Non-Mexicans arrested at U.S. border nearly doubled

[denverbill]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=8&u=/nm/20050712/ts_nm/security_immigration_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people from countries other than Mexico arrested trying to cross the U.S. southern border has almost doubled this year, the head of the U.S. border patrol told the U.S. Congress on Tuesday.

David Aguilar told the House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee on homeland security the United States was continuing to experience a rising influx of what he termed OTMs -- other than Mexicans -- trying to enter the country illegally.

<snip>
The Democratic Party (DLC) is missing the boat on illegal immigration, H1B visas, and outsourcing. This is a winning issue: protecting American jobs, protecting the American homeland from terrorists, and protecting the illegal aliens themselves from both the hazards of the journey and the abuses they face due to their illegal status once they are here. Pull the troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Columbia and put them on the US border.

[joemurphy]

1. Bet most of these are Central Americans ...

Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans mostly. I don't buy into this "fortress America" mentality either. We've got bigger problems than illegal Mexicans working for less than minimum wage. There are too many of them to keep out and I'm not so sure that they won't make good citizens -- hard working, ambitious, concerned for their families. I've always thought these are the kind of people we want here. Just my opinion.

[pinerow]

2. Wow...a voice of reason...it seems that everytime I turn around

someone is hoisting the "homeland security" petard...I detect a bit of xenophobia...i have yet to see a big rush on the part of 'murican citizens to pick fruit, wash dishes, cut lawns...etc.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Outsourcing is draining the better jobs...

Let's do something about that first.

And we DON'T need an armed border.

[DFWdem]

6. There's not much difference

There's no difference between sending jobs overseas to where the people are and bringing people from other countries to where the jobs are. It is hypocritical to be against outsourcing but in favor of 1.5 million illegal immigrants entering the country illegally to take jobs. And the line that they're all picking veggies and washing dishes is bogus and tired. Go to any construction site in an area with a high degree of illegals and see how many US citizens are working on that site.

[barb162]

25. ditto, well said

Ask some unemployed , bankrupt, hungry Americans if they will do these jobs and I think they will say yes. And go to manufacturing plants here and you will see Americans laid off and being replaced by illegals

[0rganism]

26. There's a HUGE difference

It's the difference between bringing food to a starving people and bringing the starving people to the food. The first creates more starving people, and the second creates more well-fed people. Which do you prefer?

When we import workers, especially those from undeveloped countries, they at least get to live in America for a while. If they can stay employed, they may eventually progress to become full citizens, and their families also become eligible for immigration.

Even if their visas expire and they have to return to their home countries, at least they saw something different, and can perhaps use that experience to improve their homeland.

Like it or not, economic globalization has made it inevitable that wages (i.e., the price of labor) will move to a competitive purchase point across the planet. I would far rather do whatever it takes to increase wage standards around the world than let ours slip further than they already have. That means allowing temporary workers, and defending their rights to collective bargaining in a society where they are less likely to be shot for union organizing.

[DFWdem]

27. I don't follow

"It's the difference between bringing food to a starving people and bringing the starving people to the food. The first creates more starving people, and the second creates more well-fed people."

I don't follow the logic that shows a difference between these two actions. How does bringing food to starving people create more starving people, but bringing the people to the food creates well-fed people? The people are fed either way.

"When we import workers, especially those from undeveloped countries, they at least get to live in America for a while."

Therein lies the key. I'm all for legal immigration, the process we use to import workers. Unchecked illegal imimgration, on the other hand, is not the importing of workers, but rather the importing of an indentured servant class with virtually no rights, representation, or benefits.

"Like it or not, economic globalization has made it inevitable that wages (i.e., the price of labor) will move to a competitive purchase point across the planet. I would far rather do whatever it takes to increase wage standards around the world than let ours slip further than they already have."

You've just unwittingly made the case for the outsourcing of jobs by corporate America. By sending well-paying jobs overseas we are increasing wage standards around the world. Allowing illegal immigrants to flood our country causes our wage standards to slip further than they already have.

[0rganism]

28. I'll break it down for you

> How does bringing food to starving people create more starving people,
> but bringing the people to the food creates well-fed people?

A species will breed to the support capacity of the potentially available food supply. If that breeding occurs far from the source of the food, either the food must be brought, or the population will starve. If the population is already at the food supply, it will eat the available food. Homo sapiens sapiens are not exempt from this rule. As a result, we have food rotting in warehouses and grain silos while people starve in Africa. Bring more food to starving Africans, and the population will breed in Africa, requiring additional shipments of food. Bring the starving Africans to Nebraska, and they can eat the food that's already there and help to produce more of it to support their population growth.

> Unchecked illegal imimgration, on the other hand, is not the importing
> of workers, but rather the importing of an indentured servant class
> with virtually no rights, representation, or benefits.

You'll notice I said nothing about illegal immigration. That needs to be reduced to the point of non-existence for the very reasons you mentioned.

> You've just unwittingly made the case for the outsourcing of jobs by corporate America.

Only to the unwitting. I'm making the case for increasing legal work visas for workers to come to the USA and taxing work sent elsewhere. If we send work overseas to places with no worker or environmental protections, it does more to drive down wages and dismantle unions and defund social security and de-regulate environmental standards than paying a legal immigrant a legal wage in America.

We need to Americanize the developing world's workforce, not the other way around. Far from favoring sending well-paying jobs overseas to be performed by an unprotected workforce, we should be applying stiff tariffs to those companies who use the poorest impoverished countries as a means to reduce labor costs. If Nike wants Indonesians to make its shoes, then at the very least the cost of importing the labor market should be held equal to the cost of importing the laborers.

[DFWdem]

31. Making more sense now

"A species will breed to the support capacity of the potentially available food supply. If that breeding occurs far from the source of the food, either the food must be brought, or the population will starve. If the population is already at the food supply, it will eat the available food. Homo sapiens sapiens are not exempt from this rule. As a result, we have food rotting in warehouses and grain silos while people starve in Africa. Bring more food to starving Africans, and the population will breed in Africa, requiring additional shipments of food. Bring the starving Africans to Nebraska, and they can eat the food that's already there and help to produce more of it to support their population growth."

This is true, but we aren't talking about Africans. The inlfux of people is coming from largely agrarian economies in Mexico and Central & South America. These people aren't starving, they're just poor. Africans aren't the problem.

"You'll notice I said nothing about illegal immigration. That needs to be reduced to the point of non-existence for the very reasons you mentioned."

True, you said nothing about illegal immigration, but that is the topic of the news article. We are in agreement here.

"Only to the unwitting. I'm making the case for increasing legal work visas for workers to come to the USA and taxing work sent elsewhere. If we send work overseas to places with no worker or environmental protections, it does more to drive down wages and dismantle unions and defund social security and de-regulate environmental standards than paying a legal immigrant a legal wage in America."

I agree, but the visas should not be for jobs that anyone can do, but rather for those jobs that require a high degree of a skill that is already in short supply here in the states. As for taxing work sent elsewhere, that can get tricky. If other developed nations do not do the same thing to their businesses then we put US companies at a disadvantage in the global economy. If foregin companies can produce similar products at a much lower price then eventually US goods are priced out of the market. The end result is that the conditions in those countries get no better and US companies suffer as well. I agree that something needs to be done, but it is a complex problem that will require a complex solution. Issues like this need to be addressed via trade agreements with our trading partners.

[0rganism]

34. I think we're basically on the same wavelength here

> This is true, but we aren't talking about Africans.

Okay, it was primarily an illustrative example anyway. But we have to put this in perspective: when that illegal immigrant is crossing the border to get work, s/he is doing so because of the close relationship between employment and food (and housing and clothing and other consumables) in this society. If you work, you get paper with numbers that indicate how much and what kind of food (etcetera) you and those you support can buy. I cannot find it in my heart to condemn a Mexican or Guatemalan or Haitian for trying to reach El Norte in search of a better life; they're simply going where the food is. It's natural, and it makes more sense than shipping work away from America to maquiladoras in those countries.

> True, you said nothing about illegal immigration, but that is the
> topic of the news article. We are in agreement here.

I think where we agree is that illegal workers equate to downward pressure on American wages. I would say the root problem is the disparity between the crushing toxic poverty experienced by so many in the developing world and the relatively pleasant lifestyle enjoyed by so many here in America. Globalization requires that eventually the two will meet somewhere in the middle. So far, we've seen something of both: expanding employment in developing countries does lead to some upward benefits in lifestyle, but it is far outweighed by the degradation caused to Americans by the gutting of our labor markets.

I want to see a lot more of the former effect and a lot less of the latter. I bet we agree on that, too.

> the visas should not be for jobs that anyone can do, but rather for
> those jobs that require a high degree of a skill that is already in
> short supply here in the states

Here we sort of part ways. We don't really have a shortage of skilled labor in America -- although we can certainly get to that point if we keep underfunding educational institutions. There are plenty of skilled people getting laid-off from well-paying jobs that are shipped overseas, when the American employees would be willing to retrain themselves or accept paycuts. This needs to be fixed. I have no problem with people immigrating here to work the skilled jobs, but it's not because of a labor shortage. We should not be outsourcing these positions.

Consequently, we end up with the formerly-skilled workers competing with an existing (and already underpriced) American unskilled labor force and the illegal immigrants seeking those jobs as well. This labor glut is driving down wages for low-earners along with high earners, but the root problem is not the illegal immigrants.

> If foregin companies can produce similar products at a much lower
> price then eventually US goods are priced out of the market.

This needs to be examined. Let's say XYZ pays $1/day for a Mexican to make 50 widgets each selling for $50, whereas XYZ would pay $50/day for the same labor from an American. Seems like a big savings, right? But the average cost savings is really not that great: less than $1 per widget. And at the end of the month, which worker could afford to buy a widget?

The problem here is profiteering. XYZ can advertise its widgets up to the point where Americans will buy out enough inventory at $50/widget based on name recognition alone to cover expenses. Meanwhile, by outsourcing labor, XYZ, inc. has multiplied the excess given to top execs in the form of stock options by a factor of 50, while driving down the price of labor in America. If a tariff of $.98 were applied to each imported widget to cover the labor differential, one of two things would happen: there would be more Americans making widgets, or there would be more foreign workers able to afford widgets at American prices. Either one would probably eventually lead to the other.

So what we really have to address is the disparity between those already possessed of obscene wealth getting very much richer, vs. those barely getting by having an increasingly difficult time doing so. The more we work on this angle, the less problem we'll have with illegals crossing the borders.

Unfortunately, the trade agreements pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike make this solution unworkable: any labor-based tariffs are likely to be challenged at the WTO, with the case tried in secret by a star-chamber court. I don't like our chances.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. The major difference is that the people working IN this country....

...also spend money on this country's economy. Additionally, how many native-born U. S. citizens are still willing to do the back-breaking menial labor that illegal immigrants perform every day of the year?

People in other countries are not only taking our jobs, they're spending the money earn on the economy of the country in which they live. Not a cent finds it's way back into the U. S. economy.

[6 sack fiber]

37. That might be because there are very few blue collars

on DU. It used to be that construction paid middle class wages back in the 70s - now we compete with people willing to live 10 to an apartment on subsistence wages. And to speak out against that you are immediately labled racist.

But the first computer programmer job that gets outsourced , then it's a crisis around here.

I would love to import one million Mexican Lawyers willing to work for 10K a year and watch all the newly unemployed 80K American lawyers when I tell them "damn we just can't get American citizens to do legal work anymore"

[Swamp Rat]

38. Welcome to DU!

:hi: Good luck!

[Squatch]

13. Agreed. And we sure as hell don't need armed militia

patrolling that border.

[DFWdem]

8. The homeland security angle is obviously a veil for racism

"Aguilar said that last year the border patrol detained 644 people from "countries of concern" and had stopped some 500 this year. They were subjected to intense interrogation and investigation."

How much damage could 500 people possibly do? After all, there were 19 hijackers on September 11 and they barely did any damage at all.

[XemaSab]

20. "Countries of concern?"

What, Costa Ricans trying to smuggle universal health insurance across the border?

[DFWdem]

21. Well, they didn't elaborate, but...

I think it's safe to assume the countries of concern would be countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Morocco, etc. You're probably right, though. Individuals intent on destroying America the Great Satan probably aren't smart enough to read the news and realize how easy it would be to sneak across the US/Mexico border. I'm sure all the people coming in are harmless.

[XemaSab]

22. With this administration

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. Remember Iran-Contra, when it was somehow in our county's best interest to squelch peasant insurrections in Latin America?

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Chile, and Colombia were "countries of concern."

[DFWdem]

23. Perhaps

But unfortunately the head-in-the-sand technique does not do much to enhance national security. It's ridiculous to believe that people crossing the border illegally come only from nations in central and south america.

[XemaSab]

24. True, true

immigration's a tough one. and I agree with you that something needs to be done if only for the simple fact that people are dying out there in the desert and the government doesn't seem overly concerned about it. If the government was truly concerned, the southern border would not be "walkable."

[Garfield Goose]

4. I agree

Most illegal immigrants are no doubt hard-working people looking to better themselves by escaping from poor Latin American and South American countries. But, how do you guard against border infiltration by would-be terrorists?

[classysassy]

18. The border

the terriost are proberly already in place,the rabble in this country such as the minute men(and women),are a bunch of racist slugs that want to inflame the public with their lies.

[denverbill]

5. They are the kind of people we want here.

But we want them here legally, and in controlled numbers, so that a flood of cheap illegal labor doesn't drive Americans out of their jobs. 10 years ago, most roofers in Denver were Americans, and they made damned good money. Then some unscrupulous employer figured out he could save some money and outcompete his competition by hiring illegal laborers for dirt cheap. Pretty soon, his competition either had to stoop to his tactics and hire illegals, or go out of business.

Oh, and since they are here illegally, they can't get a driver's license. And since they don't have a driver's license, they don't get insurance. And since they don't have insurance (not that they could afford it anyway) my insurance has to pay when an uninsured motorist damages my vehicle. And since my insurance has to pay, my rates have to increase. And naturally, their employer certainly isn't going to give them medical insurance, so the same holds true there.

Now, on the other hand, if he is here legally, he can provide ID, get a drivers license, buy insurance, and complain to legal authorities if he is being abused or taken advantage of by an unscrupulous employer. He has rights. Employers can't pay him less than minimum wage. He can apply for a legal social security number. He can testify in court without fear of deportation. He could even join or form a union to strike for higher wages or better work conditions.

Do I blame the immigrants? No. They are just doing what they can to improve their lives. I'd do the same thing in their shoes. I blame the US govt, unscrupulous greedy employers, and pandering politicians. Since employers from packing plants to landscapers to roofers to janitorial services companies to Walmart need and want an endless supply of ever cheaper labor, the US govt makes almost NO effort to control it. Republicans don't stop it because the employers pay them to let it continue. Democrats don't stop it because they like the idea of people being able to improve their lot in life, but they fail to recognize the costs to American workers in terms of wage pressures, higher insurance rates, and higher taxes.

You say "we've got bigger problems than illegal Mexicans working for less than minimum wage". But I say we don't. The biggest concern I have for the future of this entire country (and hemisphere for that matter) is the destruction of America's middle class. Republicans have waged war on unions and are rewriting virtually every worker protection implemented since the 1930's. The 40 hour work week is almost a quaint idea by now, and overtime pay is practically a thing of the past. Without tariffs because of NAFTA and the WTO, companies have no incentive to build products in America. With 'right to work' laws, unions are struggling to survive. College educated technical workers are losing their jobs to skilled but extremely low-cost Indian programmers. Americans workers are left to pick up the scraps. Whatever jobs can be sent overseas are. Whatever jobs that need to be done in the US (construction, landscaping, etc) are being filled by illegal immigrants or H1B visa employees.

What kind of job do you want your children to have in the future? Doctors and lawyers might be safe, although I don't know how much money they might make if everyone else in the US is working for Walmart. Forget about construction. Nursing is a possibility, although we are already importing Phillipino nurses on H1B visas since American nurses demand things like good working conditions and overtime pay. Forget computer programming. Engineering can be done by Indian workers, as can architecture. Any ideas?

Republicans favor illegal immigration. Democrats favor illegal immigration. The only people who don't favor it are xenophobic nutjobs like Tom Tancredo and people like me who think the protection of America's working class is actually more important than the protection of Central Americas impoverished class. Do I want to help Central America's impoverished class? Definitely. But the way to do that is to keep American labor standards high, and force Central American governments to improve conditions for their workers, rather than dragging American labor standards down.

[redqueen]

11. THANK YOU! (From a Latina whose grandfather moved here legally!)

:applause:

[earth mom]

15. Excellent Post!

You said it much better than I could ever hope to!

Far too many people are trying to paint this as a racism issue which it simply is not. The minute the racism card is played, everybody flees to avoid that label and the problem is never solved. This is about employers exploiting workers while the government sits by and lets it happen, if not encourages it.

People need to start caring about the destruction of the middle class. It could be YOU or YOUR LOVED ONES next.

[AgadorSparticus]

36. GREAT POST!!! you expressed it far better than I could.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Squatch]

10. A-men. I've never met a latino/latina I didn't like.

[underpants]

7. I know this was released for the Fox News crowd but seriously

did anyone really think they were only Mexicans? I know we tend to refer to them as such but anyone who gets out of the house much knows that these "MExicans" are really Guatamalans, Hondurans, and such.

you don't hear much about Panamanians crossing the border.... oh that's right they have an economy (something "supply siders" like to not mention).

[Zorra]

9. We do not need any more competition in the labor market, period.

I absolutely cannot believe that so many apparent Democrats are so thrilled about having unlimited increased labor competition while all of our good jobs and even a lot of shitty ones are moving to India and Turkmenistan or wherever, while more and more Americans with college degrees or other skills are being
forced to work at McBurgers and Acme Janitorial Supply. How will you feel if/when you lose your job at 50 years old, can't find another one in your field and are forced to flip burgers for $6 an hour, and competing with an immigrant worker even for that job?

Please wake up and get a clue. The American worker is being sold out, and you, who I assume to be Democrats, supposedly the backbone of Labor Unions and protectors of workers rights and wages, are supporting increased labor competition and decreased wages and benefits.

You are buying right into the Bu*h agenda to destroy the middle class and polarize wealth and class, creating 2 classes: nobility and serfs. Don't you get it? Why can't you see this, it is so obvious?:banghead:

50-somethings deal with down-sizing

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pmupdate/s_352149.html

For young vets, jobs are hard to come by

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/12003737.htm

NC EconWatch: College retrains workers as traditional jobs suffer

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/12107324.htm

Teens find older people holding many positions younger workers are qualified to take

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12041~2959053,00.html

Older Workers Are An Increasing Presence

About 8 of every 10 baby boomers say they plan to work after the standard retirement age. For many, it’s a matter of economic necessity.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1757/5493401.html

Raise retirement age? Maybe, if older workers are welcomed

One possibility might be to encourage workers who are near retirement to take lesser-paying positions than they held during the height of their careers and to supplement their reduced incomes with partial Social Security benefits. Then allow full benefits to be paid when they fully retire. That would establish a sort of glide path into leisure, easing senior workers into retirement over a number of years instead of all at once, and making it less expensive for their employers to keep them on the payroll.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050701/OPINION03/507010343/1035/OPINION

Etc, etc. et-fucking-cetera

You blissninnies, unless, (of course you are some kind of corporate freepers) that are yelling that everyone that does not want more labor competition in the US are totally off the wall.

Please stop buying into Bu*h's plan to destroy the American worker.

[Squatch]

12. Give us your poor, your hungry, your ....

...aw, fuck it.

[Zorra]

14. You can't feed someone else

when you have no food in your own cupboard.

[earth mom]

16. Another Excellent Post-Thank You!

[denverbill]

17. This is exactly what I'm trying to get across as well.

Why do people think Ross Perot, a goofy looking billionaire from Texas, nearly won the election in 1992? Until his sudden withdrawal, then reentry into the race, he was really pushing both Bush Sr and Clinton. His whole candidancy was based on the fact that both Clinton and Bush Sr were pro-NAFTA and he was against it. That 'giant sucking sound' of jobs rushing to Mexico is now compounded by Mexicans and other illegals rushing into the US, high tech jobs flying around the world to India, and manufacturing jobs fleeing to China.

And yet, no Democrat will stand up for American workers by at least attempting to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. I just don't understand why Democrats refuse to touch this issue.

[K8-EEE]

19. The "We're Fighting Them There" Thing

doesn't really make that much sense when whoever wants to can waltz across the border any time and "fight us here" if the feel like it...

[CanonRay]

29. Party Bigwigs Not Interested

The Colordado State Dem Party seems singularly uninterested in even mentioning illegal immigration...it's like the crazy uncle in the attic. The hardcore "Latino" lobby (read LaRaza et al) has them in their pocket. I say this tounge in cheek, because most, if not all, Mexican-Americans I know despise the "wet backs"...and from personal experience, they are the ones most getting screwed by identity theft. Nothing like a good bunch of documents bearing the name "Ramirez" to sell in Nuevo Laredo.

[CanonRay]

30. Here's A Plan; What do you think??

We set up a program for legal work visas, subject to minimum wage, OSHA and other work laws, somewhat similar to what we had during WWII. No numbers limits. People are allowed to come (and go) freely, with 30 days stay for job hunting or between jobs. Address and employers MUST be reported. Income taxes are paid, using the assigned work number (NOT a Social Security number). Social Security taxes are NOT taken out and they are not elligible for any SSA benefits. They are eligible for emergency health care only, unless provided by employers. Spouses and children are NOT allowed in, unless the spouse is also holding a job. They would be allowed provisional driver's licences (ssubject to having liability insurance), bank accounts, and have full legal protecitons of citizens. No non-working people (this should help alleviate the strain on our schools and hospitals). Here's the catch; they must apply IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY. Meaning they have to leave, get a work permit, and come back. Criminal background checks will be done. Anyone entering illegally, or using fraudulent docs, is permanently barred from entering, subject to prison. Anyone committing a felony is deported after serving their sentence. What do you think???

[DFWdem]

32. Not bad

Certainly a helluva lot better system than we have now, that being virtually no system whatsoever. Now all we need is for our politicians to grow some cajones and tackle a hot-button issue rather than skirt it.

[MrTriumph]

33. Better idea- Put pressure on Mexican govt to reform and create jobs

The problem starts with governments that uphold economic systems that protect a very small elite and leave the rest to poverty and stagnation.

All you need to do is compare Canada and Mexico. Immigration problems from Canada? Hardly. From Mexico? HUGE.