Immigration--here's the big one

[Pure]

US Republicans seem divided and Dems seem vague. This could be the hottest election issue. It has two parts, what to do at the border and what to do about the people already here (or who will come). The guest worker issue comes up.

So I've tried to cover the possibilities (gimme a break).
=====
ADDED 4/09: There are some incorrect wordings in the poll choices. BEING PRESENT in the US, undocumented, is not a 'crime', technically, but a 'violation' of immigration law.

ENTRY, however, without documentation is a federal crime, as is conducting illegal people into the US. It is a change of the first issue, BEING PRESENT, which is under discussion.

Below are some better wordings of the choices --see double brackets.


1Need very tight borders (more fence), more deportations, and a felony label for illegal migrants (criminal liability) [[a felony label to be established for being PRESENT in the US, as undocumented; criminal liability]]


2Need very tight borders (fence), but amnesty for all those here (Krauthammer)

3Need somewhat tighter borders and a program for eventual amnesty for those with jobs who are in. Do not 'criminalize' illegal entry. [[Do not criminalize PRESENCE; undocumented entry would continue to be criminal]]


4Need somewhat tighter borders and extensive 'guest worker' program, involving registration; long-time 'guest workers' may 'earn' citizenship. (Bush)


5Need somewhat tighter borders and extensive 'guest worker' program, involving registration and several year residence, but they must return.


6Need somewhat tighter borders and require 'green card' etc. for work (very limited 'guest' worker program); given only where Americans are not available.


7Present order controls are fine, but there should be more deportations; no more amnesties. Undocumented entry continue NOT to be criminal. [[Undocumented PRESENCE continue as a 'violation', not a criminal act; attempting to enter, without documents is a criminal act.]]

 

[Boxlicker101]

US Republicans seem divided and Dems seem vague. This could be the hottest election issue. It has two parts, what to do at the border and what to do about the people already here (or who will come). The guest worker issue comes up.

So I've tried to cover the possibilities (gimme a break).

The problem I have with the proposed legislation is that it is, basically, amnesty for those who entered the country illegally and have been breaking the law for a long time. There are hundreds of thousands more who are patiently waiting for years, even decades, until they can immigrate legally, and they are being made to look like fools now. I will never be happy with any form of amnesty when there are offspring of US citizens who have to wait almlost fifteen years to come to the US.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I'm not sure my opinion on this is listed in the poll, so here goes.

Like Boxlicker, I don't like the idea of amnesty for illegals. We already have reasonably lax immigration policies (from what I know. If you have a contrary opinion, I'd like to hear the basis for comparison. I'm not as familiar as I should be with other countries' policies.). I find it odd that many want equal protection under the very laws that they are breaking. You would almost think then that they would welcome being deported since it means they are being treated equally . . . they are being punished for committing a crime, just like any American. I'm only being slightly facetious here.

I would like to see tougher security (fence and all) as well as deportations. But I would also like to see the immigration policy sped up a bit, particularly for those people who have been waiting a long time. A fellow grad student of mine had a husband who had been trying for two years to immigrate legally before he was actually allowed in, and he was both educated and employable. I just don't like seeing other people get put ahead of him when he was trying to play by the rules.

 

[neonlyte]

Why do you have an immigration policy at all?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why do you have an immigration policy at all?

All countries have immigration policies and they are necessary. That of the US is possibly the most lenient in the world, but I don't actually know that much about what other countries do.

Immigration policies are intended to keep out undesirables. This has nothing to do with race or religion but has everything to do with health and education and honesty and similar qualitues. No nation wants to welcome anybody who is sickly and will be a drain on their health resources. No nation wants to welcome illiterate or retarded individuals who will never be self-supporting. No nation wants to welcome criminals.

Exceptions are made for political refugees who are fleeing persecution in their home countries.

 

[amicus]

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: john cole <amicusveritasb@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ms. Luawanna Hallstrom, Ceo Harry Singh & Sons Farm
To: cfbf@cfbf.com


Please forward this to Ms. Hallstrom, thank you.

While watching the Senate Hearings on Immigration reform on CSPAN 2, this evening, your interview and question period was televised during a quorem call.

I wish to commend you for providing more information in a short period of time than I have been able to garner during the whole of the senate hearings, thank you.

I wish also to commend your patience in dealing with questions that seem continually to place the agriculture business on the defensive; your replies were polite and informative.

I also wish you all the best in your ongoing stuggle to resolve the many issues facing the industry and the nation.

Nice to have you on our side.

Sincerely;

John Cole

amicusveritasb@yahoo.com

~~~~~~~~


Considering the thread starter does his usual thing, throwing out a topic without an opinion attached, I am a little hesitant at dipping a toe here.

It may well be an issue of import in both the elections this year and in 2008; more importantly, politics aside, it is an issue of major importance for the well being of the economy and especially for the agriculture business and the safety of American food production and distribution.

I am always attracted by attractive, smart, verbose women and Ms. Luawanna Hallstrom is certainly all of that. From an immigrant family herself, (India), having grown up doing stoop labor on the family farm, she is now Chief Executive Officer for a mid sized agricultural concern employing thousands of people.

Her own family farm lost over two million dollars last fall because not enough workers were available to harvest tomatos and they rotted in the field.

In answering questions on Cspan, she stated that 'agribusiness' is forced by government to advertise in local media with preference being given to local indigenous workers, i.e., American citizens. To support her argument, she stated that the field jobs were advertised as paying $14.00 an hour. Several hundred prospective workers called in inquire, about 30 showed up for an interview; four took the job, two quit the first day and the other two before the week was out.

American workers 'think' that hard, hot and sweaty farm labor is beneath them and they will neither take the jobs nor do the work. I heard several statements to that effect from different sources.

The California Department of Agriculture, along with Federal agencies, is requiring housing, meals and health care be supplied to migrant workers.

Although Ms. Hallstrom does offer specific plans to alleviate the problem in other speeches I googled, on the Cspan program I watched, she merely emphasized that both the immigration and the border difficulties were becoming critical and needed to be resolved.

One interesting aspect that is already beginning to occur, is her contention that American agribusiness, like American industry, will simply move their operations to other countries with adequate, affordable labor forces if they are priced out of the market place in the US.

She further asserted that should this occur, it would mean that the 'safe' food supply existing within our borders, might no longer be as safe and dependable.

From what I understand on the news, many of San Diego County's public schools are 90 percent hispanic, all children of undocumented workers.

The number that is usually bandied about, 11-12 million illegal immigrants, expands to over 25 million when you add in the children and relatives.

I personally suspect the problem is too large to be solved amicably/politically and that we will wait until a major terrorist event occurs before action is taken.

It be a sticky wicket, folks...


amicus...

 

[Norajane]

Security issues aren't so much about the Mexican immigrants themselves, but about the potential avenue for entry for actual terrorists. Otherwise, I'm not really seeing a huge Mexican crime wave or anything from those immigrated illegally. So, tighten up the borders, but I wouldn't criminalize the immigrants. Jail or deportation is counter-productive.

I'm all for amnesty as these are typically hard-working individuals that take the shit jobs for low pay, and they have families to support. I don't get how we make it better for anyone by denying them the opportunity to become citizens or deporting them, particularly if it means breaking up families where parents are immigrants but the kids are born here. With some exceptions, I tend to think, from both a humane and financial perspective, we're better off decriminalizing their status.

Is it unfair to the people on the waiting lists? Yes, but. If the illegals had been prevented from entering, would the lists get any shorter? No. If the illegals are deported, do the lists get any shorter? No. The ones who wait aren't helped any by deportation of those who didn't wait. So maybe it's fair to make everyone wait, but you don't actually accomplish any good by deporting people.

If you criminalize illegal immigrants, then you MUST criminalize the hiring of same, i.e., the low-paying shit-job corporations need to be accountable for hiring illegals in the first place. If illegal immigrants couldn't find work here, they wouldn't come.

 

[Liar]

All countries have immigration policies and they are necessary. That of the US is possibly the most lenient in the world, but I don't actually know that much about what other countries do.

Immigration policies are intended to keep out undesirables. This has nothing to do with race or religion but has everything to do with health and education and honesty and similar qualitues. No nation wants to welcome anybody who is sickly and will be a drain on their health resources. No nation wants to welcome illiterate or retarded individuals who will never be self-supporting. No nation wants to welcome criminals.

No, but well-off nations with a sense of decency should not screen those seeking a new home by the size of their wallets or their level of physical handicap. Criminals is another thing though. That's a choice. Enter the country, earn your keep and obey the law. Any other critertia, I think is a bit...cold.

OTOH, we don't really have to deal as much with economic immigration as political refugees over here, so I guess the situation might be different.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, but well-off nations with a sense of decency should not screen those seeking a new home by the size of their wallets or their level of physical handicap. Criminals is another thing though. That's a choice. Enter the country, earn your keep and obey the law. Any other critertia, I think is a bit...cold.

OTOH, we don't really have to deal as much with economic immigration as political refugees over here, so I guess the situation might be different.

I agree, 100%. Until recently, the US has always welcomed new citizens who are willing to work and want to improve their lives. There is a history of nearly 200 years of this. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Giving amnesty to those who have chosen to do it the wrong way punishes those who want to do it the right way.

Even so, I believe the US policies are less stringent than those of other countries. What about Sweden? Would they welcome, with open arms, the Turkish and other Mid-Eastern guest workers who may have become surplus in other European countires?

 

[Falconeyes]

How about not being so paranoid about everything. To really think that things will change after making the borders tighter is stupid. Every inch can't be protected(roles eyes). The Bush government uses fear to run the country and get what they want. To prove that point.......when Bush announced that they found out there was a threat towards some building in Cali. Why would they tell that..........nothing to get from it other then to create fear. There must have been threats b4 during other governments in the u.s. but they didn't tell because it would create fear. Its stupid .....because soon Canadians will need passports to enter the U.S. when our countries are so interconnected we are really like one.

 

[Pure]

I post polls for discussion and it usually is clear, at some point, where I stand.

I see no logic in this statement
ami Considering the thread starter does his usual thing, throwing out a topic without an opinion attached, I am a little hesitant at dipping a toe here.

Surely anyone can go ahead with stating an opinion, without knowing mine. He or she can post wiithout fear of reprisals. I would only in an extreme case put a 'hit' on anyone... well, maybe one exception....

Krauthammer, noted Republican and conservative, advocated number two, today: fence/wall and amnesty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601380.html

I don't think the former is doable, or if doable, advisable; and if advisable in some respects, it's unconscionable overall.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

How about not being so paranoid about everything. To really think that things will change after making the borders tighter is stupid. Every inch can't be protected(roles eyes). The Bush government uses fear to run the country and get what they want. To prove that point.......when Bush announced that they found out there was a threat towards some building in Cali. Why would they tell that..........nothing to get from it other then to create fear. There must have been threats b4 during other governments in the u.s. but they didn't tell because it would create fear. Its stupid .....because soon Canadians will need passports to enter the U.S. when our countries are so interconnected we are really like one.

Actually, every inch can be protected. If you think it's impossible, ask an East German. Whether or not we have the political will to erect such a barrier is another question entierly. But as to the feasability of it. Concrete, barbed wire and Landmines are some of the things we have plenty of. Ditto for .50 Calibre machine guns, searchlights and trigger happy yahoos.

I personally voted for a strict border, criminialization of immigrating illegally and deportations. I wouldn't have an problems with relaxing the beauracracy involved in immigating, but if you are going to have a legal way to do it, then you should be policing those who refuse to go through the legal steps.

Before I get any crap, I am not prejucided against Mexicans in the least. I've been to parts of Mexico and short of the deep south, I haven't met any people as a group who are so courteous and freindly. And I have a good deal of respect for their work ethic and drive to succeed. This nation or any nation would benefit from immigrants of their calibre, formal education and job skills be damned.

 

[Boxlicker101]

How about not being so paranoid about everything. To really think that things will change after making the borders tighter is stupid. Every inch can't be protected(roles eyes). The Bush government uses fear to run the country and get what they want. To prove that point.......when Bush announced that they found out there was a threat towards some building in Cali. Why would they tell that..........nothing to get from it other then to create fear. There must have been threats b4 during other governments in the u.s. but they didn't tell because it would create fear. Its stupid .....because soon Canadians will need passports to enter the U.S. when our countries are so interconnected we are really like one.

I don't think there is anything paranoid about wanting safe borders. There are people, you know who really do want to enter the US and kill as many people as they can and destroy anything they can. This was very definitely proven a few years ago. Whether every inch is protected or not, at least it can be made more difficult for such persons to gain access.

I believe passports are required now. A couple of years ago my wife and I went to Canada to call on her brother. We made several drives between Detroit and Windsor and had to show passports when we entred Detroit.

 

[Liar]

Even so, I believe the US policies are less stringent than those of other countries. What about Sweden? Would they welcome, with open arms, the Turkish and other Mid-Eastern guest workers who may have become surplus in other European countires?

We've done that in the past. 70's and ealy 80's was a lot of workforce immigration, when certain industries had a gap of domestic workers. But after that, the job market got more balanced. Due to a tradition of strong unions, there is no (legal) wage dumping that would give companes incentive to specifically hire immigrated workers just because, ad education here is such a free-for-all that there is seldom massive need for any particular skilled professional either. So if you don't want to come here and be a self-sustaining and self-made entrepreneur in the blink of an eye (it happens, though), Sweden is simply not an attractive country to immigrate to for economic reasons.

It is, however, a country that many come to for political reasons. And the amount of immigration that the job market can sustain, is pretty much met by those people. I think that therefore, the economic immigration IS regulated... so that politial and humanitarian refugees from oppression and war, gets priority over economic immigrants at having a shot at the Swedish life. There would be no point in importing people into poverty. Your socierty does in this aspect live up to it's cliché tag "the land of opportunities" in a way that we don't. So I guess the real-politics therefore looks different

 

[Pure]

question

Colly: I personally voted for a strict border, criminialization of immigrating illegally and deportations. I wouldn't have an problems with relaxing the beauracracy involved in immigating, but if you are going to have a legal way to do it, then you should be policing those who refuse to go through the legal steps.

I see the rationale for some measure of 'get tough' if certain conditions hold.

Where a law is designed to address a clear, real social harm, then both the welfare of society and justice ( including respect for law) dictate tough but fair enforcement: an example is pornography which involves child exploitation. Profits should not matter (nor driving prices sky high).

Where the law's an ass, as they say, then 'turning a blind eye' or repealing it make sense. This applies to really victimless crimes, e.g., laws about possessing a single 'joint.' Laws against noncoerced adult prositution, too, arguably.

But which category is the law about restriction of immigration in? and why?-- for instance, suppose, for the sake of argument, that of the illegals from the South, there are no more criminals, proportionately, than are here already. Just suppose. And that even of those inclined, many [except the worst] will just cut back due to their precarious status? So the vast majority are hard working, contributing members of society, who, in some ways put in more than they receive. Then would the immigration laws not be in the second category [no harm]?
======

One other note: I love the irony of amicus speaking for employers hiring illegals. This clearly circumvents the 'free market'; the 'market' says that if you can't find anyone at $10/hr to pick your strawberries, you have to offer $15 or $20 dollars. Allowing the employer access to illegals, who are frightened and willing to work for half the going rate utterly subverts the objective determination of the value of labor.

It will be objected that perhaps the strawberry grower 'cannot' pay $20/hr union scale. What does that mean. At the extreme, it means that the price of a basket of strawberries becomes too high to sell well.
Let's say $15/small [supermarket]basket instead of the present $3-5. Many growers would go out of business. So the market says.

That means that the market has decided that strawbs are a luxury, like truffles or saffron. Clearly the volume will be small, but rewarding for a few growers and a rich clientele. No one says that everything nice has to sell cheaply, in high volume. As with the case of platinum, no one says there have to be multitudes of producers able to exist on selling such an item.

Here we get to the nub of the problem. The grower says 'people demand cheap strawberries'-- and in fact that may be the public expectation.

But are we to say that, if the people want it, any law may be broken in the production. This is like saying, 'allow child porn because of the demand.' {This argument assumes, FTSOA that the law is in the first category [real harm]}

This situation has arisen for certain goods already, for instance coffee. The 'cheap cup' is a thing of the past.

It will be interesting to see if the American public *chooses* all these nice things and says, in effect "people may say 'to hell with the laws' so long as my supply of x,y, and z remains undisturbed.' In that sense, they approve of the employers' breaking the law. One is in the unfortunate state of everyone colluding in breaking the law, sort of like everyone ignoring cases of 'slavery' in production of garments by workers chained to the machines.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I personally voted for a strict border, criminialization of immigrating illegally and deportations. I wouldn't have an problems with relaxing the beauracracy involved in immigating, but if you are going to have a legal way to do it, then you should be policing those who refuse to go through the legal steps.

I see the rationale for some measure of 'get tough' if certain conditions hold.

Where a law is designed to address a clear, real social harm, then both the welfare of society and justice ( including respect for law) dictate tough but fair enforcement: an example is pornography which involves child exploitation. Profits should not matter (nor driving prices sky high).

Where the law's an ass, as they say, then 'turning a blind eye' or repealing it make sense. This applies to really victimless crimes, e.g., laws about possessing a single 'joint.' Laws against noncoerced adult prositution, too, arguably.

But which category is the law about restriction of immigration in? and why?-- for instance, may we not suppose, for the sake of argument, that of the illegals from the South, there are no more criminals, proportionately, that are here already. And that even of those inclined, many [except the worst] will just cut back due to their precarious status? So the vast majority are hard working, contributing members of society, who, in some ways put in more than they receive.
======

One other note: I love the irony of amicus speaking for employers hiring illegals. This clearly circumvents the 'free market'; the 'market' says that if you can't find anyone at $10/hr to pick your strawberries, you have to offer $15 or $20 dollars. Allowing the employer access to illegals, who are frightened and willing to work for half the going rate utterly subverts the objective determination of the value of labor.

It will be objected that perhaps the strawberry grower 'cannot' pay $20/hr union scale. What does that mean. At the extreme, it means that the price of a basket of strawberries becomes too high to sell well.
Let's say $15/small [supermarket]basket instead of the present $3-5. Many growers would go out of business. So the market says.

That means that the market has decided that strawbs are a luxury, like truffles or saffron. Clearly the volume will be small, but rewarding for a few growers and a rich clientele. No one says that everything nice has to be cheap and sell in high volume. As with the case of platinum, no one says there have to be multitudes of producers able to exist on selling such an item.

Here we get to the nub of the problem. The grower says 'people demand cheap strawberries'-- and in fact that may be the public expectation.

But are we to say that, if the people want it, any law may be broken in the production. This is like saying, 'allow child porn because of the demand.' {Assuming FTSOA that the law is in the first category [real harm]}

This situation has arisen for certain goods already, for instance coffee. The 'cheap cup' is a thing of the past.

It will be interesting to see if the American public *chooses* all these nice things and says, in effect "people may say 'to hell with the laws' so long as my supply of x,y, and z remains undisturbed.' In that sense, they approve of the employers' breaking the law. One is in the unfortunate state of everyone colluding in breaking the law, sort of like everyone ignoring cases of 'slavery' in production of garments by workers chained to the machines.

From my point of view, if you have legal options and choose to immigrate illegally, you have already demonstrated a capacity for breaking the law. That, in and of itself, the proven propensity to commit a criminal act, makes me leery of allowing illegals to stay.

 

[Pure]

Colly,

well, it's not a criminal act, at the moment. but even if it were, it's arguably in a special category. i don't see how one could simply assume, without looking at the evidence, that what you suggest is the case. surely we *know* the crime stats for illegals. what are they?

please address the question of harm. else your argument is like saying. "Of course arrest sodomites; they are a danger; in breaking the law against sodomy, they show willingness to break other laws."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

well, it's not a criminal act, at the moment. but even if it were, it's arguably in a special category. i don't see how one could simply assume, without looking at the evidence, that what you suggest is the case. surely we *know* the crime stats for illegals. what are they?

please address the question of harm. else your argument is like saying. "Of course arrest sodomites; they are a danger; in breaking the law against sodomy, they show willingness to break other laws."

Exactly why am I required to defend the point of view that breaking the law shows you are willing to break the law? It seems pretty self evident to me. Am i missing something? I didn't say anywhere that they were more likely to break other laws. I simply said they demonstarte the capacity to ignore laws they don't like.

AS to harm, that seems to be a pet requirement for obeying the law to you. It's not to me. I obey the law, whether i agree with it or not. i wear my seatbelt, not because I love being strangled but because it's the law. The fact that not wearing it harms no one is immaterial.

 

[lanna]

the way it is: people will come here one way or the other because it is a great country. if they can not work legally, they work under the table and don't pay income tax but do give back to the community by spending the money they make. if they are not trouble (serious criminals) and want to be part of this great country, help them be legal and reap the benefits... they will be here one way or the other. if they are here but are anti america... get them the hell out. how do we do this? i am not sure but i know plenty of each. people that want to be here and be legal and people that are here to take advantage and have no respect for our country. surely, if i can tell the difference (each make it pretty clear) then there must be a way. it can't be one way or the other, there is a huge gray area. we can't stop them from coming (History and current event proves that) tighten the borders? they will still get in, weeding out the bad seeds and taking action is where we need to focus. the question is not about rules of letting people in, but what to do with them once they are here based on their worth/threat. does this make sense?

from a first (and grateful) generation American.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof to you, simply to look at the harm issue. I'd agree that in murky cases one should 'give the law the benefit of the doubt (assume its reason is good). But surely you agree that some laws are best left 'dead letter'?


I did a quick 'google' regarding 'illegals' and crime, and found some evidence, though the stats are sketchy. IF they were accurate and representative, then there's a good case for strict enforcement. TURNS OUT, of course, the political correctness is preventing the compilation of such stats. Law enforcement officials are reluctant to go on record as saying 'look at the mexican illegals' crime rate.'


http://www.vdare.com/bevens/hispanic_month.htm
Brianna Bevans


[first she deals with the problem of defining 'hispanic' so as to search for 'hispanic' crime, or hispanic immigrant crime.]

I looked to the U.S. Census bureau for the official definition of "Hispanic."
"The term Hispanic, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, refers to Spanish-speaking people in the United States of any race."
Hmmm. My friend is half Russian, half Chinese born in Manila, Philippines. Fluent in Spanish, she resides, legally, in Portland, Oregon. By definition, she is Hispanic.

Trust me, her mom would be offended by this; then express regret that her daughter didn't apply to Harvard.

The official definition was too vague to design a control group, so I searched the statistics of origin for "Hispanics" living in the U.S.

67% of Hispanic-origin people living in the U.S. are from Mexico. (14% are from Central and South America.)


39.9 million Is the estimated Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2003.

I failed every statistics course I took. But this doesn't sound good.

So there are roughly 40 million Hispanics living in the United States. This is more than the seven largest Mexican States combined.

As for crime prevention, I decided to search only the crimes committed by Mexican Illegal Aliens—not Mexicans in general (see Hispanics).

I was considering the best way to track down examples of crimes committed by illegal aliens when I half-heartedly typed the words "illegal alien" into an Internet search engine.

There were a gazillion hits but, wait for it...the two words "illegal aliens" showed the first seven results to be news stories of recent, and I mean within the last month, crimes by illegal aliens.

That's pretty striking when you consider that Internet search engines list results by relevance.

The spin efforts of the happy-face illegal-immigrant apologists who dominate mainstream media (think Ruben Navarette) are being undermined by reality. The template successful-illegal-alien anecdotage has been replaced with the real story of American law-enforcement failure.

Here are just a few:

Last month, Eustorgio Leonides Facundo, 25 of Sarasota, Florida -- An illegal alien charged with strangling a prostitute and setting her body on fire-- has received 15 years in prison after pleading no contest to manslaughter. (In 2001, Facundo was deported to Mexico after he served a 16-month sentence on burglary charges.)


Also last month, Luis Orellano-Montano was detained near Nolia, Arizona. He had an active Felony Warrant out for his arrest from Harris County, Texas. The warrant was for a probation violation in relation to Orellano's conviction for "Sexual Assault of a Child" in 1998. Texas was contacted and extradition was confirmed.


Andres Miguel-Pedro was also detained near Nolia, Arizona. He had an active Felony Warrant out for his arrest from Hillsborough County, Florida. The charge stipulated on the warrant was "Sexual Assault".

Wait a minute. The Ruben Navarettes of today have long been painting an entirely different picture of illegal border-crossers. You know, the oppressed family of five (or twelve) seeking a new life in America.
Well, that picture might be a bit tarnished by this statistic from the latest Arizona border report:

"Since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1, 2003) through Sept. 8 the Tucson Sector has arrested 12,535 illegal aliens with criminal records in the United States. Of that number, 175 were for Sexual Offenses. Of the criminal aliens arrested, 605 of them had active warrants out for their arrest." U.S. Border Patrol arrests two sexual predators in two days Eloy(AZ), Enterprise September 16, 2004
So this is what I have for the "awareness" part of National Hispanic Crime Prevention Month:

Close the border and round up the illegal aliens currently in the United States and deport them. (And by deport I mean actually take them into Mexico before releasing them. Releasing them in San Diego just means that the ex-INS relocated them to a nice beach community.)
[end Bevans excerpt]

 

[amicus]

It is a shame that Pure is so ideologically blindered that it renders him blind to reason, logic and facts.

The free market always works, allowing open competition to bring the highest quality products on line at the lowest possible price.

Federally mandated minimum wage laws interfere greatly with the ability of the market to function. Artificially high wages, imposed by labor unions also destroy the market place, create unemployment and shortages and high prices.

The high cost of union labor has all but destroyed American steel and automobile manufacturers. The consumer continues to pay for union insolence as union autoworkers are paid $60.00 an hour for work others, right across the street are doing or $12.00 an hour.

Quite the same with home construction, labor union wages of $45.00 an hour plus benefits mean that building a home is vastly more expensive that the $6.00 an hour wage that immigrants will for for and make a living on.

They are importing immigrant labor into New Orleans to do the clean-up and rebuilding at $6.00 an hour rather than the $32.50 that local labor demands.

It is happening in West Virginia in power line construction for electric utilities, $6.00 labor versus $45.00 dollan an hour labor.

The end result and purpose of a free market system is to open both business and labor to competition.

The trashword, buzzword politicizing of such words as 'a living wage', 'a fair wage', 'a decent wage', is just that socialist dialectic.

Many socialist apologists come on line stating that the people don't mind paying a little more to support a 'living wage' for workers, balderdash.

Unions, especially government, public service unions, teachers unions, have inflated the price of practically every good and service available and is the largest reason there still remains poverty and hunger in some places in America. The fault of the unions setting artificially high wage demands and driving enterprise out of the country.

The thing is, the ideologues of the left have absolutely no concern for the welfare of the general public, they could care less if milk is $6.00 a gallon, bread $2.50 a loaf, gasoline $3.00 a gallon, and yes, strawberries at $5.00 a pint, just as long as the pampered union workers keep voting democrats in office, screw the public, make the cost of owning a car and a home impossible for the middle class, non union workers.

Meanwhile the fancy assed liberals pay $4.00 for a cup of coffee and $8.00 a gallon for bottled water in snazzy bottles and claim the virtue of supporting the downtrodden.

Yeah, sure, in a rats ass.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

lanna]the way it is: people will come here one way or the other because it is a great country. if they can not work legally, they work under the table and don't pay income tax but do give back to the community by spending the money they make. if they are not trouble (serious criminals) and want to be part of this great country, help them be legal and reap the benefits... they will be here one way or the other. if they are here but are anti america... get them the hell out. how do we do this? i am not sure but i know plenty of each. people that want to be here and be legal and people that are here to take advantage and have no respect for our country. surely, if i can tell the difference (each make it pretty clear) then there must be a way. it can't be one way or the other, there is a huge gray area. we can't stop them from coming (History and current event proves that) tighten the borders? they will still get in, weeding out the bad seeds and taking action is where we need to focus. the question is not about rules of letting people in, but what to do with them once they are here based on their worth/threat. does this make sense?

from a first (and grateful) generation American.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you Lanna and welcome to the forum.

Thank you for reminding us that we are mostly immigrants ourselves, although somewhat far removed in time.

America is a great country and will remain that way, growing and diversifying with the newest immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere.

Of the few things I regret in American history is that we have been often slow to accept immigrants and political refugees trying to escape intolerable conditions elsewhere. We could have accepted and saved millions from the Nazi's in the 30's and the Communists in Russia, had we been more willing to reach out a helping hand.

Mexico has not long been a democracy and from what I read, may not stay a democracy. It is not difficult to understand why those millions risk life and limb to cross our southern borders to have a chance to live free and seek prosperity.

The ongoing drug wars and now terrorist activity seems to be key factors in driving the current crisis, along with upcoming elections where the hispanic and catholic vote may be instrumental in choosing the next President of the United States. It is also union labor in border states that oppose immigrant labor, they don't want anyone who will work for less than union sanctioned wages and lobby greatly to have legislation that will limit the competition.

Hope you enjoy the forum...


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof to you, simply to look at the harm issue. I'd agree that in murky cases one should 'give the law the benefit of the doubt (assume its reason is good). But surely you agree that some laws are best left 'dead letter'?


I did a quick 'google' regarding 'illegals' and crime, and found some evidence, though the stats are sketchy. IF they were accurate and representative, then there's a good case for strict enforcement. TURNS OUT, of course, the political correctness is preventing the compilation of such stats. Law enforcement officials are reluctant to go on record as saying 'look at the mexican illegals' crime rate.'


http://www.vdare.com/bevens/hispanic_month.htm
Brianna Bevans


[first she deals with the problem of defining 'hispanic' so as to search for 'hispanic' crime, or hispanic immigrant crime.]

I looked to the U.S. Census bureau for the official definition of "Hispanic."
"The term Hispanic, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, refers to Spanish-speaking people in the United States of any race."
Hmmm. My friend is half Russian, half Chinese born in Manila, Philippines. Fluent in Spanish, she resides, legally, in Portland, Oregon. By definition, she is Hispanic.

Trust me, her mom would be offended by this; then express regret that her daughter didn't apply to Harvard.

The official definition was too vague to design a control group, so I searched the statistics of origin for "Hispanics" living in the U.S.

67% of Hispanic-origin people living in the U.S. are from Mexico. (14% are from Central and South America.)


39.9 million Is the estimated Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2003.

I failed every statistics course I took. But this doesn't sound good.

So there are roughly 40 million Hispanics living in the United States. This is more than the seven largest Mexican States combined.

As for crime prevention, I decided to search only the crimes committed by Mexican Illegal Aliens—not Mexicans in general (see Hispanics).

I was considering the best way to track down examples of crimes committed by illegal aliens when I half-heartedly typed the words "illegal alien" into an Internet search engine.

There were a gazillion hits but, wait for it...the two words "illegal aliens" showed the first seven results to be news stories of recent, and I mean within the last month, crimes by illegal aliens.

That's pretty striking when you consider that Internet search engines list results by relevance.

The spin efforts of the happy-face illegal-immigrant apologists who dominate mainstream media (think Ruben Navarette) are being undermined by reality. The template successful-illegal-alien anecdotage has been replaced with the real story of American law-enforcement failure.

Here are just a few:

Last month, Eustorgio Leonides Facundo, 25 of Sarasota, Florida -- An illegal alien charged with strangling a prostitute and setting her body on fire-- has received 15 years in prison after pleading no contest to manslaughter. (In 2001, Facundo was deported to Mexico after he served a 16-month sentence on burglary charges.)


Also last month, Luis Orellano-Montano was detained near Nolia, Arizona. He had an active Felony Warrant out for his arrest from Harris County, Texas. The warrant was for a probation violation in relation to Orellano's conviction for "Sexual Assault of a Child" in 1998. Texas was contacted and extradition was confirmed.


Andres Miguel-Pedro was also detained near Nolia, Arizona. He had an active Felony Warrant out for his arrest from Hillsborough County, Florida. The charge stipulated on the warrant was "Sexual Assault".

Wait a minute. The Ruben Navarettes of today have long been painting an entirely different picture of illegal border-crossers. You know, the oppressed family of five (or twelve) seeking a new life in America.
Well, that picture might be a bit tarnished by this statistic from the latest Arizona border report:

"Since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1, 2003) through Sept. 8 the Tucson Sector has arrested 12,535 illegal aliens with criminal records in the United States. Of that number, 175 were for Sexual Offenses. Of the criminal aliens arrested, 605 of them had active warrants out for their arrest." U.S. Border Patrol arrests two sexual predators in two days Eloy(AZ), Enterprise September 16, 2004
So this is what I have for the "awareness" part of National Hispanic Crime Prevention Month:

Close the border and round up the illegal aliens currently in the United States and deport them. (And by deport I mean actually take them into Mexico before releasing them. Releasing them in San Diego just means that the ex-INS relocated them to a nice beach community.)
[end Bevans excerpt]

I don't really know how to put this into words, but it isn't pertinent to me.

I don't mean this to sound like an accusation and I hope you won't take it the wrong way, but you're a bit of an idealist. I'm a prety solid pragmatist.

You want to look at the law they are breaking and determine if it should be a law. I'm not making fun of that, it's a viewpoint to which I can see some merits, but it isn't mine. I look at someone breaking the law and see them breaking the law. Be it the case or not, I see in that a blatant disrespect for the law.

Now lets be fair, a lot of citizens break laws all the time. People speed, gamble in office pools, graba drink on their lunch break and drive, etc. There are also times, when the law must be broken, such as many civil rights actions that were designed to get the cases into court where they could be challenged.

Exceptions abound to a strict stance of the law is the law. I don't deny that.

In this case though, the people who illegally immigarte know they are breaking the law. They make a concious decision to ignore the law of this country before they are even on it's soil. It's not a precedent I find appetizing. Even if they intend to scrupulously follow all other laws, they still broke it before they even got here good.

I think to you, the extingencies of their situation make breaking the law moot. you're willing to say the law may be wrong, rather than the law breaker may be wrong. You may be absolutely right and they may go on to never break another law.

I'm just not willing to extend that benefit of the doubt.

 

[Norajane]

In this case though, the people who illegally immigarte know they are breaking the law. They make a concious decision to ignore the law of this country...

as do the companies that hire them. Are you consistent in expecting the law be enforced against employers as well?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

as do the companies that hire them. Are you consistent in expecting the law be enforced against employers as well?

Damned skippy I am.

The corporations have the money and influence to get the policy changed. I'm wholy in favor of a liberal immigartion process. this nation was founded by immigrants and the influx of new ideas and new peoples has always been one of our strengths.

But so is the rule of law.

I make no exception for corporations in upholding the rule oflaw.