of each countries' population. U.S. gets to sell to a new market, Mexican consumers get to buy quality goods that they want at a low price. But, contrary to what many posters might think, Mexicans ain't stupid. They see Americans making money in their country and they want to make money in America. Unfortunately, Mexico doesn't have as much to sell us - except labor. We export capital. They export labor. The rules of the global game accomodate us, but Mexico is at a disadvantage. They want a fair deal. They want an equal partnership. They want to be like the U.S. How will they ever catch up? It is in our interest that they do catch up. It is in our interest that Mexicans raise their standards of living to be on par with the U.S., just like Eastern Europeans with the West. Mexico is our ally, we are in bed with them whether we like it or not because we are neighbors. Let's think long run here. You call me pathetic, but I think your little whining about your hard life is pathetic. As my Mexicans friends would say: shut up and get back to work!

Posted by: El Naco | March 29, 2006 02:33 PM

El Naco wrote:
"We export capital. They export labor."

Errr, we export capital legally, they export labor illegally. Is it just me or does the word "legal" or "illegal" have any meaning with you? You seem to want to make up the law as you go along based on what you think is right and fair. That's not how its done in a democracy.

El Naco continued spouting:
"As my Mexicans friends would say: shut up and get back to work!"

And I would respond 'shut up criminal and go home where you belong and stay out of the US unless you have legal status'. Believe me, if Americans looked at Mexico as free and open it would have been overrun with Americans long ago. All I ask is that immigrants obey the law, if not for Americans then for those immigrants who are trying to legally get here. Why do they have to suffer because illegals do not want to go through the effort? What right do illegals have to break the law? None!

Oh, and with that $50-$250 fine comes deportation and much worse fines/jail if caught in the US within 5 years. Its only a slap on the wrist the first time. Don't consider that slap an invitation.

Posted by: Sully | March 29, 2006 04:06 PM

Post a Comment

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

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