Enforcing the Laws when Dealing with Illegal Immigration is...

[National Acrobat]

Alright, I've never understood why people say being against illegal immigration makes you a racist. I disagree strongly, as the laws are not discriminatory against any 'race', 'creed' or 'nationality'. If you are in a nation illegally, in violation of the laws of the nation, then you're breaking the law. Whether you are from Mars, Alpha Centauri, Mexico, China, Zimbabwe, et al. it still doesn't matter.

I've got several friends whose parents emigrated to America and did things the right way, and even though most of them consider themselves Democrats, they back enforcing the laws because they feel that everyone who comes to America needs to pay their dues and follow the rules just as their parents did on their path to legal citizenship.

It just perturbs me that people immediately brand someone in this country who simply wants the laws enforced as a 'racist'.

[RubySlippers]

Here, here! Why for example when a local town enforces the laws they get sued for violation of their authority by the ACLU and other groups. I just don't get that they are not determining immigration status that is already done if they don't have their legal papers  they are here illegally as in against the law. Why do immigrants have a problem with local authorites enforcing the laws of the land?

If a person is here without permission and they have trouble getting a place to live or work due to a local ordinances then that is not the community being racist- they are in violation of the law already and the community is respecting the laws of the land.

I have a good friend who was a Mexican citizen, joined our military and after serving was given his papers and citizenship with the help of the US Army. But anyone that fights for this nation and follows the law deserves citizenship in my opinion. There are legal avenues.

[Elvi]

I have always been a firm believer that if you are in a country, either as a resident or a visiter, then you abide by that countries laws.

However I have a problem actually 'ticking a box'.

B applies most certainly, however, C is also a deffinate in my books.

It is all so easy to look at a certain race and because of how they look, point the finger.
Back in the '70's and early '80's there was a problem with illegal imigrants and 'false' assylam seakers here in the UK.
It was very easy for the BNP (British Nationalist Party), then named the NF (National Front), to point the fingure at the 'coons', 'niggers' and 'Pakis' and forget the large illegal white population predominantly from South Africa and Australia.
Infact at the time there were more 'white' illegals then there were 'black'.

So yes.....an illegal immigrant is what they are and should be treated accordingly as long as there is no hidden agenda when dealing with those people.

[Celestial Goblin]

I don't think that it's racist to prosecute illegal immigrants.
I do think that right now in USA, a significant group of people calling for strict treatment of immigrants happen to be members of racist groups.

Some Americans could maybe even be discouraged from voicing their support for tightening the immigration laws, because they don't want to be seen agreeing on something with white supremacists or other fringe groups.

[National Acrobat]

I don't think that it's racist to prosecute illegal immigrants.
I do think that right now in USA, a significant group of people calling for strict treatment of immigrants happen to be members of racist groups.

Some Americans could maybe even be discouraged from voicing their support for tightening the immigration laws, because they don't want to be seen agreeing on something with white supremacists or other fringe groups.

You might be right, and while I certainly don't condone their actions, in fact I abhor what fringe elements do, people are just going to have to ignore it. The financial drain on communities, states and the Federal Government is enormous because of this issue, and in some places, my own home county included, it is straining the relations between the State/Local Governments and the Federal Government. It's getting a bit absurd.

This is one issue where the politicians in this country are totally disconnected from the general population, and in a big way.

[Jefepato]

Could be racist, but not automatically.

The trouble is, illegal immigrants are sometimes better Americans than the Americans.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well ideally the government could enforce its own immigration laws without the stigma of racism, though that is simply not the case.  The media is responsible, in large part, for people's view of Latin Americans as illegal immigrants.  Nightly a viewer can watch people crossing that border with a newscaster reading off that Latin Americans are the fastest growing minority.  This then prompts severe action which does target those immigrants specifically.  A great deal of the border patrol targets only "Mexicans" entering this country, yet nobody patrols the Canadian border at all unless they fear some sort of criminal escape.  Anytime the language debate emerges, Spanish tends to be the hotly contested language and more often than not Latin Americans are featured on most news stories regarding illegal immigration.

The problem is most illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their VISAs.  Whether student, worker, or otherwise the most abundant population of immigrants are from Europe and Asia.  This of course makes sense as they are the areas most applying for permission to work and become students at American universities.  Also crimes committed by these illegal immigrants are not broadcasted, but tend to be kept quiet.  An example that comes to mind was prompted by an advocate for Latin American Immigration when she said that a German illegal immigrant stole a car, was driving recklessly on the highway, killed someone and the event was not brought into the debate.  Those are not the illegals making news, but rather the Mexican farm worker or the construction worker who makes the news. 

Demanding that laws be enforced is not inherently racist, but care needs to be shown when examining why that law was brought into effect and how well is that law being enforced over the spectrum.  Even among the Latin American group, dark skinned immigrants are harrassed more (whether illegal or not) and deported more often.

[robitusinz]

I think the problem with the illegal immigration issue is that it's based too much on ideals and not enough on reality.  Look, the reality is that there's a bunch of illegals in the US already, regardless of where they're from.  It's going to be very difficult to just kick them out of the country, as beautiful a plan as that may seem.  Consider the manpower necessary to do that, even if were just as simple as picking them up and throwing them on a bus.

What should be done is have a way for illegals to legally assimilate.  Increase border policing, and strengthen immigration policies.  Take care of the people that are here now...and by "take care", I don't mean that in a nice way.  I need more people to pay taxes and put cash into social security...the fuckers here just aren't breeding fast enough to make legal cash cows...errr, citizens.  I hope to retire someday and live off someone else's backs, and I could care less if the 21 year old McDonald's manager is named Scott, Roy, Ryan, LeRoy, Jethro, Juan, Miguel, Mustafa, Habib, Ivan, Seamus, or Nb'egda (with a little click sound in the middle somewhere), as long as he's paying up to Uncle Sam.

Frankly, illegal immigration is an issue because people way over our heads want it to be an issue.  There's a need for seasonal migrant workers to work in strawberry fields, we like being able to pay $10 for a car wash (inside too!), or $10 to have our lawns cut.  As much as we hate the idea of Chinese sweatshops, we've got'em in the US too, you just don't hear about them.

I hate to be so bold, but the illegal immigrant of today is the slave of yesteryear.  The Daddy Warbuckses don't wanna give up their cheap source of labor.

[Brittlby]

Whoa whoa... you're going to compare illegal immigration with slavery? There's a keen difference, being that of choice. Reduced cost to labor, exploitation of migrant workers, all of that I'll give you. But slaves? I don't think so.

[robitusinz]

Some middle-class dude:  "Hey, why don't we actually find a way of assimilating illegal immigrants so that they can pay taxes and have actual rights?"

Some rich dude:  "Uh...yeah...well...first they have to uh...speak the language (nevermind that money speaks enough for them)...and...uh...yeah...no, no, we have to stick with our laws!"  as an aside:  "C'mon, man, you're killing me here...do you really wanna give up all this cheap labor we've got now just to give some wetbacks a few rights?  Geez...I may have to raise the price on wheat on you a few cents if I can't get enough of these Mexicans to harvest it at $3 an hour!"

You fail to realize the pathetic conditions most of these people live in.  There are currently 12 people living in one apartment in my building, and I know because they spend most of the day with their front door open and their kids running around.  Sure, nobody's whipping them, but they're still being exploited to all hell, and it's very similar to slavery in that fashion.

As for choice...pfft...please...it's either starve in your home country with no chance for anything better (i.e. akin to serfs or peasants in feudal times), or starve in the US, but at least give your kids a chance to a better life.  So either way, someone's not eating.  :D

[Brittlby]

So... you're making the claim that being torn from your native country and forced to work without rights, suffering the burden of being little more then a commodity with little to no representation in court is comparable to struggling to come to America to eek out a living in the hopes that it will present opportunities for you and your children, while also providing better health care, sanitation, and scholastics?

I do NOT fail to realize the conditions some (not most) of "these people" live in. I LIVE in Texas. I've lived next to that family with 12 mouths under one roof. I've eaten with them. And a large chunk of what they make goes back to Mexico to the family they left behind. They didn't WANT to be citizens of this country!

It was a means to an end, and they were proud to be Guatamalan. Not Latin American. We DO have a means of applying for citizenship in place. It's long, arduous, and expensive, yes. But it's in place. No, we do NOT have the sweeping amnesty package that has been sought in recent years. Maybe we will, but not in the near future. Irregardless, they AREN'T being crushed under the weight of Jim Crow laws.

You make a number of good points, but comparing immigration to slavery is not one of them. It's not even defensible. They are completely seperate issues. Immigration, there WAS a choice. You illustrate that in many cases it's a shitty choice, but they're the ones making it, hoping for a better life.

[robitusinz]

You make a number of good points, but comparing immigration to slavery is not one of them. It's not even defensible. They are completely seperate issues. Immigration, there WAS a choice. You illustrate that in many cases it's a shitty choice, but they're the ones making it, hoping for a better life.

How about we meet in the middle?  Perhaps the force emigration doesn't apply to the US' illegals, but they are being exploited as if they were "non-persons".

And yes, we do have a long, and drawn-out process for legal immigration, but the point is that these people are here NOW.  I would like them to be actual productive members of society...that is, i want to see them pay taxes and chip in for social security.  I'm all for controlling our borders better, though, and staving off the massive illegal influx into this country, but we gotta deal with the ones that are already here.

If the choice boils down to amnesty (a term I find rather silly in this case...it's just a personal thing), or moving the inefficient mass that is the US government into action to prison and deport these individuals, then I go for amnesty.  In my opinion, the IRS is the most efficient government agency...Uncle Sam may slack off in some areas, but you ARE paying that fucker his due, no matter WHAT!  So let it become an IRS issue.  Screw it.  :D

[Pumpkin Seeds]

"In order for Satan to establish his 'New World Order' and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.," his resolution states. "The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nations the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness." by Don Larsen, a Republican Chairman for Provo County Utah.

While looking for information on this particular subject, I ran across this quote and just thought it rather funny.  So just a bit of humor while I go off doing more research.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I do believe Mr. Larsen needs his tinfoil hat adjusted.  Then the evil radiations from Xenu and his Mexican lackeys will no longer interfere with his brainwaves, and all will be right with the world...or at least the world of Mr. Larsen.

[Zakharra]

 Remember, be civil.

[Tobias Drake]

I'm going to make this short and sweet. I have no problem with immigration. A person or persons leaving their country to live in another country is fine. However, what gets me is the "illegal" aspect. This isn't about immigration being bad; it's about illegal being illegal; illegal is illegal is illegal.

For good, bad, or ugly, I believe it is the responsibility of people who enforce the law to enforce the law. That's not to say that the law is always right and never wrong, simply that this is the difference between being an enforcer of the law and...I dunno...a superhero or something; choosing to enforce the law means, for good or ill, that you need to enforce the law. At least, that's how I see it.

[Ryvaken]

You can't use the law as an excuse, however. Civil disobedience to racist laws is a necessity of all people. This is not to say that laws regulating immigration are racist, but rather that the potential exists for such abuse.

At the same time, no society can exist without rules, and they need to be enforced fairly, equitably, whenever possible. Immigration laws are no exception.

[Zakharra]

You can't use the law as an excuse, however. Civil disobedience to racist laws is a necessity of all people. This is not to say that laws regulating immigration are racist, but rather that the potential exists for such abuse.

At the same time, no society can exist without rules, and they need to be enforced fairly, equitably, whenever possible. Immigration laws are no exception.

And the law is not being enforced as it should be. The law is blind. Not taking into account skin color, race or creed. Being for the enforcement of the immigration laws is no reason to call someone racist. Ever.

[Elvi]

While I agree with what you say Zakharra, I am at a loss as to what you have said relates to the quote you have put with it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, I suppose one could say the law is blind.  The enforcement of a law though is never blind nor are the people who wrote out the law.  Simply look at the measures taken in the effort of controlling illegal immigration.  There is no massive push to fluff the ranks of the people in charge of investigating overstayed VISAs or enforce their deportation, but there is a drive for more border security guards.  European and Asian immigrants are not seeking a church for aslyum so that they can stay with their child and last time I checked we were trying to build a wall between us and Mexico.  Seems kind of one sided.

[Brittlby]

Possibly. But then let's also look at the numbers. As we share a border with Mexico what's the ratio of Latino immigrants to Asian and European? I suspect this is akin to Al Sharpton claiming Howard Dean, the governor of Vermont was racist based on the evidence of "There are no blacks in your Cabinet!" Which isn't really shocking if you consider Vermont has half of one percent that's African american.

Due to our physical proximity to Mexico, there's a great many more immigrating then there are from across the Atlantic. So while it may seem one sided and racist, it's just common sense to focus on the Latin American issue with greater stringency.

[Zakharra]

Well, I suppose one could say the law is blind.  The enforcement of a law though is never blind nor are the people who wrote out the law.  Simply look at the measures taken in the effort of controlling illegal immigration.  There is no massive push to fluff the ranks of the people in charge of investigating overstayed VISAs or enforce their deportation, but there is a drive for more border security guards.  European and Asian immigrants are not seeking a church for aslyum so that they can stay with their child and last time I checked we were trying to build a wall between us and Mexico.  Seems kind of one sided.

We have a border with Mexico, that means that many people come across from there. The fact that Mexico is a  nation of Latins means nothing. Putting the fnece up only makes sense. It does have a deterring effect, it helps slow down the easiest way to get into the nation.

While I agree with what you say Zakharra, I am at a loss as to what you have said relates to the quote you have put with it.

  Elvi, I don't always say things clearly  ::)  I meant to say that the law is being called racist, when it is not. The fact that most of the people who come over the border are of a certain ethnicity means nothing and people who want the border enforced, by people and a wall, something that Mexico uses on it's own borders, should not be called racist unless they are against the people of that race.

last time I checked we were trying to build a wall between us and Mexico.  Seems kind of one sided.

Because Mexico is next door. It needs to be built. The latest estimate that I saw say that roughly 10% of Mexico's population is in the US.

Which the vast majority are not. Border security is something that people on both sided

[National Acrobat]

Possibly. But then let's also look at the numbers. As we share a border with Mexico what's the ratio of Latino immigrants to Asian and European? I suspect this is akin to Al Sharpton claiming Howard Dean, the governor of Vermont was racist based on the evidence of "There are no blacks in your Cabinet!" Which isn't really shocking if you consider Vermont has half of one percent that's African american.

Due to our physical proximity to Mexico, there's a great many more immigrating then there are from across the Atlantic. So while it may seem one sided and racist, it's just common sense to focus on the Latin American issue with greater stringency.

I agree with this 100%, and so does my stepfather, who is Canadien. He has said the same, that if it were Canada where the majority of them came from, he'd expect the wall to be built along the canadien border, and he'd have no problem with it.

I am not against immigration either, but illegal is illegal. I've got friends who are from families that emigrated (Cuba, Mexico and Russia) and they agree. They came the legal way and paid their dues, and they are incensed because people want a free ride.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

One problem you can point to with Canada in comparison to Mexico is that we are far more likely to accept their citizens to work here, without their immigration to this country.  To be fair we also have quite a few people they drive to their area in order to work, but our relationship with that country is far more benign than Mexico.  So perhaps if we offered as much leeway in worker programs for Mexicans and made it easier for them to arrive here and seek employment, there might not be as large a probem with border crossing.  Taking into account the type of jobs that Canadians would be interested in taking in the United States and it becomes more peculiar that there are not as many laws preventing their worker entrance to this country.  In truth a wall is not really feasible with Canada, since all they would have to do is drive through the relatively untouched border between and even if stopped they would most likely have nothing to worry over.  Mexicans are crossing the border in order to find better work and often send the money back.  Instead of the United States pushing for a compromise in the situation, the general feeling seems to involve a wall and people with weapons.

Now as for illegal is illegal, that is well and good to say when the person stating such does not believe themselves in violation of a law.  Were every police force in the United States to start rigidly enforcing traffic laws, people would be in an uproar.  In truth if a person was stopped for going 66 in a 65 speed zone, they would be msot livid.  There is also the question of companies being reprimanded to the full extent of the law, which runs the risk of shutting them down.  For instance when Wal-Mart was found to have the illegal immigrant janitors, they did not suffer severe consequences even though law enforcement had recordings of the executives aware of their treatment.  Some of the treatment included locking those employees in the store, effectively imprisoning them.  No criminal charges were brought to those managers.

Illegal immigrants have told federal agents about neglectful conditions, harsh treatment, lack of pay, and have even said that often their citzenship was known at the time of hiring.  Border Patrol agents have sent internal memos to their managers regarding the condition of prisoners about to be deported and more than a few of those were then brought up on charges of housing an illegal immigrant.  Now if the government went after each and every employer without a mind for their wealth, race, and status then perhaps that would not be a problem.  Of course if the government did that, our agriculture industry would come to a grinding hault.  The small buisness construction companies, especially along Texas and California, would be crushed and alot of people would be put out of buisness.  The Guld Coast region would be taking painfully longer to rebuild itself and far more money would be spent for that labor.  So our enforcement of the law seems to be stricter at the illegal immigrant end of the bargain, than at the more well to do end of the spectrum.

[kongming]

I recall someone once telling a friend "But they have to come here to Australia, to escape the harsh conditions of where they come from." as why we shouldn't arrest illegal immigrants. The friend pointed out that the majority of illegal immigrants in AU are from England and Ireland, overstaying their VISAs. Can someone from the UK tell me if it's really so bad that they need to escape to here? I know the weather is shite, but surely that's no reason to run off.

That being said, there have been a large number of cases of "target people who you might describe as 'ethnic'." - those from the Middle East, each copper allowed to interpret "Middle East" as whatever they like. Sometimes not even worrying about making sure they are in fact illegal. But those are cases of the law not being properly enforced. The law itself is just fine. "Get into Australia through the correct, legitimate channels and we will welcome you with open arms.*"

*Unless you're in Sydney and could be described as 'ethnic', in which case stay away from the drunk skin-heads.

[OldSchoolGamer]

As long as we have a wealthy, Information Age superpower with a need for unskilled labor next to an impoverished, corrupt, mismanaged Third World nation, we are going to have immigration from the latter to the former.  And if you think it's bad now, wait until the production at Canterell declines for another couple years and Mexico has to import oil.  Remember how lousy the U.S. economy was in the Seventies?  That was caused in large part by U.S. oil production peaking and us suddenly having to import more oil, worsening the balance of trade.

We need to pressure Mexico to reform and improve its economy even as we build our border fence and clamp down on illegal immigrants...understanding there is no overnight cure for this.  If we deport a couple million illegal immigrants, that's a couple million jobs that are going to go unfilled, creating an economic imbalance that is simply going to spur...you guessed it...more illegal immigration.  Sure, some of those jobs would be filled by Americans...but not many.  What would happen is a few jobs would be taken by Americans, and wages would go up.

Rising wages sounds like a good thing.  Economics is funny about that sort of thing...there's always at least a catch, and usually more than one.  Higher wages for unskilled labor would drive up the cost of producing goods and services, leading to higher prices for everything from cheeseburgers to a month's rent.  Higher wages would also increase the incentive for illegal immigration.  And, over the long run, higher wages for unskilled labor encourages firms to make do with fewer employees, reducing employment over time.

[Zakharra]

 And it went down in flames today. W00t! No bad immigration bill this year.

[National Acrobat]

The reasons for the failure are two fold.

Too many amendments to the original bill, which not only clouded the original intent of the bill, but also tried to tie it to spending and earmarks to get it passed, which is simply unacceptable.

Also, the pressure of the American People. Over 75% did not support this bill,for a multitude of reasons. I know here in Virginia that the Offices of Senators Warner and Webb had to shut down their voicemail because of the overwhelming amount of calls from irate constituents. Amazingly enough, both of them voted against it, which is the way it should work when you are an elected official.

[kongming]

Wha? Huh? What bill is this?

[Zakharra]

Wha? Huh? What bill is this?

The 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill' 

[Lifeguard]

People who jump out and say it's racist are ignorant fools.  Sure if it targets a specific group of illegal immigrants (such as we're going to crack down on people from Mexico but not from anywhere else) then it's racist.

[kongming]

I see where you're coming from. If I proposed a bill to crack down on credit card theft, and someone argued "But most credit card thefts are committed by (nationality), that's racist!" I'd have no option but to deliver a swift smack upside the head.

[King_Furby]

also i don't think just shooting them all is the answer.

I do think illegal immigration is a problem in the US but i really don't see how the US is going to keep it in check quite yet.

[Moondazed]

In my humble opinion there are multiple issues at hand, not just immigration. 

• If they couldn't make money here they wouldn't bother, so that's one head of the hydra.  The meat-packing industry would take a major hit, as would the strawberry industry, because those two industries in particular trade in the lives of people who are disposable, one by risking injuries and one by displacing the financial burden.
• Americans are spoiled.  We think we should get what we want, when we want it, and cheaply, damn the consequences.  Every day we make choices that support various industries with a folding vote called money.  If we paid the "real" cost of things like strawberries out of season and processed meat, it would be a sobering experience.  Who's willing to say that they'll pay more for something they want, especially if they consider it a necessity?  Not very many people I've met.  Every time you go to the grocery store and buy food that is processed and/or imported, you make a statement by voting with your money.  Give that some thought... it can be equally sobering.
• I agree that third world countries offer living conditions that we find abhorrent.  How about if we actually try to help them learn to feed themselves instead of throw food at them?  How about if we actually stop to think about the impact of all of the chemical cleaners we buy at the grocery store to spare us a little effort?  Call me cynical, but I suspect there'd be a HUGE uprising if someone said NO to the chemicals that haven't been tested for long term effects, not to mention someone actually insisting that a product's lifecycle analysis be included on its label.  Maybe that's tangential, but not to my way of thinking.

It's been my experience that whenever I open my big mouth about this it ends up with people avoiding direct eye contact and thinking I'm a bit 'flicted, but so be it :P

[Zakharra]

In my humble opinion there are multiple issues at hand, not just immigration. 

• 1If they couldn't make money here they wouldn't bother, so that's one head of the hydra.  The meat-packing industry would take a major hit, as would the strawberry industry, because those two industries in particular trade in the lives of people who are disposable, one by risking injuries and one by displacing the financial burden.
• 2Americans are spoiled.  We think we should get what we want, when we want it, and cheaply, damn the consequences.  Every day we make choices that support various industries with a folding vote called money.  If we paid the "real" cost of things like strawberries out of season and processed meat, it would be a sobering experience.  Who's willing to say that they'll pay more for something they want, especially if they consider it a necessity?  Not very many people I've met.  Every time you go to the grocery store and buy food that is processed and/or imported, you make a statement by voting with your money.  Give that some thought... it can be equally sobering.
• 3I agree that third world countries offer living conditions that we find abhorrent.  How about if we actually try to help them learn to feed themselves instead of throw food at them?  How about if we actually stop to think about the impact of all of the chemical cleaners we buy at the grocery store to spare us a little effort?  Call me cynical, but I suspect there'd be a HUGE uprising if someone said NO to the chemicals that haven't been tested for long term effects, not to mention someone actually insisting that a product's lifecycle analysis be included on its label.  Maybe that's tangential, but not to my way of thinking.

It's been my experience that whenever I open my big mouth about this it ends up with people avoiding direct eye contact and thinking I'm a bit 'flicted, but so be it :P

1) I agree with the first part. They are here to make money. The low wages amny get are a large payraise by their native country's standards. I disagree on the later part. The industries you mentioned would take a hit, but only for a short time before they found some way to make/harvest/cut and pack the product they offer. That was said of the tomatoe growers. That they needed the laborers to pick the crop. Yet when push came to shove, a mechanical way was devised and used to pick tomatoes. Human ingenutiy will provide, after all. nesseccity is the mother of invention.

2)  Spoiled? Probalby, and very prosperous. We have gotten to a  point that food and goods are cheap and plentiful. It's up to the buyer to decide what he or she wants. It's not like we are being forced to buy the goods. There are other options for those that want them.

3) I'm for helping them feed themselves. A problem though is the governments are often corrupt and much of the money and aid given vanishes.
The chemical cleaners you mention.. Most people do not care, just that is is affordable. The companies that produce them are studying the effect the cleaners have on the enviroment all the time and constantly developing new and better brands. That are often more enviromentally friendly and safer for the user. You want long term studies? How long term are you looking at? 5 years? 13? 20? How about 50?

[Moondazed]

1) I agree with the first part. They are here to make money. The low wages amny get are a large payraise by their native country's standards. I disagree on the later part. The industries you mentioned would take a hit, but only for a short time before they found some way to make/harvest/cut and pack the product they offer. That was said of the tomatoe growers. That they needed the laborers to pick the crop. Yet when push came to shove, a mechanical way was devised and used to pick tomatoes. Human ingenutiy will provide, after all. nesseccity is the mother of invention.

Agreed.  The trick is in what we see as a 'necessity'.  I wasn't implying that meat packing or strawberries are reasons not to enforce illegal immigration law.

2)  Spoiled? Probalby, and very prosperous. We have gotten to a  point that food and goods are cheap and plentiful. It's up to the buyer to decide what he or she wants. It's not like we are being forced to buy the goods. There are other options for those that want them.

Foods and goods are cheap if you only look at it from an immediate gratification standpoint.  In the long run, soil sterilization is very expensive, especially when runoff and pollution are figured into the equation.

3) I'm for helping them feed themselves. A problem though is the governments are often corrupt and much of the money and aid given vanishes.

Very true... it's not a simple problem, but teaching people to grow crops that will prosper in their climate is not something that will build a dictator a mansion if it's stolen, while money will.

The chemical cleaners you mention.. Most people do not care, just that is is affordable. The companies that produce them are studying the effect the cleaners have on the enviroment all the time and constantly developing new and better brands. That are often more enviromentally friendly and safer for the user. You want long term studies? How long term are you looking at? 5 years? 13? 20? How about 50?

I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, but the second is in doubt.  Why would they research long term effects of something that makes them so much money?  The EU announced a plan to study chemicals that were commonly used and there was quite an outcry.  In my opinion the force driving improved ecological footprints is consumer based, on what facts are you basing your claim that they are often more environmentally friendly and safer for the user?

I'm going to assume that you don't mean to mock me for wanting to know the longterm affects of the products I use, because that wouldn't be very civil, now would it?

[Zakharra]

I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, but the second is in doubt.  Why would they research long term effects of something that makes them so much money?  The EU announced a plan to study chemicals that were commonly used and there was quite an outcry.  In my opinion the force driving improved ecological footprints is consumer based, on what facts are you basing your claim that they are often more environmentally friendly and safer for the user?

I'm going to assume that you don't mean to mock me for wanting to know the longterm affects of the products I use, because that wouldn't be very civil, now would it?

What I mean is the formulaes that are used are constantly being reformulated to be more effective and less polluting. Laundry detergent is different that what was used 10 years ago. Soaps and some cleansers are easier on the hands and enviroment  and more easily degraded. Some cleansers are hard and will likely to remain so. Industrial cleansers for example. 

They have a very goood reason to research for improved products. The US legal system and trial laywers. We are a sue happy society and will sue at the drop of a hat. So it is in their best interests to make better products.

I am not mocking you. I was just wanting to know how long of a time should long term studies be done before a product is rated as safe for cumsumer production? Companies and the FDA are always getting hammered for not releasing products and drugs soon enough, yet they get blasted when something slips by the cracks that did not show up in testing.  A no win situation.

[Moondazed]

They don't get hammered by me... what disgusts me is the fact that profit margins lead to the release of chemicals and drugs that have not been thoroughly vetted and there's such a malaise about that fact.

[Zakharra]

 Maybe not by you, yet they are hammered by groups and politicians because things to get found when  public sales happen. sometimes some of the effects aren't detected until there are millions of people who take the drug. When there is a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting a certain side effect. it's very likely that it would have been missed in the testing phase. Unles the human trials are large and decades in length, things will be missed.

[Moondazed]

Of course, that goes without saying, but that is NOT an excuse to forgo testing all together, is it?  I'm not referring to situations like that, where testing took place but missed something.  What I'm saying is that the testing should be uniform and consistent, and in the case of chemicals it should take place with EVERY chemical that is sold, bar none.  Will it be expensive?  Yes, probably, but how on earth is that a good enough reason not to do it?! 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Isn't that FDA regulations and stuff?

[Moondazed]

That's what they're supposed to do, but not all substances face equal testing.

[Moondazed]

Only a small percentage of household chemicals have even been tested... let alone food additives.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Why not?

[Moondazed]

Good question!  I'm off to bed, but I'll try to dig up some links for you tomorrow.

[Moondazed]

Sorry to take a few days to post, real life got in the way :)  This has wandered pretty far away from immigration issues, so I'm starting a new thread here... https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=11240

Back to Illegal Immigration :)

[Nell]

Well ideally the government could enforce its own immigration laws without the stigma of racism, though that is simply not the case.  The media is responsible, in large part, for people's view of Latin Americans as illegal immigrants.  Nightly a viewer can watch people crossing that border with a newscaster reading off that Latin Americans are the fastest growing minority.  This then prompts severe action which does target those immigrants specifically.  A great deal of the border patrol targets only "Mexicans" entering this country, yet nobody patrols the Canadian border at all unless they fear some sort of criminal escape.  Anytime the language debate emerges, Spanish tends to be the hotly contested language and more often than not Latin Americans are featured on most news stories regarding illegal immigration.

The problem is most illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their VISAs.  Whether student, worker, or otherwise the most abundant population of immigrants are from Europe and Asia.  This of course makes sense as they are the areas most applying for permission to work and become students at American universities.  Also crimes committed by these illegal immigrants are not broadcasted, but tend to be kept quiet.  An example that comes to mind was prompted by an advocate for Latin American Immigration when she said that a German illegal immigrant stole a car, was driving recklessly on the highway, killed someone and the event was not brought into the debate.  Those are not the illegals making news, but rather the Mexican farm worker or the construction worker who makes the news. 

Demanding that laws be enforced is not inherently racist, but care needs to be shown when examining why that law was brought into effect and how well is that law being enforced over the spectrum.  Even among the Latin American group, dark skinned immigrants are harrassed more (whether illegal or not) and deported more often.

I really don't think that you can classify what the media is doing as racist. It's simply a common misunderstanding of language that a lot of people call Latin Americans just Mexicans. A lot of people just don't realize the difference between the words "hispanic" and "mexican". Furthermore, why shouldn't the Mexicans who are being smuggled in be targeted? I mean it's not like there's an imminent problem of Canadians fleeing in from the Northern border, and there's more Mexicans coming in than from any other Latin American countries simply because they are on our Southern border. And it's far more people who are directly coming in as aliens than as people who have been overstaying their visas.

I, as someone who legally emigrated to America from England and gained my US citizenship, believe that we are not being nearly as aggressive about it as we should. Bush has not gone far enough to call for the enforcement that should be. I think that these problems of harassment are coming about because we are not being strict enough about enforcing this law. While the short term effects of having many illegal immigrants working at cheap salaries can be a boost to the economy, the long term effects could be devastating; the majority of these immigrants are sending the majority of the capital that they make out of the country to their families, and any economist knows by mercantilist principles that that's bad for the country. We could be on the way to another depression, and the fed might not ever be able to pay off the massive debt.

[Moondazed]

I doubt that the meat packing industry lobbyists would take any further urging toward enforcing even the existing laws lying down, that industry would literally collapse if they couldn't employ illegal immigrants.  Sadly, I suspect that MANY Americans would be serious perturbed at having to pay the real cost of processed meat, let alone the other industries that rely on illegal labor (such as strawberries).  Forsaking ethics for a lower price has a very high price at some point in the future, much like outsourcing.  It's cheaper short-term, but when an industry stops supporting its community of workers it becomes a pretty big drag on the economy.

[Nell]

I think I would rather pay a little more for my meat and strawberries if it came down to it. With cheaper labor, there also comes cheaper and lower standards in the work. There's been several spreads of diseases such as Ecoli in different meats and vegetables over the past few years and recalls are constantly being made on such products. Now I'm not pinning this down on anyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to lower sanitary standards of a cheaper workforce. If companies had to start legally paying workers higher wages for jobs, costs of prices might be a little more, but people would have more money to spend from higher salaries. Now this might weigh down a little on the middle upper and upper classes at first, but I believe that the economic effects would be beneficial overall in the long run.

[Moondazed]

I completely agree :)  When the mentality changed from 'care for the village' to 'make the biggest profit', things took a definite turn for the worse, in my humble opinion.

[Nell]

Yeah...I really respect someone who can do both of those at the same time, but that's unfortunately a rarity these days.

[Lana]

Working in an immigration law office I generally tend to avoid these topics.  However, I will say that I am totally in favor of enforcing immigration laws and don't believe the laws are biased at all, the people enforcing them, however are another matter.  I have seen them enforced with many different ethnic groups.  I just worked on a case where a Canadian was removed back to Canada, they wouldn't let him stay and there was nothing we could do.  Its just a matter of what gets the media headlines. 

I also used to be an adamant supporter of the "but they are illegal and are breaking the law" arguement.  When I started doing immigration law I realized that life isn't as black and white as that statement.  I would sound like a hypocrite if I tried to sway anyone's opinion of illegal aliens but will say only that you can't really understand what truely happens in immigration until you learn and deal with it for yourself and don't trust everything the media feeds you.   :)

[RubySlippers]

I don't get though why cities and towns setting up laws to monitor illegal immigrants last time I looked local law officers are required to serve and protect all the laws of the United States, isn't someone here without documentation here illegally therefore can be enforced at all levels. None of these laws determine their status or takes away anything just if your working or renting an apratment you must prove your here legally. Seems well within the rights of local governments.

I don't really get the problem immigrants to the crappy jobs no one in the country want to do generally so whats wrong with letting them come in if they can get here and work. It shouldn't be that hard have a central database and offer low cost work cards with photos and other features to anyone at any embassy abroad. They can then work here for lets say five years registering with the local government and working, they can renew these subject to being a respectable guest worker (not commit any crimes of note) and an employer can just check the identification number against a computer registry and then know they can work. And slap very big penalties for other undocumented workers. And states and the Federal Government can collect taxes and the like allowing them to pay their share to benefit living here and working.

In the case of dealing with terrorism these criminals could abuse the system but they could abuse any system, its no reason for not having a system that benefits the majority of good foreigners wanting to come here to work. Last time I looked people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

[Lana]

I don't get though why cities and towns setting up laws to monitor illegal immigrants last time I looked local law officers are required to serve and protect all the laws of the United States, isn't someone here without documentation here illegally therefore can be enforced at all levels. None of these laws determine their status or takes away anything just if your working or renting an apratment you must prove your here legally. Seems well within the rights of local governments.

I don't really know why either, I have theories but they aren't educated theories on that matter.

I don't really get the problem immigrants to the crappy jobs no one in the country want to do generally so whats wrong with letting them come in if they can get here and work.

I never saw the point either, I always thought that they should have a way to adjust their status even if they originally entered illegally.  They would still have to pay for the green card proces the only difference is they never had to pay $131.00 (and when you are dirt poor living in Mexico that's -a lot- of money) for their original visa or border crossinf card to enter the U.S.  Back in the old days, those who entered illegally could eventually file for a green card if they met the normal requirements for such for a fee of $1000.00.  I know this sounds like a lot and it is, usually though after coming to this country and working a good portion of illegals (I won't say all because no one should ever lump everyone into one group) want to stay in this cuontry and become legal and find ways to pay for these fees now that they are living here and at least have a chance in life. *Whispers* They even file their income taxes.  I know I was shocked too when I first found out because it flew in the face of everything that I had ever been told. 

However, at some point America took on a different viewpoint of illegals and did away with the $1000.00 fee, one would think that the government would always want more money, so why do away with it?  Not sure other than perhaps maybe public opinion swayed their decision, I'm not sure on the why.

§245(i) was first added to the law in 1994 to allow persons who qualify for green cards, but not for adjustment of status, to be able to adjust their status in the U.S. upon payment of a fine (currently $1,000). Congress phased §245(i) out of the law on January 14, 1998. However, persons who had already qualified under the law as of that date were "grandfathered" into the benefits of §245(i) for the rest of their lives. The problem was that hundreds of thousands of otherwise qualified persons who missed the January 14, 1998 deadline cannot adjust status in the U.S., and cannot return to their countries to obtain green cards without being subject to either a three or a ten-year bar from returning to the U.S.

The deadline was subsequently extended by President Clinton to extend to April 30, 2001.

It shouldn't be that hard have a central database and offer low cost work cards with photos and other features to anyone at any embassy abroad. They can then work here for lets say five years registering with the local government and working, they can renew these subject to being a respectable guest worker (not commit any crimes of note) and an employer can just check the identification number against a computer registry and then know they can work. And slap very big penalties for other undocumented workers. And states and the Federal Government can collect taxes and the like allowing them to pay their share to benefit living here and working.

Well initially, I think the public and the media have to get over their ignorance regarding the matter otherwise it would never get off the ground and then lawmakers would actually have to think something like this up.  Third, it wouldn't be cheap, and the fees right now are going up all the time and there's no reason to suggest that the government would do toherwise in this matter.  I do believe in many intances that is the problem, that these people in Mexico that their only problem was being born in such an economically depressed and corrupt county can't afford the options that are available or aren't educated enough, etc.  There are many different reasons for why someone would risk everything and come over the border illegally. 

Also, with regards to employers desiring to bring someone from another country to the U.S. to work for them.  Depending on if they were sponsering them for a green card, well it can be very pricey and to file for a green card the employer has to be able to show that they can provide for the alien if the alien does not make enough money to support their household.  Depending on how many aliens a company desires to bring over this can be -very- pricey.  The filing fees for a full green card petition and application are $1365.00 and that doesn't count anything else that they may have to file for.  Also one snag with filing for a green card
is that they have to show proof that they were always in legal status while in the U.S. 

So basically, there are definetly some laws and obsticales to overcome.  ;)  The realist in me says it will never happen, however there is a part of me that holds out hope.  :)

In the case of dealing with terrorism these criminals could abuse the system but they could abuse any system, its no reason for not having a system that benefits the majority of good foreigners wanting to come here to work. Last time I looked people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Well said.  :)

[Zakharra]

 People are bothered because of the Illegal part of it. Like it or not, feel sorry for the or not, they are illegal. That is what has many people riled. Giving them amnesty will piss off a lot of voters. As congress found out the last time.

*Whispers* They even file their income taxes.

Normally with a fake social security number too.  Another thing that pisses people off. Lawbreakers.

[Lana]

People are bothered because of the Illegal part of it. Like it or not, feel sorry for the or not, they are illegal. That is what has many people riled. Giving them amnesty will piss off a lot of voters. As congress found out the last time.


Normally with a fake social security number too.  Another thing that pisses people off. Lawbreakers.

I've always been bothered by blanket statements regarding a group of people.  Blaming the lack of immigration reform on the ignorance of voters is a long shot to making a valid arguement.  Yes, they are illegal, they broke the law.  No one is denying that fact.  U.S. citizens break the law everyday, it's called speeding.  But given that anyone of the people that are bothered because they are illegal were faced with the same choices and situation that some of these people were in as I explained above I doubt they would make different choices and stay in a bad situation and watch their family starve as he struggled to make ends meet.  A good portion of illegal and legal immigrants alike only desire what a lot of people in this country were lucky enough to be born with.  Has this country become so aristocratic that they just don't see how lucky the circumstances of their birth are?

There needs to be legal recourse for these people.  Had they kept 245(i) amnesty would not be sought after now.  I for one am not going to condem a person because they desired to make a better life for themselves, something that each and every one of us can identify with. 

As far as illegals filing with fake social security numbers goes.  Well I would research that before you comment.  http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/itin.html  It is totally legal and not fake in any way.  Would you rather have them not pay their taxes, thus breaking another law and just "cost us taxpayers" money or be responsible contributing members of society and pay their taxes?  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does consider it "good moral character" to file your taxes.  Besides the amnesty would be granted only for their illegal entry.  They still have to be able to qualify to file for adjustment which means they could not have committed any crimes of moral turpitude, etc. 

[Zakharra]

 To file for taxes, you have to have a social security number. They were not given one so the only way they could have gotten one is by stealing one. To get one, you have to be legal.

  The link you posted is disturbing. They are lawbreakers when they illegally entered the country. That is one strike, a big one against them. I have sympathy for their desire to make a better life for themselves, but not when they break into our nation. That I do not like at all. Nor does the majority of the US citizens. that's why the comprehensive immigration reform bill went down in flames. The congressional members constituents were calling them in droves to act against the bill. The population saw it for what it was. Amnesty.

That was tried in the '80's and failed because Congress did not come thru with their end of the bargain. Seal the borders better. Even now many congressmen do not want to seal the borders. Which pisses off alot of people still.

[Zakharra]

 That being said I do support legal immigration. The laws should be reformed to smooth out the process. I'm not against immigration, just illegal immigration.

I'll look for some links tonight, but there's  been a lot of news/posts that many illegal aliens (not immigrants) do not want to become US citizens. All they want is to work here. It's suspected that 10% of the Mexican population is in the US. That's not counting the other nationalities that cross the border.

[Moondazed]

I know it's been said before... I don't understand why the media pushes that it needs reform... why not try enforcing what's already there?  Sheesh!  Too bad voters aren't as attentive to the law enforcement officers who aren't doing so as they are to the cries of "close the borders!".

[RubySlippers]

And why are we assuming people coming here WANT to become US citizens what if they just want to come here, work and return home at some point.

Seems to me we can crank up immigration to make it practical to let people become citizens and like many countries should include their skills and assets as part of that. But we could make it easier to just come here to work and not seek citizenship if they wish. Why does it have to be all immigration or nothing but rather have options for both that encourage hard workers wanting to come here to fill labor gaps like in farming or domestic services so foreigners can earn a living and immigration to those that earn it through legal channels.

[Moondazed]

In theory that's fine... but what happens when one gets pregnant?  Who pays the medical bill?  What about injury?  Who pays that bill?  That's where they're so expensive... they aren't paying into the system so they are a drain on it.  If they were paying into it that would be different... but I'd be downright amazed to see anything change because companies will still want to be able to use them like cattle without any consideration for their needs.

[National Acrobat]

In theory that's fine... but what happens when one gets pregnant?  Who pays the medical bill?  What about injury?  Who pays that bill?  That's where they're so expensive... they aren't paying into the system so they are a drain on it.  If they were paying into it that would be different... but I'd be downright amazed to see anything change because companies will still want to be able to use them like cattle without any consideration for their needs.

Is it any wonder that there are people proposing the make a Constitutional Amendment that states if you are born in the US of parents who are illegally here, you are not automatically a citizen by your birth?

I actually expect that push to make some headway.

[Moondazed]

That makes sense to me... it doesn't make any sense that it's otherwise.