Some thoughts of illegal immigration

[question everything]

Yes, I know that there have been many opinions on these pages and I think that most of us are against the immigration bill that, apparently, is trying to make a comeback in Congress.

Thus I thought that I will just throw some thoughts. No, I don't have any solution.

Last year, during the marches by many who carried the Mexican flag, many here said that the illegals just want a job here. Meaning that they are not interested in joining us, in becoming citizens.

This may be fine with conservatives who do believe in each man for himself. We, liberals, however, do believe in a community. We think beyond our selfish needs and we believe in the strength of a community to better the lives of its members.

During the 90s I was active in a local issue that united several cities. My city was the largest and most influential and contributed large sums of money for lobbying and for promoting the issue. Yet, when it came to collecting signatures to put the issue on the ballot, to get out the votes, to actually voting - my city performed miserably. The unspoken reason was that the city had a large Asians Americans population who just chose to concentrate on making a living.

Perhaps this is the way things work. Some of us are familiar with the Maslow hierarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

when the first needs we want to meet are the basics food and shelter. Thus, we cannot expect immigrants, legal or not, to be active in our community. Yet, I think that in previous waves of immigration, many immigrants joined the manufacturing floor and also joined the union.

Many want to go after the employers. But who are they?

If you are in your yard, doing some work, and someone stops and asks to help you, saying that he is hungry - would you demand to see legal papers? I honestly don't know how I would react.

Last - OK, let's say that we do give amnesty to illegals who are already here. What, then, will happen with the next wave of illegals crossing the border? Because there will be next waves, no matter how much money we throw on guarding the border.

Clearly a complex issue that cannot be resolved with quick vote.

[PsN2Wind]

1. The enforcement aspects of the 1986

"one and only amnesty" were never implemented, so there is little reason to assume this "path to citizenship' enforcement provisions will be either.
The Hispanics coming here to Southern Arizona show less interest in assimilating into the "melting pot" than making it appear more like Mexico.
Must be a little late for the open border advocates to show up a start accusing anyone that doesn't agree with them of racism, xenophobia, or bigotry, but they'll be here.
Good Luck

[Jim Warren]

6. The open border advocates

simply because there are many who currently feel they are insulated from it and enjoy the luxury of not feeling nor foreseeing downward wage pressure nor increased competition for their livelihood.

If and when that changes look out. Of course it will be too late......other than a I told you so.

[PsN2Wind]

8. That's why I posted to an immigration thread

That there should be a test program and I felt New Hampshire would be the best locale for showing the impact, positive or negative, of this type program. Small state, lightly populated and lily-white it would be easy to monitor. Plus, all the potential candidates for president would be able to ask the citizens, they all want to shake hands with, their opinion of the impact from now until their primary.

[Jim Warren]

9. You know, that's really a damn good idea

which in this upside-down world probably dooms it out of the gate.

Still, I like it, maybe spread that around if you don't mind.

[PsN2Wind]

15. Spread it if you like.

I posted it as semi-sarcastic, only because I know it would never happen.We're told that government now runs like a business but few business would start a project, with the potential downside this law could have, without a test program of some sort.
We know that few of the government supporters of this idea are doing it for altruistic reasons. It's being done for potential votes and another source of cheap labor. The fact that it once again will screw the lesser skilled workers of the country is just a byproduct much as the "temporary dislocations' that NAFTA was supposedly going to cause.

[Marrah_G]

29. What about those families that may be impacted?

What if there were negative effects? Those are real families with real people. I know if someone fucked up my life, hurt my kids, because they wanted to test a theory I would hunt them down and the result would not be pretty.

[PsN2Wind]

36. Not sure I understand your beef

If there is a negative effect why should it be done nationwide rather than on a control group as my post suggests? Those of us in the border states are feeling most of the impact now,why should not the rest of the country share the benefit or pain?
I'm shaking here out of the fear of you hunting me down.

[question everything]

43. How would you conduct a test?

will you bus a whole group of illegal immigrants from, say, Mexico, to do... what?

The reason why border states and major cities carry the burden of this is because they are close to the border, they already have a large latino population into which more new comers can integrate and they have many service jobs.

[pingzing58]

24. Are you native to Southern Arizona? Or, transplant? just wondering.

[Bridget Burke]

32. Sounds like a newcomer with a Retirement Ranchette

(Texan here.)

[PsN2Wind]

38. So are you a native Texan

or a Bush like Texan?

[Bridget Burke]

41. You got me! I was born farther north than Connecticut....

In New Hampshire. When I was six weeks old, my father was called back on active duty. When I was four, he died in a plane crash. My (native Texan) mother brought me & my younger sibs back to Texas. I've lived here ever since.

But I'm not much like Bush.

How do you like your retirement ranchette?

[PsN2Wind]

42. Sorry no ranchette

Just a mobile on my lot halfway between Tucson and Nogales.

[PsN2Wind]

37. Lived here off and on

for 45 years which makes me closer to a native than most.

[bluestateguy]

2. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books before even considering this bill

And we need to bring home the National Guard from Iraq and put them on the border.

[pingzing58]

25. Even if the laws are unenforceable?

"Husak and Solum, legal theorists and philosophers, argue
that laws on immigration are part of a broad pattern. In
recent decades, they say, Congress has passed innumerable laws
that no one seriously expects will be enforced. Such laws
largely seem to serve symbolic purposes and are often designed
to placate some powerful constituency -- conservatives in the
case of immigration, or the entertainment industry in the case
of laws that seek to deter people from swapping copyrighted
music and movies.

The yawning divide between reality and what such laws say
should happen is what produces the dilemmas that lead to
amnesties. Immigration law has produced a situation where an
estimated 12 million people in the country -- most of whom
look, sound and act like law-abiding citizens -- are supposed
to be apprehended, prosecuted and deported, a job that is not
only well beyond the capacity of the police and courts, but
would wreck substantial parts of the economy were it
attempted.

"No one is so stupid as to think police are going to go
out and round up 12 million illegal immigrants," said
Husak, at Rutgers University. "Ninety million living
Americans have used illegal drugs. It is inconceivable you can
punish them. Downloading copyrighted music [without paying for
it] -- half or more of all teenagers are guilty. No one is
going to enforce such laws."

The consequence of symbolic lawmaking is over-criminalization,
which turns out to be as difficult a problem to deal with in
the long run as crime itself. It might sound good for a
politician to sternly declare that draft dodgers are in
violation of the law and at risk for prosecution, but how do
you deal with thousands of Americans who evaded the draft
during the Vietnam War -- after the country had concluded the
war was lost and a ghastly mistake? You offer them amnesty, of
course."

June 4, 2007 - Washington Post (DC)
Department Of Human Behavior:
Out Of Unenforceable Laws, Amnesties Are Born
By Shankar Vedantam

[question everything]

47. We need to go one step at a time

I was going to mention this in my OP and forgot.

Many complain that illegals burden our health and school and jail systems.

First, we have to remember that most of them do have jobs and business, this is one of the main arguments, right? That they take jobs. This means that they pay taxes. Not income taxes - though some, apparently do file - but sales and property taxes when they make purchases.

I have to wonder about health system. Just a few weeks ago "60 minutes" had a program about "dumping" patients into the streets. I think that the load on hospitals come more from American citizens who are homeless or with mental problems than from illegals. I think that it would help if hospitals did keep data on their patients. No, not details but more aggregate data. Of the uninsured patients with an ability to pay, how many are illegals and how many are citizens. I think that many will be surprised by the information.

Last, jail. No, I don't support local police conducting racial profiling to stop cars and to seek for papers. But if illegals are being caught while conducting crimes or felonies, unless it is murder - they should be deported. This would relieve the burden on our jail system. I hope.

[pingzing58]

49. Excellent thinking question everything. It is illegal for hospitals to ask

clients if they are legal or illegal.  That's one of my
biggest problems with Lou Dobbs etc., blaming the rise of
health care costs at county hospitals on illegal aliens.  Here
is study made in 2000: UNCOMPENSATED CARE IN SOUTHWEST TEXAS 4
Abstract
For the past several years the United States has experienced a
robust economy that has created wealth and prosperity for many
companies and individuals. However, the health care industry
is faced with the growing problem of increased uncompensated
care for their services. At the same time there is growing
concern over the increase in the uninsured population in the
United States. Texas is the nation’s leader in uninsured
persons with an estimated 24 percent uninsured in 1998.
Furthermore, there are an estimated 600,000 Medicaid eligible
persons in Texas that are not enrolled in the program.  The
Greater San Antonio Hospital Council is a trade organization
that has membership in 27 counties in Southwest Texas. As with
Texas as a whole, 24 percent of the Hospital Council
geographic membership population is uninsured. As a result of
the high uninsured population and other less dominant factors,
membership experienced over $503 million in uncompensated care
for 1997. Furthermore, the inability for each facility to
accurately identify the undocumented immigrant population has
hampered their ability to gain capital through government
funding.  
(http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA408404)

/snip/

The government funding they are talking about for undocumented
immigrant care is mentioned in this article: Hospitals not
taking free money for illegal immigrants
By Michael Hampton 
Posted: September 20, 2006 9:18 pm 
What if the government tried to give away a billion dollars to
pay for emergency hospital bills for illegal immigrants? Do
you think half the Southwest would be up in arms protesting?
Far from it, in fact. The federal government actually does
have such a program, but it hasn’t been much of a success. 
The program, passed a couple of years back to reimburse
hospitals for spending money on emergency care for illegal
immigrants, has had very few claims filed, primarily because
the paperwork is too onerous, hospital administrators say. 
(http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/20/hospitals-not-taking-free-money-for-illegal-immigrants/)

For an eye opening look at Hospital services for the indigent
see: Hospitals Try Free Basic Care in Austin, Texas @

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/health/25insure.html?ex=1179374400&en=11c3004eab22f485&ei=5070

[question everything]

57. Fascinating findings

I wonder why there are so many eligible for Medicaid who are not enrolled. And, perhaps, when they do visit a hospital, perhaps a social service person can help them get enrolled?

If hospitals do not apply for Federal program because of the paperwork, then this one needs to be addressed before we pass that complex immigration reform bill.

Before we talk about the economic burden that illegal immigration have on our country, we need to be able to support such claims.

Obviously, the economic angle is just one part of the equation as I stated in my OP, we have the burden on our society which we already know the extent.

[MaraJade]

75. I worked for the Pa Medicaid program. . .

and wrote some of the regulations. I am also very familiar with the federal medicare program. It is not illegal
for hospitals to ask whether someone is here legally or not. What is illegal is to refuse emergency treatment to a
person due to citizenship status. Unfortunately, due to poor pay and lack of insurance, people without documentation usually end up
reporting to the Emergency Room for care when they are in extremis. Many cases relate to on-the-job injuries for which their
employers provide no worker's compensation. The hospital is then forced to treat them and
this is where uncompensated care comes in.

Contrary to popular belief, the current laws prohibit the use of medicaid or medicare funds for treatment of illegal
residents. States will not cover these people under medicaid and the feds will not cover them under medicare. What then
happens is that federal dollars set aside for the treatment of indigent citizens, such as Hill-Burton funds http://www.hrsa.gov/hillburton/default.htm are used to cover the costs. This reduces the amount of money available to
provide free or reduced cost care to people who are citizens or who are here legally. The plain and simple fact is that
the rising cost of health care in many areas IS related to persons here illegally who are absorbing the limited funds available
for treatment of the indigent.

I don't blame them, though. The jerks employing them are generally at fault for failing to provide at least worker's compensation.
It's just one more problem related to illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not good for ANYONE.

[Jim Warren]

78. I concur

My wife works ER intake. She sees this all the time.

[MaraJade]

74. I agree. . .

none of the immigration laws currently on the books are being enforced right now, including sanctions
against people who hire those who enter illegally. Ironically, there is a lot of anger among those who
have followed the rules and are waiting to enter legally, as well as among those like my husband who is
a naturalized citizen who did what he needed to do in order to be granted citizenship.

We really don't need any new laws; the current laws need to be enforced.

[magellan]

3. It requires enforcement against our corporations both here and abroad

Huge numbers of foreigners take extreme risks to find employment here because they're living in abject poverty under the "free trade" practices our corporations undertake in their countries. And businesses here are eager to hire the relatively cheap labor these economic immigrants represent. Until we stop this vicious cycle, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem.

I won't be holding my breath to see this resolved.

[pampango]

12. A wise idea. Holding your breath until this is resolved would just

add one more casualty.

Neither party is going to rigorously enforce existing laws on immigration. The Repubs are ruled by the corporate wing of the party who want cheap labor, while Democratic politicians are not going to alienate Hispanic groups that they see as solid supporters. So if the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party (and the "nativist" wing of the Rupub party) can't force better enforcement as a part of compromise legislation, then nothing will change. Illegal immigration and employment will just continue to grow.

[Hangingon]

4. I don't feel the current wave of immigrants is interested

in assimilating into our culture. They are here to make money and enjoy the perks. Hard to blame them. There is nothing back home for them. By and large, they are hard working, honest people. The Mexican flag waving bothered me when I heard about groups pushing for a new "Axtec" empire which reclaims Texas to California.

[PsN2Wind]

5. It's the AZTLAN movement

Intent on reclaiming the states bordering Mexico for Mexico.

[Hangingon]

7. Thanks. That is it.

[Lasher]

10. Some sympathizers want a separate hispanic nation between the US & Mexico

Hispanic homeland? As in, no Asians, Europeans or Africans allowed? It doesn't seem to be a fringe concept, at least among Mexican citizens.

One of the organizations that promotes this idea is The Nation of Aztlán, which is an antisemitic hate group according to The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. There seems to be a number of Hispanic groups that want to take posession of the US Southwest. I need to learn more about this.

[pingzing58]

27. Yes and uncover more about the Arian Nation's plans as well.

[pingzing58]

28. Here's another for you to look into: www.texasrepublic.com

[pingzing58]

31. Yet another: The Confederate Society of America....there's more.

[question everything]

44. Same story all over again

groups that want to emphasize ethnocentricity often use other groups as a target for hatred, for blame for pushing to a lower class. Sadly, such an approach helps gaining new recruits.

[Lasher]

46. The presence of other hate groups does not justify the sentiments of any one of them.

Not even if there happen to be any with whom you might empathize.

But although I'm sure you wouldn't mind changing the subject, right now I'm wondering how many Mexican nationals think it's a good idea to seize control of Southwestern US states.

[question everything]

59. No of course not

as for seizing the SW part of the US - here is an interesting paradox:

What if Mexican nationals do seize these states and make them, essentially, Alta Mexico.

Would these states still have the richness of resources that attract these people to cross the border in the first place? If they cannot make a living in Mexico and are just pushing the border northward.. will these states sill be an attractive destination?

[Lasher]

62. I don't know.

Many Mexicans' woes seem to be brought about by an inequitable distribution of wealth more than a lack of overall resources. If the same socio-economic structure were to permeate this brave new world of Alta Mexico I wonder if the same general climate would result over time.

But at that point I probably wouldn't spend a lot of my time wondering what Mexicans and Alta Mexicans wanted to do. I can't get past the part where Mexicans "...are just pushing the border northward." Are you in favor of such a thing? Do you think they would be justified if they were to "...seize these states..."?

[question everything]

69. No! This was just an exercise in thinking

I agree that the problems lie in Mexico and in the other Central America countries and I have to wonder how much change can 12 million people bring to their own countries, instead of marching in protest here.

[Lasher]

72. OK let's say Alta Mexico gets set up

And let's say just as many people want to go there. I get a feeling you're going somewhere with that, particularly since you label the scenario a paradox from the start. So what's you point? Not trying to be adversarial here, I really don't get the point.

And BTW, do you think Mexicans would be justified if they were to take control of the US southwest?

[question everything]

73. No, I don't think that Mexicans should take control of the US

Southwest.

These borders were established a long time ago and should stay that way. And I have to wonder about the DUers that say they should - how would they feel if all of a sudden they feel strangers in their own communities.

And, no, I do not support an open border where there is a free flow of Mexicans and others into this country, since such a flow is one way. (Another thread tried to compare the fence along the Mexican border to the one that used to divide Berlin and there really is no comparison. Germany used to be one country that was divided and the fall of the Berlin wall unified the country).

No, I was just thinking that people from Central and South America want to come here because the economy of the US is better, because there are plenty of opportunity and jobs that, apparently, are not available in their countries. And the question has to be why. No doubt there are many natural resources as there are here. So it has to be the political system. Too many poor people having too many babies that they cannot feed because of the stronghold of the church, for example?

So if, in theory, they take control of California and Arizona and Texas and New Mexico, this mean that they will change the socio-political system to mirror their countries of origin. Meaning they will lose whatever allure these states had for them in the first place. They will leave Mexico and will end up in another Mexico, the same as the one they left.

This is the paradox. If they do not stay in their countries and fight to change the conditions there - and 12 millions can be a formidable grass roots organization - then taking control of a new land is not going to change. They will just import their problems to the new land.

Of course, I do not advocate rounding the 12 million and sending them back. For one, it would be impossible. But I do not think that they are behind so many problems that we have here - burden on health care, school and jail systems.

Last, and this is how I started the thread: if all they want is a job, then shoving citizenship down their throats, when do not want this, is bad.

[Lasher]

76. That makes sense

I believe if Mexico, for example, had New Deal types of social programs like ours, their economy would be greatly improved. Their version of Social Security is not progressive. You just get out what you pay in, and about one third of their workers are off the books and don't earn eligibility anyway. Progressive social programs redistribute wealth. More people thereby have more to spend, which pumps up the economy. I am constantly amazed how supply siders ignore the principles of demand side economics these days in pursuit of their trickle down religion. But I digress.

It would be difficult to deport all the 12 million or so illegals. But if more of them were apprehended and sent back to their countries of origin, and particularly if we strictly enforced penalties against employers who hire them, most would leave of their own accord. They are here for the jobs. Cut off access to the jobs and they won't be here.

Here is another good thread on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1119465

[Jim Warren]

79. Good point! nt

[Jim Warren]

77. Good question

It's quite delusional really, rhetoric about reclaiming anything. Areas of the SW lay fallow for generations and nobody wanted it. Now that it's developed and prosperous, second thoughts arise. It's like someone having a piece of property and doing nothing with it for decades and finally sells it. After the new owner invest, develops and makes something of it, the previous owner thinks he sold it for to little and wants it back.

[High Plains]

30. Yeah, and what are there, four of them?

Three students in LA and one other guy?

[Bridget Burke]

33. No, Aztlan is a concept.

It's an expression of Chicano pride & does NOT call for new Borders. (We have enough of those.) Only braindead nativists tremble at the word.

In Chicano folklore, Aztlan is often appropriated as the name for that portion of Mexico that was taken over by the United States after the Mexican-American War of 1846, on the belief that this greater area represents the point of parting of the Aztec migrations. In broad interpretation, there is some truth to this in the sense that all of the groups that would subsequently become the various Nahuatl-speaking peoples of central Mexico passed through this region in a prehistoric epoch, as attested by the existence of linguistically related groups of people distributed throughout the US Pacific Intermountain region, the US southwest and northern Mexico, known as the Uto-Aztecan-Tanoan group, and including such peoples as the Paiute, Shoshoni, Hopi, Pima, Yaqui, Tepehuan, Rarámuri (Tarahumara), Kiowas and Mayas.

www.azteca.net/aztec/aztlan.html

Many of the newest immigrants aren't descended from the Aztecs, anyway. (And I think that quotation errs about the Maya--their languages aren't related.)

[fasttense]

11. We all know who they are.

You say "Many want to go after the employers. But who are they?" We all know who they are.

They are Tyson and meat packing corporations. They are janitorial and maid services. They are landscape and gardening services. They use to be home and commercial building contractors but many illegals with building experience have returned to their homes because of the housing bust. They are huge farming corporations with undeveloped machine picking capabilities (lettuce, fruit, flowers, grapes). Any large corporation that requires unskilled labor usually hires illegals. Corporations who would like to hire only citizens can't compete with those who hire illegals. So they are forced to hire illegals in order to stay competitive.

Very few illegals are hired by individuals who are trying to help them earn money for food. Very few illegals are hired by individual homeowners. There are just not enough home owners hiring labor to support 12 million illegal immigrants.

Don't pretend like we don't know who hires illegals. We all know. It would be very simple to fine the illegal employer and see what happens. Many experienced illegals have already returned home because the building market has dried up. If we would severely fine and jail every manager who hires an illegal as the law is currently written, we would not have 12 million illegals in this country.

I say we crack down on illegal employers and see what happens. That is an experiment I would like to see.

[pampango]

13. Good luck finding an administration, Repub or Democratic, that

will conduct that experiment. Hasn't happened in the past and isn't likely to happen in the future. Therefore, be ready for more of what we have gotten for the past 20 years. (Or we can not change anything and hope for different results.) ;)

(See post 12 above.)

[smirkymonkey]

55. I say we crackdown on the Mexican Government and the Mexican

Elite who would rather suck up to the Bush Administration and preserve their oligarchy than try to turn Mexico into a real democracy that gives all it's citizens a fair chance at a decent life.

You can't blame them for wanting to get out, but discussing immigration is just a band-aid solution. Why is nobody discussing the real problem? As long as we ignore it, it's never going to get any better.

[question everything]

60. True, which is why I often wonder why they waster resources

marching and protesting and blocking traffic here, instead of doing this in Mexico or their countries of origin.

12 million people can be a very powerful grass roots movement.

[shimmergal]

68. The employers who're the biggest offenders--

"Tyson and meat packing, other large corporations" are, unfortunately, the least likely to be cracked down on. The large companies, fines wouldn't faze; you have to make the officers serve jail time. How likely is that?

But, here's something people utterly opposed to illegal immigrants COULD do. Do a little investigative work and find out which local employers--the janitorial, maid, gardening services, etc.--do hire illegals. Publish that list, or conversely,check out which of their competitors make a point not to hire them. Organize a boycott, so people who don't like it can put their money where their mouth is. Would Lou Dobbs types pay extra to "buy American"? I honestly don't know. But if offending employers -- especially the small outfits -- suddenly have a drop-off in their business, they might change their ways.

[A wise Man]

14. The language these senators , congressmen and women

use such as, they want their freedom too or all they want is a job or they'er doing jobs that legal citizens don't want, is a lot of "BS" to get cheap labor. If we dig deeper into the agenda of these congressmen and women we might find that their investments are towards cheap labor and votes and the hell with the rest of us be you rethug or Dem. No we won't take those at the pay rate they're giving, because with the rise in this economy we can't live on such low paying jobs.

[PsN2Wind]

17. I retired from a small manufacturing company

in Oregon with a payroll of 50 to 60 workers. The workers there were all local people working for a modest pay but good benefits and a good work environment. 80% of the jobs there could be done by some one with very little training. Except for the die-maker (my job), the die-setter, the CNC programmer, the plant foreman, the shipping receiving clerk there was little skill needed. The rest of the jobs, assemblers, buffers, packers, even production welders and machine operators could have been filled easily by most anyone. So by adding a good bilingual overseer ( if you're gonna have slaves, you gotta have an overseer) probably 80% of these Citizens, some Native American, could be sent to pick shit with the chickens while the family could drop their pay rates, health insurance, vacation pay, profit sharing and other benefits and split the greater profits among themselves.
This is what some posters here seem to think will benefit the USA and its citizens.

[EFerrari]

34. If that's what you're hearing, you're mishearing or misreading.

Stop the US government from screwing up democracy in Latin America. It helps the multinationals. It screws the workers there and here. This is the root of the problem. Do you really think those people WANT to leave their homes to come here and be treated so miserably?

Why are we so quick to blame each other for the actions of corporations that couldn't care less if we live or die? And why would we rather vilify workers than realize that our government is complicit in this rip off of working people?

I am not an "open border" advocate. I'm just trying to point out that our government has pursued a policy in Latin America that has resulted in the immigration problem we have now. So, who has the power in this situation? Not the poor people who come here to try to live because our government has made their country living hell.

Go to the source of the problem. Or else, you're just wasting your time.

[PsN2Wind]

35. No, you're wasting my time

since your response is in no way connected to my post.

[EFerrari]

39. "This is what some posters here seem to think will benefit the USA and its citizens."

But, I'm sure you're right and will stop wasting your time immediately. :)

[PsN2Wind]

40. Thank you

N/T

[EFerrari]

16. We might begin by supporting democracy in Latin America

instead of sabotaging it.

[PsN2Wind]

18. Sorry sfexpat2000 but anyone reading these threads

know where your allegiance lies. You say we should support democracy efforts in Latin America by penalizing the lesser skilled citizens of this country.
I see that you are in the US advocating for reform in Latin America rather than in Latin America advocating for those reforms.

[EFerrari]

19. No, I'm saying the US government should stop sabotaging democracy

in Latin America. So, I'm in the US asking for the reform of US policy.

[PsN2Wind]

20. If it can't be reformed from within

it isn't likely to be reformed from without. Unless you think the US government should bring democracy to Mexico as we have Iraq.

[EFerrari]

21. The Bush government helped the conservative steal

the last election in Mexico from the progressive. How many people do you think will have to come north because of that?

This isn't about reforming Mexico. This is about reforming our government.

[Carni]

22. Bush's answer to everything

F everything all up in foreign lands and then just ship the survivors into the US as a source of cheap labor OR to prop up the economy (since he's already picked the pockets of so many Americans and literally ruined them financially)

[EFerrari]

23. Exactly. The thing is, we've been doing that in Latin America

for a long, long time. But, it's not just Bush, it's our history in that region.

[Lasher]

63. So Latin Americans are not accountable for what goes on in Latin America?

I think I get it. Americans alone are to blame for everything bad that goes on in Latin America. So of course it is incumbent on the US to do whatever we can to make Latin Americans happy. Is that it?

What if we were to just give legal status to all the illegal aliens who are living in the US now and open our southern border? Would that make things better? Care for some Social Security and Medicare benefits to go with that? After all, everything's America's fault so it's the least we can do, right?

[TahitiNut]

26. IMHO, there's no question that our 'foreign policy' has been part of the problem.

We've propped up despotic regimes in banana republics because they've been 'cooperative' with United Fruit Company ... plantation economics. We've opposed 'leftist' political movements because they've put their own people first ahead of foreign plantation owners. We've helped create the most inequitable economies on the planet!





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

There is no question that the higher the Gini coefficient the higher the motivation for the most economically disenfranchised to seek 'opportunity' elsewhere.

It makes absolutely no difference WHAT "laws" we enact if we don't comply with and enforce those laws. None whatsoever. This is the 'lesson' of 1986.

It'll take a three-fold effort, imho. Enforce the borders. Enforce the employment. Reverse a century of foreign policy abuses and support liberal democratization and equitable economic systems in the Western Hemisphere nations - i.e. support "Bolivarian" revolutions.

Much talk of 'racism' is flung around, even on DU. Few observe how racism plays a role in Latin America ... particularly in Mexico and Haiti. Racism is the tool of corporate colonialism - a tool that keeps enormous numbers of indigenous people disenfranchised. People are denied an education and denied equitable enfranchisement in the economy of those nations.

[Cleita]

52. Yes, this would be a very big step in making the issue vanish.

Of course we will still need immigrants to fill jobs. We always have needed them, since the founding of this country. So where will the new wave of immigrants come from?

[treestar]

They are part of the community because they are here

they are no different from previous immigrant groups.

Our laws keep them separate.

We are causing our own problems.

Illegals use the ER less than natives - but if they could freely cross the border, they could go back to Mexico for medical treatment. We make it impossible to cross the border except at great trouble and cost - and then whine about the fact they stay put and use "our" ERs.

The whole thing is just a cover for control freakishness or xenophobia. Get a life, these people are poor, they don't hurt us one bit, they just make lettuce cheaper. Why do people get so interested? Like this Lou Dobbs, he is insane. What have these people, mostly poor and living a much harder life than you/he would ever dream of, done to him/you?

[question everything]

61. They do hurt us in places where they are a large minority

perhaps not economically - they do work and pay taxes; but in being members of our society who do not vote and do not participate in the political system. On DU, of all places, we should appreciate this. The Republicans, of course, would love to keep them uninvolved as it keeps the power in the same hands.

[treestar]

45. delete dup

[ecstatic]

48. Once granted amnesty, how soon can their families be allowed to join them?

Say for each worker, there is a loving wife and 3 kids waiting at home.

20million workers X 4 = 80 million

Do we have the infrastructure to support this?

[Disturbed]

50. "I say we crack down on illegal employers and

see what happens." I'd love to see that.

[EFerrari]

58. Why are these families more of a burden than any other family?

They are a net gain to the economy. :shrug:

[Lasher]

65. Because they are a potentially new burden.

And because they are not at this time America's burden, any more than China's poor are our responsibility. We can not be expected to be a pressure relief valve for the poor of every other nation.

Please provide specifics about your assertion that they are a net gain to the economy.

[EFerrari]

66. A bunch of articles turn up in this search:

And, iirc, we've had this conversation before, Lasher, so here are some links and I'll just leave it at that. Have a good, one. b.

On the economy:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=immigrants+economy+gain&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

On immigrant "criminality" and assimilation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=379&topic_id=1094

A Pew study re unemployment and immigration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2449753

[Lasher]

64. Don't forget the parents of Z-1 visa holders

Shhhhh! You're not supposed to think about this until after the amnesty bill passes. Then we can talk some more about gutting our social programs because we can't afford them.

[EFerrari]

67. The way it worked in my family was our grandparents

who both had pensions from their country of origin, btw, stayed home and minded us so our parents could work. When they became infirm, we took care of them.

[UTUSN]

51. 1. The plan's a stepforward. 2.It's better than the alternative.3.It's a NIXON-in-China opportunity.

The most urgent of the opportunities is #3, NIXON-goes-to-China. People in border states KNOW Mexican-Americans, many of them on an individual basis, and even though racism also exists in the border states, there is still personal knowledge involved---unlike Tweety, O'LOOFAH, and on into the extremes of TANCREDO, SENSENBRENNER, MALKIN, the Minutemen.

This is the closest I've come to saying something positive about Shrub, that he has a fondness for Hispanics. He had SOME contact with them, whether as servants (I don't know this), his partying at the border, his sister-in-law, the laborers in in various failed businesses, his AWOL flights into Central and South America for drugs or CIA-Poppy. Jeb Crow Shrub has had various business parterships with Latinos for whatever nefarious ends.

In the paranoid '50s and '60s, paranoid of "Red" China, NO Democratic president would have been able to recognize China without being crucified, probably literally, by the John Birch Society. Only a weird straddler like NIXON--with his delusions of historicity--with his credentials as a Red-hunter, could have assured the brainwashed country that "Red" hordes would not be patrolling American streets if China were recognized.

So this is one of those moments. Shrub might not be so strong as Tricky Dick against his own flying monkeys. He collapsed on Aunt Harriet MIERS in the face of Laura INGRAHAM, fer gudness sakes. But if he doesn't do it, the next prez ain't going to do it, whether it's a wingnut president (without Shrub's border background) or a Dem, who will be crucified.

===========Now, that said, the are some profound issuess: The creation of a sub-class exploited for labor and deprived of voting and other rights.


I say, this Shrub (& KENNEDY) law is a first step. It is likely that this sub-class argument will lead to the SCOTUS, and even a reactionary wingnut SCOTUS cannot ignore the inequality. If this isn't taxation-without-representation, what is?


What is the alternative? Despite the vehemence of the wingnuts' opposition, I have never heard WHAT it is that TANCREDO, SENSENBRENNER, DOBBS, MALKIN, and the Minutemen WANT. I hear the part about "securing the border" (a financial boondoggle), but what about the 12 million? Do they seriously want DEPORTATION?

It's a first step. It's better than the alternative. It's a NIXON-in-China opportunity.

[pingzing58]

53. Most people don't know how fluid our southern border has always been.

People from across the border come to shop on this side. I see
them carrying their Wal-Mart bags back to Mexico. People from
here go to buy medications that are more affordable in Mexico.
I know, I take my parents quarterly to purchase what they
need. I don't know the statistic but thousands cross back and
forth every day. I can't imagine what the lines to cross both
ways will be like with eighteen wheelers waiting to be checked
along with everyone else while we all wait to have our
passports checked (what you've got be kidding everyone has to
have one to cross by January 2008). What do people imagine the
border crossing is like - it's vibrant, active and filled with
commerce. No need for a bunker or fortress mentality - the
border has been safe, is safe and will be safe, and no fear
mongering first generation pinoya like Malkin or the racist
Minutemen (and there's an investigation as to their founders
misappropriation of funds) can cause me to react against
anyone out of fear. 

/snip/

What second generation Italian TANCREDO (who admited to
suffering from mental disorders in order to dodge the draft
for Vietnam); SENSENBRENNER, DOBBS, etc., want is to stay in
power and excercise it over people. They simply want to say
"I'm better than you." 

[mema42]

54. sure its fluid

It is fluid, but there are some areas that are unsafe too. I do not believe most of the problems occur at the border crossing areas.

They are supposed to be building or have built new areas for the truck crossings.
The passports should be handled by electronic equipment mostly. They do say that a ten finger comparison takes to long so it should be two.
The US-Visit system is what you are talking about I believe. I also do not remember if that is going to be implemented within the 100 mile area of the border crossing, where the stores, Doctors, etc are that U.S. citizens visit so often.

[pingzing58]

56. The control was having just one bridge now there are two are the busiest crossings.

It's already slow; during the holiday's it's even worse.  In
Europe they just looked at your passport to cross borders.  It
seems that at our borders they will have to scan them and wait
for the return data.  Can't imagine what a quamire it will be
if there is a computer glich and there will be.  The border
agents will have to take shortcuts and I can't wait till an
investigative report will make the immigration idealists
indignant and inflame the nation to close the borders.  Bad
legislation is bad legislation no matter how patriotic it
might seem.

[L. Coyote]

70. TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = MUST READ

TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = MUST READ

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm

PDF File: http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MDM07620_xml.pdf

[L. Coyote]

71. A thread for those who have read the proposed language

Senate Bill 1348 is much discussed, but who has read the text?
Perhaps this one DU thread could be limited to those who have.

TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = READ first, then comment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x289114