Illegal Immigration - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 11-10-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skutch

That is absurd.

That is cryptic.

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

... Did you check it out?

Defending our broken system isn't a way of saying illegal immigration is right.

I'd gladly pay 3x the amount I'm paying for vegetables if it meant that our system was working without paying subminimum wages to illegals.

Legality is a totally black or white area in statutory law. Enforcement of said laws, however, is not.

Illegal means a whole lot in the US. Ever dealt with the court system?

Rekna · 11-10-2007, 10:36 AM

Let's stop putting out the strawman that they don't pay taxes! It is a complete lie. Most illegals have a fake SS number, or have overstayed there visa and have a real SS number.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1e10ruben.html

Quote:

If Americans ever succeeded in getting rid of illegal immigrants – deporting those who are already here and preventing the entry of others – there would be an outcry from Latino activists, civil libertarians and the business community.

But that's nothing. Do you know who might really be furious? The Social Security Administration. If not for the billions in payroll taxes that illegal immigrants are paying into the system, the funding crisis facing Social Security would be much more serious and much more imminent. It is all thanks to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which made it a crime for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

True, the law is a joke that is rarely enforced, and that should bother the law-and-order crowd more than it does. But by forcing employers to require Social Security cards – even bogus ones – IRCA did manage to rope illegal immigrants into the system. Last year, contributions by illegal immigrants made up about 10 percent of the Social Security surplus – the difference between what the system takes in and what it doles out.

According to a recent story in The New York Times, the numbers are startling. But they help explain why the U.S. government has tolerated illegal immigration for so long. It's the same reason that someone visiting Las Vegas tolerates a slot machine spewing out silver dollars.

Here's the drill: People enter the country illegally, promptly procure bogus Social Security cards from the black market, and use them to get jobs. Eventually they get paid, and those earnings generate W-2s that go to the Social Security Administration, which tucks them away in something called the "earnings suspense file." (The government does try to notify some of the larger employers that Social Security cards they've accepted appear to be phony, but that's about the extent of its efforts to figure out where all this money is coming from.) According to the best estimates of the Social Security Administration, the fund has kept track over the last 20 years of more than $300 billion in total earnings – the vast majority of them attributable to illegal immigrants.

Three-hundred billion dollars! You have to admit that's pretty impressive in a country where no one will admit to actually hiring illegal immigrants in the first place.

But those are just the figures in a ledger. The hard currency is the Social Security taxes that illegal immigrants and their employers pay on those earnings. That rings in at about $7 billion a year. Which is why you don't hear the Social Security Administration raising a fuss over illegal immigration. And to the degree that this arm of the U.S. government has friends in Congress, it could explain why you don't see many pieces of legislation calling for mass deportations of illegal immigrants. I mean, why kill the golden goose?

There is a whole separate discussion about what we should do with this money. Some would use the funds to reimburse local schools and hospitals for services they provide to illegal immigrants. President Bush has the best idea: We should leave the money alone. Why? Well, simply put: Because it's not ours. It belongs to the people who earned it, even if they earned it using fake documents. After all, the fact that the documents were phony didn't stop the employer – the homebuilder, farmer or whatever – from using the labor at what was presumably an inexpensive rate so that he could profit. Why shouldn't workers profit from their own labor to the greatest degree possible?

And so perhaps the most promising element of President Bush's plan to reform the immigration system is his idea to, from this point forward, create 401(k)-type accounts where Mexican immigrant workers could invest part of their earnings. There the money would sit until the workers returned to Mexico, at which point they could draw it out. Bush's plan would put an end to the current system, and that's what hard-line conservatives hate about it. They're basically admitting that Social Security needs to rely on ill-gotten goods just to stay afloat.

It's amazing. Some of the same people who are constantly complaining about how illegal immigrants are the ruin of the civilization, including some Republicans in Congress, have no more qualms about letting them continue to prop up Social Security.

And people wonder why we have so much illegal immigration. Not me. I wonder why we don't have more of it.

Of course those that don't have SS numbers can still use a little known program to pay taxes and some do!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in549153.shtml

Quote:

AP) Ernesto Cuellar filed his taxes this year not just to report what he made from his $9-an-hour job as a house painter, but also, he hopes, to speed his path to becoming a legal resident of the United States.

Cuellar submitted his federal return using an increasingly popular tax number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to people who can't get Social Security numbers. Many, like Cuellar, are undocumented immigrants, causing concern among critics of U.S. immigration policy.

"By paying taxes, the government will be able to see that immigrants are contributing to the economy," said Cuellar, 35, who came from Mexico almost five years ago and now lives in San Francisco. "That record will hopefully help me in the future, as proof that I've been complying and filing" taxes.

The IRS has issued more than 6.8 million of the individual taxpayer identification numbers since 1996. Last year, it gave out almost 1.5 million, about 58 percent more than in 2000.

The government doesn't track how many undocumented immigrants have been issued the nine-digit numbers, and officials note that not everyone who seeks one is undocumented. Some are foreign students or researchers who are in the country under temporary, legal visas. By law, the agency is barred from routinely sharing data on taxpayers with federal immigration officials.

At the Midwest Tax Clinic in Chicago, director Salvador Gonzalez said about 150 people have come in and applied for the numbers in the last two years. Another 1,000 have applied at churches and community centers where the clinic reaches out to local residents.

"A lot of people, they want to become bona fide taxpayers," Gonzalez said.

The tax numbers also are being used for purposes beyond their original intent, to help people open bank accounts and get driver's licenses in some states.

That's put the IRS numbers in the middle of a debate over what to do about the estimated 9 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Advocates say allowing them to get financial services and drive legally makes communities safer for everyone. But critics argue the tax number just makes it easier for illegal immigrants, who shouldn't be in the United States in the first place, to meld into society.

Marti Dinerstein, president of the New York-based public policy firm Immigration Matters, said the numbers should be used for tax purposes only.

"I really don't think it is a smart thing for local and state governments to make it easier for illegal immigrants to reside and work and therefore stay in the United States," Dinerstein said. "It shows a total disrespect for the laws of the United States."

About 366,000 returns were filed using individual taxpayer identification numbers in 2001, according to IRS data from that year, the most recent information available. People with the tax numbers reported wages of almost $7 billion and paid almost $305 million in taxes, according to the IRS.

Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank and Washington Mutual already accept the numbers from people who want to open bank accounts.

"You've got undocumented workers here. Let's face it, they're going to be here and they take the jobs that no one else wants," said Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. "If they're going to be here, we'd rather have them in bank accounts than carrying around a lot of cash and being targeted for robbery and theft."

Wu hopes the IRS number will be used in the future to help make more financial services, such as mortgages or other loans, available to undocumented immigrants.

Utah, Rhode Island and North Carolina are among the states that accept the tax number from people applying for driver's licenses, and New Mexico recently passed a law to accept it starting this summer. Similar proposals are being considered in California and Illinois.

The number's popularity indicates how the nation's immigration policies have failed, said Michele Waslin, senior immigration policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

"Really, what banks and state and local governments have had to do is come up with creative solutions dealing with people who are living in the community," she said.

So lets see what illegals pay:

Do Illegals pay consumer taxes? Yes
Do Illegals pay property taxes? Yes (if they own property)
Do Illegals pay SS tax? Some do (if they are not working under the table)
Do Illegals who are working under the table pay SS? Some do

Illegals pay SS and medicaid but don't qualify for them! They pay consumer taxes which in many cases are the primary fund for education. I would bet there is more money lost due to unpaid taxes each year from US citizens working under the table than illegal immigrants.

Ustwo · 11-10-2007, 11:17 AM

Ummm who gives a crap if they pay taxes or not.

I love my magical mexicans that come and cut my lawn once a week. They are brown gifts from heaven who do a job I really hate to do.

But again so what.....

If the system is such that we have over 10 MILLION people in this country illegally the system is broken at some fundamental level. Either the concept is wrong, or the enforcement is poor. I think it should be obvious in this case its both.

So rather than responding in the typical cliched ways think about what aspect is important to you and defend that one.

Me, I'm for the guest worker concept. This will be of course opposed by the 'they took our jorbs' people, as well as the 'man the us is all immigrants man, whats your right to say man.', but I'll live with that.

ring · 11-10-2007, 12:35 PM

I think everyone starts to panic when the life raft gets full.

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Let's stop putting out the strawman...

Defending our broken system isn't a way of saying illegal immigration is right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I love my magical mexicans that come and cut my lawn once a week. They are brown gifts from heaven who do a job I really hate to do.

You can hire crackers, but they're not as fast.

abaya · 11-10-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I'd gladly pay 3x the amount I'm paying for vegetables if it meant that our system was working without paying subminimum wages to illegals.

Alright, well we're cool then. But most people in American probably would not agree.

Quote:

Legality is a totally black or white area in statutory law. Enforcement of said laws, however, is not.

Illegal means a whole lot in the US. Ever dealt with the court system?

Yes, this is a good point of clarification. I have dealt with the court system on occasion--but ONLY when I've been caught. A few speeding tickets here and there, but nothing like what I deserve for my illegal activities behind the wheel.

Perhaps what we should instead be saying is that these are Under-Enforced Illegal Immigrants, to get the point across. Because that IS the point... that America does its piddly best to "enforce" these immigration laws, but certainly not what is in our full capability to do, because it's not in our best economic and political interests to "enforce" these things. Here it is again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slate

If we thought illegal immigration was really a bad thing—if, say, the problem were the unlawful arrival not of workers, but of disease-bearing chickens—the government might rapidly deploy the most effective form of enforcement, with the support of all parts of society.

If we REALLY, REALLY cared that these people were breaking our laws (and by "we," I mean big business and politicians, the ones who actually have the power to do something here), they could do it. They could take severe action. But they aren't doing it. They don't particularly care if the immigrants are illegal, as long as they are doing what they're supposed to be doing: giving the US cheap labor. Continuing again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slate

But instead the nation tolerates illegal immigration to create a de facto guest-worker program. Immigration is what economists call "trade in services," and effective enforcement would make most services more expensive, just as blockading China would make many goods more expensive. It can be tough on low-wage workers, but the United States is richer overall because we get cheaper labor, while Mexicans and other workers are richer for selling it.

Can you argue with this? Where is this analysis wrong?

Ustwo · 11-10-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

If we REALLY, REALLY cared that these people were breaking our laws (and by "we," I mean big business and politicians, the ones who actually have the power to do something here), they could do it. They could take severe action. But they aren't doing it. They don't particularly care if the immigrants are illegal, as long as they are doing what they're supposed to be doing: giving the US cheap labor. Continuing again... Can you argue with this? Where is this analysis wrong?

Thats only part of it. The other part is that the hispanic voting block grows every year and no one wants to have them turn to one side only. So republicans and democrats alike rarely have the balls to do anything and those in the border states even less so.

Bush, Gore, and Kerry all did spots in Spanish, and it wasn't to tell them to stop coming over illegally.

abaya · 11-10-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So republicans and democrats alike rarely have the balls to do anything and those in the border states even less so.

Well, clearly we agree on this. That's what I meant by the "big business and politicians" bit... those are the ones who can do something, but they never will. It's not in their interests.

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 02:55 PM

For UsTwo:

Damn Aliens!

roachboy · 11-10-2007, 02:57 PM

if the "problem" is undocumented workers in this thread, how does this "issue" of a spanish-speaking voting bloc enter the picture?

so far as i can tell, it's non-sequitor.

Ustwo · 11-10-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if the "problem" is undocumented workers in this thread, how does this "issue" of a spanish-speaking voting bloc enter the picture?

so far as i can tell, it's non-sequitor.

You aren't thinking it through.

First there are cases of illegals voting, but lets pass that for now.

Do these people have friends, family, and the like who are legal? Are not some of the current legals former illegals? Why is it whenever we try to crack down on illegal aliens, so many legal hispanics protest it?

host · 11-10-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You aren't thinking it through.

First there are cases of illegals voting, but lets pass that for now.....

You've bought into the whole CNP/RNC "shebang", haven't you, Ustwo?

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17532.html
Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007

........Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.

That strategy, which presidential adviser Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.

McClatchy Newspapers has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:

* Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and <h3>the Lawyers Association</h3> were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.

* The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.

* The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.

Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.

Public records show that the two nonprofits were active in at least nine states. They hired high-priced lawyers to write court briefs, issued news releases declaring key cities "hot spots" for voter fraud and hired lobbyists in Missouri and Pennsylvania to win support for photo ID laws. In each of those states, the center released polls that it claimed found that minorities prefer tougher ID laws.

Armed with $1.5 million in combined funding, the two nonprofits attracted some powerful volunteers and a cadre of high-priced lawyers.

Of the 15 individuals affiliated with the two groups, at least seven are members of <h3>the Republican National Lawyers Association</h3>, and half a dozen have worked for either one Bush election campaign or for <h3>the Republican National Committee.</h3>

Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm was paid $75,000 for several months' service as the center’s executive director, said the funding came from private donors, not from the Republican Party.

One target of the American Center was the liberal-leaning voter registration group called Project Vote, a GOP nemesis that registered 1.5 million voters in 2004 and 2006. The center trumpeted allegations that Project Vote's main contractor, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), submitted phony registration forms to boost Democratic voting.

In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such action close to an election. Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.

<h3>"Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem," said Michael Slater</h3>, the deputy director of Project Vote, "And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients."

Mark "Thor" Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations. Vogel described him as "clearly the one in charge."

<h3>Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association</h3>, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they're former clients.

But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs. "Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort," Hearne said.

Hearne called photo IDs "an important voice in election reform."

Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.

As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page "investigative report" on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing "substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing."

So far, no charges have been filed.

Earlier, in August 2005, the Legislative Fund issued a string of press releases naming five cities as the nation's top "hot spots" for voter fraud. Philadelphia was tagged as No. 1, followed by Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis and Cleveland.

With a push from the center's lobbyists, legislatures in Missouri and Pennsylvania passed photo ID laws last year. Missouri's law was thrown out by the state Supreme Court, and Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania bill.

In an interview with the federal Election Assistance Commission last year, two Pennsylvania officials said they knew of no instances of voter identity fraud or voter registration fraud in the state.

<h3>Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.

But their influence could linger.</h3>

One of the directors of the American Center, <h3>Cameron Quinn, who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume</h3>, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

The division <h2>is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities.</h2>

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...in&oref=slogin
April 12, 2007
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, <h3>the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.</h3>

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”

For some convicted people, the consequences have been significant. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility.

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible.

The push to prosecute voter fraud figured in the removals last year of at least two United States attorneys whom Republican politicians or party officials had criticized for failing to pursue cases.

The campaign has roiled the Justice Department in other ways, as career lawyers clashed with a political appointee over protecting voters’ rights, and several specialists in election law were installed as top prosecutors.

Department officials defend their record. “The Department of Justice is not attempting to make a statement about the scale of the problem,” a spokesman, Bryan Sierra, said. “But we are obligated to investigate allegations when they come to our attention and prosecute when appropriate.”

Officials at the department say that the volume of complaints has not increased since 2002, but that it is pursuing them more aggressively.

Previously, charges were generally brought just against conspiracies to corrupt the election process, not against individual offenders, Craig Donsanto, head of the elections crimes branch, told a panel investigating voter fraud last year. For deterrence, Mr. Donsanto said, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales authorized prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

Some of those cases have baffled federal judges.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections.

Voter fraud is a highly polarized issue, with Republicans asserting frequent abuses and Democrats contending that the problem has been greatly exaggerated to promote voter identification laws that could inhibit the turnout by poor voters.

The New Priority

The fraud rallying cry became a clamor in the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election. Conservative watchdog groups, already concerned that the so-called Motor Voter Law in 1993 had so eased voter registration that it threatened the integrity of the election system, said thousands of fraudulent votes had been cast.

Similar accusations of compromised elections were voiced by Republican lawmakers elsewhere.

The call to arms reverberated in the Justice Department, where John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, was just starting as attorney general.

Combating voter fraud, Mr. Ashcroft announced, would be high on his agenda. But in taking up the fight, he promised that he would also be vigilant in attacking discriminatory practices that made it harder for minorities to vote.

“American voters should neither be disenfranchised nor defrauded,” he said at a news conference in March 2001.

Enlisted to help lead the effort was Hans A. von Spakovsky, a lawyer and Republican volunteer in the Florida recount. As a Republican election official in Atlanta, Mr. Spakovsky had pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats say those laws disproportionately affect the poor because they often mandate government-issued photo IDs or driver’s licenses that require fees.

At the Justice Department, Mr. Spakovsky helped oversee the voting rights unit. In 2003, when the Texas Congressional redistricting spearheaded by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was sent to the Justice Department for approval, the career staff members unanimously said it discriminated against African-American and Latino voters.

Mr. Spakovsky overruled the staff, said Joseph Rich, a former lawyer in the office. Mr. Spakovsky did the same thing when they recommended the rejection of a voter identification law in Georgia considered harmful to black voters. Mr. Rich said. Federal courts later struck down the Georgia law and ruled that the boundaries of one district in the Texas plan violated the Voting Rights Act.

Former lawyers in the office said Mr. Spakovsky’s decisions seemed to have a partisan flavor unlike those in previous Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.

“I understand you can never sweep politics completely away,” said Mark A. Posner, who had worked in the civil and voting rights unit from 1980 until 2003. “But it was much more explicit, pronounced and consciously done in this administration.”

At the same time, the department encouraged United States attorneys to bring charges in voter fraud cases, not a priority in prior administrations. The prosecutors attended training seminars, were required to meet regularly with state or local officials to identify possible cases and were expected to follow up accusations aggressively.

The Republican National Committee and its state organizations supported the push, repeatedly calling for a

crackdown click to show

Skutch · 11-10-2007, 03:48 PM

They might pay taxes, but they don't celebrate halloween. Now that's sad.

roachboy · 11-10-2007, 03:49 PM

i did think it through, ustwo, and i dont follow any of your connections.
you assume that there is a continuity between undocumented worker flows and flows of people who take up permanent residency--that's not been demonstrated and setting it up is nothing more or less than trying to slide the category of "illegal immigration" in by a back door--and makes no sense asa linkage that you could take for granted without any supporting information unless you are operating with "illegal immigration" as the way you organize information. i dont think the category is accurate, so these connections require demonstration.

demonstrations put on by spanish-speaking organizations against issues that effect undocumented workers can happen for any number of reasons--the fact that they happen is not enough to link undocumented workers to permanant residents. for example, a demo could be mounted because policies directed against undocumented workers often subject other folk to racist behaviors--which is one of the points of abaya's story above.
the problem there is the extent to which the category "illegal immigration" structures ambient racism in the states.
it says nothing about the extent to which these populations are connected--except in the imaginations of those who think about this sort of thing through fucked up categories like "illegal immigration"
so the problem is that the notion of illegal immigration is the problem.

that there are cases of "illegals voting" is irrelevant here.
so i agree with you that it's a good issue to leave aside.

host · 11-10-2007, 04:01 PM

rb, it is relevant in that exactly the opposite of what Ustwo asserts is an ancillary problem, is closer to the truth. The DOJ was subverted to devote huge resources to ferret out a partsinized "bogeyman", organized "illegal voting", that does not exist.

It is dark comedy, watching people vote for politicians who are committed, along with the people who vote for them, to the idea that government "cannot do anything right".

They are on record as having an entrenched belief that government is only effective in areas where their perceived interests and concerns lie. Why do they spend so much more money, compared to prior office holders who were committed to making government work better, then, on government that they don't believe in and are indifferent to the continuation or improvement of, even as they furiously partisanize it to here to fore unexperienced extremes?

They would not cotton to promoting generals who do not believe that the military can be an effective force, but they enthusiastically support the notion of people "running" the government who want to loot it as they dismantle it and make it look as if it is grossly incompetent in it's downward spiral that they've championed.

archetypal fool · 11-10-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

First secure the boarders (both of them not just medico). Then offer a path to citizenship to illegals who are here. This path should involve showing that they are 1) not a criminal (take finger prints, look at records, etc), 2) involve paying fines that are income based (that way not only those with money can go down this path), 3) that they can contribute to society by being sponsored by an employer. There would have to be provisions in this plan which would extend to people who are dependent on those described in the first 3 points, ie children, parents, disabled, etc.

Really we need to figure out where the problems lie. And it is my feeling that it doesn't lie in just 1 spot. Our immigration policy is to strict thus good immigrants can't get here and our border security is non-existent.

What won't help is fear mongering on illegals, making them felons, or throwing them in jail. They are here because they are trying to live the American dream. Most of these people are simply want what our forefathers wanted when they moved here

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

If we provide a path for them to do this legally many of them will take this path and those that don't we can come down on harder, if we had better security then it would be much harder for them to get here illegally. The key is to make this path in such a way that it is fair to everyone.

I like you, Rekna – it's exactly the way I feel.

I've always contributed to these illegal immigration topics in the past – some of you know my story. Evey time this topic comes up, you have your two groups: Those who want a way to grant amnesty to illegal immigrant already here, be it point-system, additional taxes, etc; and you have those who want to deport them all under the blanket assumption that they are a drain on society simply because of the label of “illegal”. To those who place themselves in the latter category, I've always asked the following question, which has never been answered by anyone in this category: If you were in the shoes of an illegal immigrant, would you not do the exact same thing? Really, try it. If you had a wife and kid, and your country didn't allow you the opportunity to support them, but you saw that you could get into the US, work for meager wages and send them back to feed you family, would you not choose this [illegal] action in lou of letting them starve to death?

I hate to quote myself, but I think I made myself more clear in a <a href=”http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=119181”>previous thread</a>:

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal_fool

I agree with mixedmedia on this one. On an earlier thread about immigration, which I can't seem to find, we tried to illustrate how the situation can't be seen as "all illegals are bad". This isn't the case at all. I don't know what good it's going to do to the thread, but put yourself in the shoes of an illegal immigrant. Why did you come here? Did you have another option? What about your family? Now that you're here, what's your priority? I shared in the previous thread the story of my family and friends. If you find it hard the imagine and rationalize what these illegal immigrants feel and experience as they are making the decision to break into the US, simply ask, and I'll write the story again.

It's easy to sit here in our comfortable environments, moderate economy, and great standard of living and feel contempt for these foreign peoples who are seemingly leaching off of America (which, I might add, isn't the case), if you don't know what it's like to be in their shoe, and you've never experienced what they have.

The blame lies in so many places, it's impossible to just say "to hell with illegal immigrants" (not putting words in anyone's mouth). The blame can be shared with foreign governments which don't care for their people enough to actually give them opportunities to work for a living to sustain their families. how can you blame the citizens for wanting to live? The blame lies partially with the US for previously (and contemporaneously) hurting the economic and political foundations of some foreign countries, to the point where they're so destabilized that citizens don't usually have a choice - It's either immigrate (illegally) into another country, or die, and let your family die too. There's neither the time nor the money to go about the process legally. If you have the time and the money, then you can't say you've been through what illegal immigrants have been through. Again...Live or die...It's a simple choice, especially when you have a wife and kids, and don't tell me for a second that you wouldn't make the exact same choice in a comparable situation.

Rekna · 11-11-2007, 08:25 AM

I'm not defending a broken system but pointing out the flaws in the arguments to deport all the illegal immigrants posted by the xenophobes. The system is broken on both sides and I posted earlier what I believe a good solution is. The number one thing is we have to treat people with respect.

It is my belief that the greatest human trait is empathy, people who can put themselves into others positions and see things from their point of view. I ask any of you who are anti immigrants to ask yourself. If you were born in a poor and corrupt nation, were taught the importance of family way more than it is in the US, and your family (parents, grandparents, wife, children, etc) were practically starving, and you had a chance to give them a better life by sneaking into another country where you would work jobs that the other country didn't want to work. Would you not go? Or would you not at least feel pride for those who did?

I wish every person in America would vote only after seeing the issues from all points of view and not just the a strictly liberal or conservative view.

host · 11-11-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

.....The number one thing is we have to treat people with respect.

It is my belief that the greatest human trait is empathy, people who can put themselves into others positions and see things from their point of view. I ask any of you who are anti immigrants to ask yourself. If you were born in a poor and corrupt nation, were taught the importance of family way more than it is in the US, and your family (parents, grandparents, wife, children, etc) were practically starving, and you had a chance to give them a better life by sneaking into another country where you would work jobs that the other country didn't want to work. Would you not go? Or would you not at least feel pride for those who did?

I wish every person in America would vote only after seeing the issues from all points of view and not just the a strictly liberal or conservative view.

What wage do you think dishwashers, farm, fast food, and retail workers, lawn maintenance workers, non-union construction workers, and workers in other low to medium skill service sectors would command, per hour, if the pool of illegals did not exist ?

There are no jobs that legal residents "don't want to work", only jobs filled with demand from willing, underbidding illegals:

Feds raided this New Bedford, Ma. defense contractor's factory and found 350 heavily exploited illegal workers:
http://www.projo.com/news/content/pr....25f7a41d.html

Local, legal residents then lined up at the factory to seek jobs replacing the illegal workers:

Quote:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...gory=SPECIAL21

Lax immigration hurts the poor

By Steve Kropper | March 22, 2007

SUPPOSE SOMEONE offered to import 350 foreign workers to New Bedford to work for less than the minimum wage. Since the unemployment rate is over 8 percent, we would expect public outrage. The city needs jobs, not more unskilled laborers. So it is no surprise that citizens seeking jobs started lining up at the Michael Bianco plant after Immigration and Customs Enforcement uncovered 350 illegal immigrants.

Similarly, after the Crider chicken-processing plant in Stillmore, Ga., was raided in January, it boosted wages and hired US citizens, according to the Wall Street Journal.

These are positive steps to reversing lax immigration policies that sacrifice economic mobility simply because illegal immigrants will work for less. Neither amnesty nor mass deportation is the solution. Instead, illegal border crossing will decline as news filters back about tighter enforcement. And the illegal population will fall if enforcement is consistent.

Contrary to popular belief, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. The victims may not have a voice, but they are low-paid, low-skilled American workers. Many are historically disadvantaged groups such as minorities and those with disabilities. . Some pundits use code words about the need to "control" wages. Whose wages? Carpenters? Child-care workers? House cleaners? Nurses? Why not teachers? The best way to raise wages for the poor is to restrict immigration. There are more illegal immigrants working in the United States than there are unemployed Americans who are looking for work or who have dropped out. Let's take care of our own first....

In Georgia, there is a massive influx of illegal, mostly Mexican immigrant workers. Georgia is one of only three states that has no minimum wage law of it's own, it defers to federal law, because it's legislature is controlled by a strong business lobby, happy to profit on downward wage pressure from the illegal pool of willing workers:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/whd/...ed.htm#Georgia

If you work for tips at, say a Waffle House anywhere in Georgia, (and there are probably several thousand, who do....) the recent minimum wage increase for non-tipped workers does not benefit you. Your base wage is still $2.13 per hour, the same it was in 1997. How much do you think a server can make per hour, in tips in a low priced menu environment? Do you suspect that, without the pool of competing, low cost labor, Georgia's legislature would find it neccessary to raise the tipped employee minimum wage to, say, where it is in Nevada, a state with no tip offset, where restaurant waitstaff make minimum wage, $5.85/hr now, or $3.72/hr more than in Georgia.

If many illegal workers were fortune 500 CEO's and CFO's, willing to work for a third of what American executives receive in compensation, how long do you think it would take for a "crack down" on the illegals?

It is generous of you to concede higher paying job opportunities to illegal workers, opportuinities that are not yours to concede, and do not hurt you.

Why do you think Mr. Bush supports an easy, non-punitive immigration policy? It is because it benefits his "base", handsomely. Their businesses profit nicely from a cheap compliant immigrant labor pool, and there is a ready pool of cheap domestic help available to make their living that much more pleasant.

I don't enjoy domestic help in my home, do you? Where would you ever get the idea that it is appropriate to give away the employment opportunities at market driven wages, of the least affluent Americans, rather than advocate for enforcing laws that would not artificially increase that labor pool and dilute wages and benefits, compared to conditions if the law was enforced?

Remember when this problem gained traffic. Reagan era amnesty for illegal workers was followed by a broken, 1986 commitment for the strict immigration law enforcement that accompanied the amnesty legislation.

I have to hold my nose to post the following opinion, but it is informative:

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n19377277/pg_3
How I rethought immigration: one man's confessions
National Review, June 25, 2007 by David Frum

..... I also began to learn that you could hardly name a social problem without discovering that immigration was aggravating it to the point of unsolvability.

Health insurance? Immigrants accounted for about one-quarter of the uninsured in the early 1990s, and about one-third of the increase in the uninsured population at that time.

Social spending? The Urban Institute estimated in 1994 that educating the children of illegal aliens cost the State of California almost $1.5 billion per year.

Wage pressure on the less-skilled? The wages of less-skilled Americans had come under ferocious pressure since 1970. How could you even begin to think about this issue without recognizing the huge immigration-driven increase in the supply of unskilled labor over the same period?

Competitiveness? How could the U.S. remain the world's most productive nation while simultaneously remixing its population to increase dramatically the proportion of poorly educated people within it?

A 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences found virtually zero net benefit to the U.S. economy from immigration. Immigration yielded benefits, true--but also costs in the form of lower wages and higher social-welfare burdens. Balance costs and benefits against each other, as a rational policymaker should, and you arrived at a favorable balance of $10 billion, less than a tenth of a percentage point in a $12 trillion economy.

And this favorable balance was composed in a way that would normally disturb a rational policymaker: The largest share of the benefits went to the immigrants themselves, and almost all of the rest to people at the top of society. Almost all of the costs were borne by people at the bottom.

As it happened, I myself was one of those winners. My green card came through in 1996. And by education and income, I belonged to the economic elite who profited so handsomely from the 1990s boom. Years later, my elder daughter would ask me to explain why immigration was so controversial. I tried to describe the debate as fairly as I could, explaining who was helped and who was injured. She absorbed my description, and then asked: "So Daddy, why are we against it?"

Of course I wasn't against it, not exactly. The right kind of immigration policy--one that opened the borders of nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia to moderate numbers of newcomers who knew the language, obeyed the law, shared national values, possessed useful skills, and paid more in taxes than they consumed in services--such an immigration seemed to me then and seems to me still a very good thing.....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n19377277/pg_4

.... At an elegant book party on a Connecticut lawn, one acquaintance smilingly explained her point of view: "How else will I get my flower beds done?"

Lord knows, I heard a lot of self-interest dressed up as public policy during my years as an editorial-page editor. But the flacks and lobbyists who pressed their clients' cases at least accepted some obligation to frame a convincing argument that what was good (for example) for the plastic-pail industry was good for America. With immigration, somehow the rules were different.

The class divide was widening in 1990s America; anybody with eyes could see that. Yet most of the ideas you heard for addressing this problem--trade protection, income redistribution--offered a cure worse than the disease. And immigration was worsening the inequality problem without offering any significant social benefit. The case for reform seemed more than overwhelming. It seemed compulsory....

.... Immigration was the greatest ideological qualm I had to overcome when I went to work for President George W. Bush. Who knew? Perhaps I might even be able to do some small measure of good. I knew the president's own convictions leaned toward open borders. But circumstances often push presidents in very different directions from those in which they at first intend to go.

And so it seemed to be happening in September 2001, when Vicente Fox paid his state visit to his great friend Jorge. The Mexican position on immigration was so aggressive, intransigent, and one-sided as to wreck negotiations before they could even begin. Days later, foreign terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. Now, I thought, change would have to come. The attacks revealed immigration not just as a crucial economic and social issue, but also as vital to national security. The 9/11 hijackers would have been caught a dozen times over by a society that enforced its immigration rules. Soon afterward, Americans were reading about bombings in Spain, murders in Amsterdam, and car burnings in Paris.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n19377277/pg_5

You might think that a trauma like 9/11 would have prompted a major rethink of its immigration policies by the Bush administration. You would think wrong. While enforcement was tightened in certain concentrated areas, elsewhere it actually relaxed. Immigration from the Middle East reached an all-time peak in 2005. Altogether, an estimated 8 million people settled in the U.S. in the first six years of the Bush administration, at least half of them illegally. In 2004, 2006, and now again in 2007, the president has attempted to push through legalization and guest-worker programs.

Neither the president nor his inner circle has ever cared to hear from dissenters on this issue. A hasty and careless economic calculus, a poorly considered political gamble, and self-righteous moral grandstanding have together pushed the president to the worst domestic political and policy error of his presidency.

It seems impossible that the immigration bill can succeed: A large majority of the American people claim to be following the immigration debate closely, and that majority opposes the immigration plan by a three-to-one majority. And when the bill collapses, it will take what little remains of the president's political capital with it. Did I say capital? No, that has long since been spent. It is his credit that he is now exhausting.

Out of this disaster, however, comes some hope. The national debate triggered by the Senate's catastrophic reform has accelerated the great rethinking of immigration on the part of many millions of Americans. The backroom deal that produced this latest law epitomized decades of collusion between the two parties to suppress open discussion of this vital issue. This time, at last, the collusion failed. Democracy has erupted. I'm ready to make my voice heard. How about you?

The preceding piece is a fascinating spectacle of Bush's own former speech writer, the man credited with coining the phrase, "axis of evil", railing against Bush's immigration policy goals.

My advice is to leave this issue to Bush and his party, for now. If the presidency changes hands next year, there will be an opportunity for "reform" that will put the interests of the least wealthiest 20 percent of American workers first, instead of the interests of the top 5 percent, and the perceived interests of the illegal aliens "who only come here looking for work to try to better themselves".

Understand that your advocacy for them makes the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans the winners, the least 20 percent legal US residents the losers, and continues to lure the most ambitious and impatient young foreigners into the US. Strict enforcement of existing laws and realistic penalties levied against employers who hire and profit from illegals, would remove the incentive for illegal workers to be here. Deportation would not be necessary if illegals could not find or keep jobs because of their status.

MSD · 11-11-2007, 01:05 PM

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll throw in my two cents. My proposed system is one in which everyone lines up, gets checked against databases of wanted criminals and known terrorists, and once we find they're not on the list they get a green card, a social security number, and can start working, paying taxes, and getting the same benefits as everyone else. If they're here illegally, they can have 3 months to get everything in order and get in line with everyone else. The only restriction is how quickly the paperwork can be processed. If you're caught being here illegally under such a liberal system, you're out for a few years. If you're caught again, you're out for good.

Anyone who completes a college degree in the US should automatically be given citizenship as a way to draw in a diverse crowd of college students and make sure that people who come here to learn can stay here and contribute to the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring

I think everyone starts to panic when the life raft gets full.

Fortunately, America is nowhere near full.

host · 11-11-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

.....Fortunately, America is nowhere near full.

So, as a consequence of your proposal, the underskilled, undereducated, less able...the vast numbers with below average intelligence quotients who are legal, can suck it up, with no compensation to offset the effect on wage rates of the huge increase to the legal pool of lower tier labor, as they did in the aftermath the last "great amnesty", in 1986, and later, when the promised, strict enforcement of existing laws", failed to materialize. The less advantaged can G-F-T, in other words.

Your amnesty is only a portion of the total effect of your proposal. The net effect, after all of the relatives of the predominantly young now illegal laborers you are extending amnesty to, also are admitted as permanent US residents, is a shitload of low skilled, working age folks.

<h3>As your amnesty progresses towards implementation, additional millions will find their way here in an attempt to qualify.</h3>

All of them, pressing against the hopes for higher wages and better employment opportunities of the legal residents. All of them, affecting only the lowest sector of employment, pushing down the wage rates of only that sector...the sector absolutely least able to absorb such an economic setback, a wealth and opportunity redistribution. Who benefits, why, the wealthiest among us, of course. As usual, it's "tough shit" for the least of us.

Good plan, such an expression of largess, with the meager opportunities for wealth accumulation, of the legal population with the least.

We communicate a policy where laws that are intended to maintain the same justice and opportunity for all who follow the law, and for those who break it, does not apply if you're fortunate enough to be an illegal immigrant, or Scooter Libby.
What does an amnesty communicate to those who followed procedure, waited in line, were separated by immigration restricitions from loved ones for long periods, who applied, were turned down, and then reapplied, and those who have been permanently separated due to denial of visa applications, if those who break the law, are given what you propose?

At the least, employers of illegals who profited handsomely between the spread on what they paid these workers, compared to what they charged for products and services (did new homes built by cheap illegal immigrant labor, result in cheaper prices passed on to consumers, than if higher priced legal laborers were hired?), will be rewarded for their lawbreaking or plain selfish greed. At most, changes in the law will hand them a new class of captive, low priced labor, kept docile and compliant by employer "sponsorship" provisions.

A lot to ignore, to arrive at such magnanimity, as you, and so many others have, if you think about it?

fish_oinc · 11-11-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albania

Hmm, any ideas that legislators and Latino immigrants would agree to… hmm: Amnesty for some.

Now I have a problem with this , If they should do this I want all the money I put out to make my wife a legal immigrant , It cost a lot and a ton of bull shit you have to go threw , I know why they come here as illegal as it a lot of red tape to do it legally I don’t hold that against them coming from an impoverished country , But if you give them amnesty I want my money back ,

rlbond86 · 11-11-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll throw in my two cents. My proposed system is one in which everyone lines up, gets checked against databases of wanted criminals and known terrorists, and once we find they're not on the list they get a green card, a social security number, and can start working, paying taxes, and getting the same benefits as everyone else. If they're here illegally, they can have 3 months to get everything in order and get in line with everyone else. The only restriction is how quickly the paperwork can be processed. If you're caught being here illegally under such a liberal system, you're out for a few years. If you're caught again, you're out for good.

This is similar to how I feel. I think the voters who support illegal workers would support this initiative in exchange for future strict border control. But you have to also allow immediate family green cards.

host · 11-11-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

This is similar to how I feel. I think the voters who support illegal workers would support this initiative in exchange for future strict border control. But you have to also allow immediate family green cards.

Where do you come by your arrogant observations, or are they more of a sign of oblivious innocence? You're fully supportive of giving away earning opportunities and worker protections that your great grand-father's generation fought so hard, and had their heads busted by company goons, to achieve.

MrSelfDestruct rounds it all out with his posted preference for tax "reform" that is regressive for the bottom half of the country's household, and is "only fair" to the wealthiest. Here's how some of the wealthiest got that way. They encouraged lax immigration enforcement and then "mined" the bodies that slipped in, cutting wages for the folks who had fought to achieve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and then turning them out when it suited them.

You have the luxury of "feeling", instead of examining. Why not give a green card to the illegal worker after you give him amnesty, and to his aunt and
first cousins, because they are his dependents, part of his household in Mexico.

Since there is no indication that your sympathies are with anyone but the illegals, consider that the illegals have priced American residents out of the jobs that they've taken:

Quote:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...215724,00.html
By Fernando Quintero, Rocky Mountain News
December 15, 2006

GREELEY - The line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant earlier this week was out the door Thursday.

Among them was Derrick Stegall, who carefully filled out paperwork he hoped would get him an interview and eventually land him a job as a slaughterer. Two of his friends had been taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and he felt compelled to fill their rubber boots.

"Luckily, they had no wives or family they left behind. But it was still sad. They left their apartments filled with all their stuff. I took two dogs one of them had. The other guy had a cat I gave to my sister," he said.

Greg Bonifacio heard about the job openings on television and brought his passport, his Colorado driver's license, his Social Security card and even a color photograph of himself as a young Naval officer to prove his military service.

"I don't want to hassle with any identification problems because of my last name," said Bonifacio, a 59- year-old Thornton resident of Filipino heritage.

As it turned out, the Colorado Workforce office that was taking applications did not require any identification.

That would come later for those who made it past the interview process.

Bonifacio was hoping to get a job in production or fabrication. So was Nathan Korgan, a former construction worker whose company closed and moved to California.

"I feel bad for the kids, but good for me," said Korgan of Tuesday's raid.

Like many others who had mixed emotions about the raid, Maxine Hernandez said she was upset that families were torn apart, but believes illegal immigrants should not get work using fake documents.

"I guess I'm in the middle," she said. "But I do think they should have planned (the raid) better so that innocent children wouldn't be left behind."

Hernandez, who had gone to the employment office because her husband was there to apply for unemployment insurance, decided to apply for a job at Swift on a whim.

"My whole family used to work there. My mom, my aunt, uncles," she said. "I guess it sort of runs in our blood."....

<h3>Consider that unionized Hormel workers, doing the same $12.00/hour jobs described in the following article, were paid $10.69 a fucking hour, in 1984, and that was 23 fucking years ago. I wish that you would wake up and see what is happening here. Greedy fucking pig executives, lobbying to keep their penalties light as they lobby for lax immigration enforcement and amnesty. It keeps wages down, divides communties along ethnic and economic lines, and it sure as shit makes for a compliant workforce that lives an "underground" mindset and would never dare to express the militancy necessary to overcome the hurdles of unionizing. The "icing" on the cake is Bush's total makeover of the NLRB...only management is represented.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us...at&oref=slogin

October 12, 2007
Crackdown Upends Slaughterhouse’s Work Force
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

TAR HEEL, N.C. — Last November, immigration officials began a crackdown at Smithfield Foods’s giant slaughterhouse here, eventually arresting 21 illegal immigrants at the plant and rousting others from their trailers in the middle of the night.

Since then, more than 1,100 Hispanic workers have left the 5,200-employee hog-butchering plant, the world’s largest, leaving it struggling to find, train and keep replacements.

Across the country, the federal effort to flush out illegal immigrants is having major effects on workers and employers alike. Some companies have reluctantly raised wages to attract new workers following raids at their plants.

After several hundred immigrant employees at its plant in Stillmore, Ga., were arrested, Crider Poultry began recruiting Hmong workers from Minnesota, hiring men from a nearby homeless mission and providing free van transportation to many workers.

So far, Smithfield has largely replaced the Hispanics with American workers, who often leave poorly paid jobs for higher wages at the plant here. But the turnover rate for new workers — many find the work grueling and the smell awful — is twice what it was when Hispanics dominated the work force.

Making Smithfield’s recruiting challenge even harder is the fact that many local residents have worked there before and soured on the experience. As a result, Smithfield often looks far afield for new employees.

Fannie Worley, a longtime resident of Dillon, S.C., a largely African-American town of sagging trailers and ramshackle bungalows, quit her $5.25-an-hour, part-time job making beds at a Days Inn motel four months ago to take a $10.75-an-hour job at Smithfield. But Ms. Worley remains ambivalent.

“It pays a lot better,” she said. “But the trip is too long.”

Around 1 p.m. each day, C. J. Bailey, a Smithfield worker, picks up Ms. Worley and 10 other employees in his big white van. They arrive at the plant around 2:15, and he drops them back home after 1 a.m.

Several of the newly hired workers in the van — they pay $40 a week for the ride — said they were thinking of quitting, unhappy about having to commute so far and work so hard. <h3>At the plant, where the pay averages around $12 an hour, many spend hour after hour slitting hogs’ throats, hacking at shoulders and carving ribs and loins.</h3> At the end of their shifts, many workers complain that their muscles are sore and their minds are numb.

Employee turnover has long been a problem at Smithfield and other meat-processing plants, but the problem has grown worse recently. Dennis Pittman, a Smithfield spokesman, said 60 percent of the new workers quit within 90 days of being hired, compared with 25 percent to 30 percent two years ago when many new employees were illegal immigrants.

“I’ve heard officials from a couple of other meat processors say they’ve never seen such high turnover with new workers,” Mr. Pittman said.

Several Southern companies have raised wages to attract new workers after immigration raids. “But that’s not the first thing that employers are going to do,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “They’re going to try to cast their net wider before they do something that will raise costs.”

Smithfield, for example, has run a flood of television advertisements boasting that the company is a good, safe place to work. The advertisements aim to persuade Carolinians to apply for jobs and to counter arguments made by a union trying to organize the plant that Smithfield jobs are high stress and unsafe, with stingy benefits.

One of the toughest challenges, Mr. Pittman said, has been training new employees to handle the highest-skilled jobs at a plant that processes 30,000 hogs a day.

“The big problem is we lost a lot of people who were there a long time,” Mr. Pittman said. “We have been facing difficulties in hiring for a number of years, because as the economy got better, the labor market became much tighter.”

When the plant opened in 1992, the area’s jobless rate was high because tobacco was in retreat and textile mills were closing. Early on, most employees were black. That changed with an influx of Hispanic immigrants, most of them Mexicans, in the mid-1990s.

Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute for Southern Studies, said the Hispanics should not be viewed as shoving blacks aside, because the plant had such high turnover.

“It’s not as if these jobs were stable sources of employment for creating a black middle class,” Mr. Kromm said.

The way Hector David, a longtime worker from Mexico who quit in February, sees it, Smithfield had been eager to hire Hispanics because they worked so hard. “The Americans just don’t work as well,” Mr. David said. “In Mexico, we work from the age of 5 in the corn fields. We’re used to working hard.”

The New York Times wrote about the sometimes uneasy relations between blacks and Hispanics at the Smithfield plant as part of a 2000 series that examined race relations in the United States.

Mr. Pittman said Smithfield did its best to ensure that immigrant employees had legitimate documentation. But many workers said Smithfield did not look too hard at the paperwork.

Last November, the company notified 640 employees that their identity information did not match government records. In January, federal agents arrested 21 workers at the plant, and in August, helped by information the company provided, agents arrested 28 more, many at home.

Mr. Pittman said cooperating with immigration officials “serves our goal of 100 percent compliance 100 percent of the time.” But for many families, the cooperation has come at a price.

Tears came to Maritza Cruz’s eyes as she described the scene when immigration agents banged on her trailer door at 3 a.m. and arrested her husband, Alejandro, who faces deportation. “Everyone is very scared, especially after they arrested people at their homes,” said Mrs. Cruz, who has four children and is on maternity leave from the plant.

The company and its employees are not the only ones affected by the crackdown.

Since the enforcement actions began, said Jazmin Gastelum, owner of a local Christian bookstore, La Tierra Prometida, business from Hispanic customers has plunged 40 percent at her store and two nearby Hispanic groceries. “A lot of people are going back to Mexico,” Ms. Gastelum said. “And a lot who haven’t moved are scared to go outside.”

As for the workers who remain at the plant, many wonder why so many new employees come from South Carolina. Gene Bruskin, the director of the unionization campaign, sees a simple explanation.

“Thousands and thousands of workers from North Carolina have come through the plant, and they left, saying, ‘No way,’ because they were injured or didn’t want to work in such an oppressive atmosphere,” Mr. Bruskin said. “This plant burned up a large number of people, and the word got around about their bad experiences.”

Mr. Pittman said Smithfield had hired many workers from South Carolina because the counties close to the plant had a low unemployment rate.

The immigration arrests have also created problems for the union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has spent 15 years seeking to organize the plant.

“A lot of the people who left or were detained were strong union supporters,” said Gabriel Lopez Rivera, a Smithfield worker.

Mr. Bruskin, the union official, added, “It’s extremely difficult for workers to stand up for their rights when they’re threatened with arrest or deportation.”

The Tar Heel workers voted against unionizing in 1994 and 1997, but the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Smithfield had broken the law by intimidating and firing union supporters.

The company has called for a new election, but the union instead wants Smithfield to accept unionization through a majority sign-up, a process that would give management less opportunity to pressure workers. .....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ubjects/M/Meat
Minnesota Hormel Plant Gains Union Control

AP
Published: July 19, 1987

LEAD: Workers at the flagship plant of Geo. A. Hormel & Company have regained control of their union local 14 months after the union's international unit placed the local in trusteeship and removed its officers for refusing to end a strike.

Workers at the flagship plant of Geo. A. Hormel & Company have regained control of their union local 14 months after the union's international unit placed the local in trusteeship and removed its officers for refusing to end a strike.

''We have reached a point where we have done all the things that needed to be done and wanted to do,'' Ken Kimbro, a deputy trustee of the Hormel unit, Local 9 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said after the union regained control Thursday. ''It's time for the members of this local to elect officials to run this local.''

Revisions in the bylaws this month changed the local's name from P-9. Its members struck after Hormel imposed a 23 percent wage cut that officials said was necessary to remain competitive.

The walkout by 1,400 local members, which started in August 1985, pitted family against family and friend against friend in this southern Minnesota town of about 23,000 people. 'Rebuilding Our Union'

''It's been a long, drawn-out affair with the strike, but we're in the process of rebuilding our union,'' said John Anker, a 22-year Hormel employee who was elected president Wednesday.

Mr. Anker was among the union members who crossed the picket line to return to work when Hormel began hiring replacements for the strikers in January 1986.

The international initially sanctioned the strike but later accused the local union leaders of conducting a ''suicide mission.'' After it imposed the trusteeship in May 1986, the international negotiated a three-year contract with Hormel under which workers received $10 an hour, <h3>a reduction from the $10.69 base wage they received before Hormel instituted the wage cut in October 1984. The contract will pay workers $10.70 an hour in the third year.</h3>

The local president ousted by the international, Jim Guyette, contends that the changes in the bylaws, proposed by the international and adopted unanimously, will put too much power in the new president's hands. Control Is Debated

Mr. Guyette said they would take control away from members, ''putting it in the hands of one person,'' which the international ''can manipulate and control.''

A spokesman for the international, Al Zack, said the union prided itself on its democratic principles.

The local's new contract did not include a guarantee that former strikers would be recalled to work, and none have been, according to Deryl Arnold, the plant manager. About 600 are on the recall list.

I do mean to pick on you guys, but it isn't just you two who lack perspective of where we've been and where we're going. In some states, 50 percent do not graduate high school. If you dilute the labor force by permitting illegals to stay and work here, the result is lower pay, bigger profits for a few, and a society of already strapped lower ninety percent...the rest of us", who only own 30 percent of total US wealth, as it is.

Sheesh ! I'm not a radical. My father was a career labor relations lawyer, he represented management in contract negotiations, but he believed in respecting workers right to organize. I've been a union shop steward, and I've also been a business owner. I see almost no posted perspectives, on these threads that is fair or sustainable, or cognizant of today's economic conditions, as far as support for labor or for more equitable wealth distribution.

All I see are folks who supported politicians who told them that government is ineffective, it doesn't work....but there they were, wanting to run it, and make gains for themselves and their cronies, as they ran the government they mismanaged, into the ground.

Now, a number of you want to elect the most fervent, anti "big government" candidate for president, because, he's honest.

He still hates government. Why would you want to elect him to run it? You wouldn't hire a football coach who didn't believe coaching players, and you wouldn't want a general who didn't believe that a military force could be organized and managed to be effective and efficient.

<h3>We have a huge and growing trend of wealth imbalance, and the solution...do away with progressive income taxes, and legalize a huge pool of docile, illegal workers who work for much less than the American residents. Way to go !!</h3>
I do not see coherent sets of ideas posted in this forum, and the ones that are posted are supported by links to, what?????

rlbond86 · 11-11-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Where do you come by your arrogant observations, or are they more of a sign of oblivious innocence? You're fully supportive of giving away earning opportunities and worker protections that your great grand-father's generation fought so hard, and had their heads busted by company goons, to achieve.

MrSelfDestruct rounds it all out with his posted preference for tax "reform" that is regressive for the bottom half of the country's household, and is "only fair" to the wealthiest. Here's how some of the wealthiest got that way. They encouraged lax immigration enforcement and then "mined" the bodies that slipped in, cutting wages for the folks who had fought to achieve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and then turning them out when it suited them.

You have the luxury of "feeling", instead of examining. Why not give a green card to the illegal worker after you give him amnesty, and to his aunt and
first cousins, because they are his dependents, part of his household in Mexico.

Since there is no indication that your sympathies are with anyone but the illegals, consider that the illegals have priced American residents out of the jobs that they've taken:

<h3>Consider that unionized Hormel workers, doing the same $12.00/hour jobs described in the following article, were paid $10.69 a fucking hour, in 1984, and that was 23 fucking years ago. I wish that you would wake up and see what is happening here. Greedy fucking pig executives, lobbying to keep their penalties light as they lobby for lax immigration enforcement and amnesty. It keeps wages down, divides communties along ethnic and economic lines, and it sure as shit makes for a compliant workforce that lives an "underground" mindset and would never dare to express the militancy necessary to overcome the hurdles of unionizing. The "icing" on the cake is Bush's total makeover of the NLRB...only management is represented.</h3>

I do mean to pick on you guys, but it isn't just you two who lack perspective of where we've been and where we're going. In some states, 50 percent do not graduate high school. If you dilute the labor force by permitting illegals to stay and work here, the result is lower pay, bigger profits for a few, and a society of already strapped lower ninety percent...the rest of us", who only own 30 percent of total US wealth, as it is.

Sheesh ! I'm not a radical. My father was a career labor relations lawyer, he represented management in contract negotiations, but he believed in respecting workers right to organize. I've been a union shop steward, and I've also been a business owner. I see almost no posted perspectives, on these threads that is fair or sustainable, or cognizant of today's economic conditions, as far as support for labor or for more equitable wealth distribution.

All I see are folks who supported politicians who told them that government is ineffective, it doesn't work....but there they were, wanting to run it, and make gains for themselves and their cronies, as they ran the government they mismanaged, into the ground.

Now, a number of you want to elect the most fervent, anti "big government" candidate for president, because, he's honest.

He still hates government. Why would you want to elect him to run it? You wouldn't hire a football coach who didn't believe coaching players, and you wouldn't want a general who didn't believe that a military force could be organized and managed to be effective and efficient.

<h3>We have a huge and growing trend of wealth imbalance, and the solution...do away with progressive income taxes, and legalize a huge pool of docile, illegal workers who work for much less than the American residents. Way to go !!</h3>
I do not see coherent sets of ideas posted in this forum, and the ones that are posted are supported by links to, what?????

You're one to talk, host. I don't see a suggestion of what to do in your post, just criticism. How do you think we can solve the problem? We surely can't kick them out -- we don't have the resources, and there's not political support for it.

Yes, there are some people who will get away with what they've done. But, it would be possible to stop illegal immigration COMPLETELY after offering amnesty, all with the support of the pro-illegal immigrant demographic.

You are complaining that it's not fair, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's not a way to eliminate all the problems that illegal workers has created.

Can you do better?

host · 11-11-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

You're one to talk, host. I don't see a suggestion of what to do in your post, just criticism. How do you think we can solve the problem? We surely can't kick them out -- we don't have the resources, and there's not political support for it.

Yes, there are some people who will get away with what they've done. But, it would be possible to stop illegal immigration COMPLETELY after offering amnesty, all with the support of the pro-illegal immigrant demographic.

You are complaining that it's not fair, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's not a way to eliminate all the problems that illegal workers has created.

Can you do better?

You must have missed my opinion of a solution. It's at the bottom of post #59 pn this thread:

Quote:

......Strict enforcement of existing laws and realistic penalties levied against employers who hire and profit from illegals, would remove the incentive for illegal workers to be here. Deportation would not be necessary if illegals could not find or keep jobs because of their status.

Prosecute everyone who benefits economically from this assault on our society, with an investigative and enforcement preference against those paying for the labor of illegals.

Make it so the risk isn't worth it anymore. they cross our borders illegally for job opportunities. Eliminate the reason they come here illegally.

I have a friend who has lived in the US illegally for 15 years. He's been employed here the entire time. He just returned after a trip back to his home country, his first in 11 years.

To leave here, he simply went to the airport in the US and flew non-stop to his home city. To return to the US, he had to hire a "coyote" to get him across the border, and once across, he had to hire "underground" van transportation to a northern west coast city. He was too concerned about immigration enforcement to take a bus or a train to back here in the east, so he borrowed money from a sister living legally in the US, to pay the exorbitant fee of the same, underground van service, for the privilege of sitting for 4 days in a windowless cargo van, packed with other illegals, as it dropped them off in cities one at a time, all across the US. He had the misfortune of being the last to be dropped off.

My solution? Make it as hard of a task to hire an illegal alien, in addition to the risk of stiff penalties if you're caught employing them, as it was for my friend to return to his home of 15 years. Now, they're doing it right out in the open. The easiest part of my friend's return was finding a job. I don't want to see my friend forced by our government to return to his home country. He'll leave on his own if he can't find someone to look the other way at the questionable documentation he provides to a US employer to obtain a job.

He is unhappy here, and it isn't the poverty at home that brings him here. He's here because Americans are willing to employ him, even though he does not have the legal right to work, or even be, in the US.

It was inconvenient for my friend to come back here, security is much tighter than it was 11 years ago, when he last returned to the US.

The US employers have not begun to be harrassed by authorities for what they have been doing....let's inconvenience them, by enforcing the laws.

Huge numbers of illegals were employed by home builders during the recent housing boom. The high profile builder with a national presence, simply hired "subs" who employed the illegals. Federal, state and local govenment has made a practice of doing the same thing.

Bears used to be a much bigger menace in high traffic areas in some national parks, than they are today. Securing access to food sources, education to promote public awareness, and fining those who still fed the bears, anyway, drastically reduced the bears incentive to forage in popullated areas instead of hunting and foraging in the wild.

I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I'm not comparing illegal aliens to bears. I am pointing out how stopping the incentive to intrude will drastically reduce the intrusion.

Infinite_Loser · 11-11-2007, 09:22 PM

If anyone within the United States should "hate" illegal immigration, it's blacks as they're the ones who are immediately hurt by the influx of illegals (Job wise). No one else should have any real argument against illegal immigration, as they help the overall economy far more than they hurt it.

*Goes back to being a silent observer*

host · 11-11-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

If anyone within the United States should "hate" illegal immigration, it's blacks as they're the ones who are immediately hurt by the influx of illegals (Job wise). No one else should have any real argument against illegal immigration, as they help the overall economy far more than they hurt it.

*Goes back to being a silent observer*

Can you support your "they help the overall economy far more than they hurt it." with anything that you can point me to?

Ustwo · 11-12-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Can you support your "they help the overall economy far more than they hurt it." with anything that you can point me to?

http://www.ggu.edu/about/headlines/a...-+Connelly.pdf

http://www.masslive.com/news/republi...mmigrants.html

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2006/...he-us-economy/

But anyways, I found your marching orders ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/9/74030/4379
(man I feel dirty now)

But when you want to come mow my lawn, let me know.

Willravel · 11-12-2007, 09:43 AM

Its common sense that they add a lot on to the gdp because they do more work for less money. That's incredibly valuable.

flstf · 11-12-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

So, as a consequence of your proposal, the underskilled, undereducated, less able...the vast numbers with below average intelligence quotients who are legal, can suck it up, with no compensation to offset the effect on wage rates of the huge increase to the legal pool of lower tier labor, as they did in the aftermath the last "great amnesty", in 1986, and later, when the promised, strict enforcement of existing laws", failed to materialize. The less advantaged can G-F-T, in other words.

Your amnesty is only a portion of the total effect of your proposal. The net effect, after all of the relatives of the predominantly young now illegal laborers you are extending amnesty to, also are admitted as permanent US residents, is a shitload of low skilled, working age folks.

I agree with this analysis. There are many people from poor countries who are willing to work for slave wages and many employers here who are willing to hire them. If the managers and higher paid (skilled) workers from these companies were losing their jobs there would be a large outcry to stop it. Its as if we believe that lowering the wages of our blue collar workers is good for the rest of us.

I wonder what the reaction would be from our white collar workers if we allowed an influx of illegals that cut their wages and benefits in half? Would we be talking about the advantages of lower prices for those of us still able to make a decent wage? Maybe that is the next step, after all it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do most of the paper shuffling jobs in corporate America. Lower wages = lower prices + higher profits, what could possibly go wrong?

Ustwo · 11-12-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree with this analysis. There are many people from poor countries who are willing to work for slave wages and many employers here who are willing to hire them. If the managers and higher paid (skilled) workers from these companies were losing their jobs there would be a large outcry to stop it. Its as if we believe that lowering the wages of our blue collar workers is good for the rest of us.

I wonder what the reaction would be from our white collar workers if we allowed an influx of illegals that cut their wages and benefits in half? Would we be talking about the advantages of lower prices for those of us still able to make a decent wage? Maybe that is the next step, after all it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do most of the paper shuffling jobs in corporate America. Lower wages = lower prices + higher profits, what could possibly go wrong?

You know, I think this is the first time we are on completely opposite sides on something flstf. I'm generally against protectionism and that includes job protectionism. When a foreign company buys a US one, few worry about the plight of the executives displaced, you get some about American interests, and the like but no one really cares about they management guy now out of work. I'm also not saying they should care, and while they may make less money, these tend to be skilled people who can find a job elsewhere even if its less pay.

Now, the problem we are talking about here are unskilled workers, the bottom of the labor food chain, being replaced by mexicans. Lets not beat around the bush and say its illegal immigrants, its Mexicans mostly. They work hard, generally show up for work, and stay out of trouble. Not all of course, but having worked in food service for several years while in school, despite having half the kitchen staff being mexicans of unknown legality, the problem employees tended to be the non-mexicans, mostly for theft or not showing up for work.

With the "Everyone is special" mentality the last few generations have had, few are willing to do what amounts to a lowskill dirty job for any sane amount of pay. They might have no viable job skills, but work at McDonalds, do yard work, pick crops? Not me man!

Whats interesting is just how many these legals and illegals I've known who have made SOMETHING of themselves. Minimal state assistance, and yet they created their own American dreams from hard work.

I have to wonder if thats perhaps what scares some members of the left. Where did this 'nationalism' come from on the left where suddenly they are worried about US citizens? Could it be that America still works, and it doesn't require a pile of socialist programs to work for even the 'lowest' members of the economic food chain?

Perhaps these people are an embarrassment to some mindsets of the left where it shows their socialist programs are unneeded to succeed in America. They then wrap their arguments in an almost jingoistic reactionary veneer of protecting American jobs.

My only desire is to keep it fair competition wise. Thats why I support a guest worker system where paying under the table (aka tax free) can be lessoned and VERY stiff fines for those using illegals to avoid taxation. Take out the taxes and I can hire an illegal for less while paying him MORE than I would a citizen which isn't fair competition.

dksuddeth · 11-12-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I wonder what the reaction would be from our white collar workers if we allowed an influx of illegals that cut their wages and benefits in half?

where were you during the high point of the H1B visa debacle?

not that THEY were illegal, but the point is basically the same. The government promoting an outside source of cheaper labor for specific industries.

flstf · 11-12-2007, 02:54 PM

Ustwo,

I have mixed feelings about all this. I have worked in Mexico and here with high tech Mexicans who are very good at their jobs and very hard working. Before I retired and moved I was good friends with several and spent a lot of time with them and their families. I guess one of the reasons I disagree with allowing uncontrolled illegal immigration is observing what happens in the rural area in which I now live. There are a lot of blue collar type jobs here and wages have taken a hit from illegal competition.

A friend of mine in the roofing/painting business claims he is forced to hire illegals because his competitors do and otherwise his bids would be too high. He also claims that the Mexicans he hires do great work and do not hesitate to work long hours and weekends unlike the locals he hires and work for much less money and do not insist on benefits. Unlike locals he hires they are genuinely glad to have a job and will go overboard to keep it.

What are we to do with the local blue collar types when their wages and benefits are reduced this way. Not everyone can be a professional and improve their job outlook. I spent 30 years as an Engineer and I wonder how I would have handled being told that I now have to work for much less with no benefits because of an illegal labor pool. When I was young I worked for a summer or two as a laborer on construction sites and would not wish this back breaking work for anyone but there are people who need this type of work. It seems unfair to allow an illegal immigation policy that makes wages even lower for them and discourages employers from giving any benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

where were you during the high point of the H1B visa debacle?

not that THEY were illegal, but the point is basically the same. The government promoting an outside source of cheaper labor for specific industries.

Back in the 70s and early 80s I worked for some large Engineering/Construction companies who had more work than they could handle designing and building oil refineries and associated facilities. It was like working at the United Nations as there were engineers and designers from all over the world. They generally worked for much less but the wages stayed high because of the lack of skilled workers required for the backlog in contracts. At the peak, one company I worked for had a need for 5000 additional technical workers they could not fill.

ottopilot · 11-30-2007, 04:42 AM

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have to wonder if thats perhaps what scares some members of the left.

It doesn't scare this flower child one bit. I, like you, have worked in industries that are saturated with "Mexicans" (or undocumented guest workers), and I've found that they really do a fantastic job. I only did landscaping for a few years, but I'm still in contact with a lot of my former co-workers. Juan-Carlos, a Honduran (btw, be careful drinking REAL Honduran coffee) came over here with nothing. He was a victim of a horrible economy at home and high crime rates, so he fled here to the US. He worked hard, earned low wages, but was promoted quickly to an assistant foreman (immediately under me) and after I left he took my position which paid $15 an hour. Now, he' starting his own company and already has great connections he's drawing on. After he establishes his company here, he will move back to Honduras and briber his way into the applicant system in order to become an American.

He worked harder than everyone else around him (combined), was very happy with wages that are low by American standards but high by Honduran standards, and is embarking on what looks to be a very promising career as an owner of a landscaping company.

Had he been chased out by Minutemen or turned in to INS, none of this could have happened. Opportunities like those he's taken advantage of here in the US simply don't exist in Honduras, and I can't imagine anyone saying that he doesn't deserve the same opportunities as me simply because he had the misfortune of being born outside of the US. He does deserve them, and I respect him for taking full advantage of them.

I support immigration reform because the only way Juan-Carlos could become an American was by breaking the law. Ideally, I'd like open boarders, but if a system was put in place that didn't make it nearly impossible to get into the US, I think it'd be a good start.

11-10-2007, 11:17 AM	#44 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ummm who gives a crap if they pay taxes or not. I love my magical mexicans that come and cut my lawn once a week. They are brown gifts from heaven who do a job I really hate to do. But again so what..... If the system is such that we have over 10 MILLION people in this country illegally the system is broken at some fundamental level. Either the concept is wrong, or the enforcement is poor. I think it should be obvious in this case its both. So rather than responding in the typical cliched ways think about what aspect is important to you and defend that one. Me, I'm for the guest worker concept. This will be of course opposed by the 'they took our jorbs' people, as well as the 'man the us is all immigrants man, whats your right to say man.', but I'll live with that. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-10-2007, 02:55 PM	#50 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	For UsTwo: Damn Aliens! __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-10-2007, 02:57 PM	#51 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if the "problem" is undocumented workers in this thread, how does this "issue" of a spanish-speaking voting bloc enter the picture? so far as i can tell, it's non-sequitor. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-10-2007, 03:49 PM	#55 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i did think it through, ustwo, and i dont follow any of your connections. you assume that there is a continuity between undocumented worker flows and flows of people who take up permanent residency--that's not been demonstrated and setting it up is nothing more or less than trying to slide the category of "illegal immigration" in by a back door--and makes no sense asa linkage that you could take for granted without any supporting information unless you are operating with "illegal immigration" as the way you organize information. i dont think the category is accurate, so these connections require demonstration. demonstrations put on by spanish-speaking organizations against issues that effect undocumented workers can happen for any number of reasons--the fact that they happen is not enough to link undocumented workers to permanant residents. for example, a demo could be mounted because policies directed against undocumented workers often subject other folk to racist behaviors--which is one of the points of abaya's story above. the problem there is the extent to which the category "illegal immigration" structures ambient racism in the states. it says nothing about the extent to which these populations are connected--except in the imaginations of those who think about this sort of thing through fucked up categories like "illegal immigration" so the problem is that the notion of illegal immigration is the problem. that there are cases of "illegals voting" is irrelevant here. so i agree with you that it's a good issue to leave aside. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-10-2007, 04:01 PM	#56 (permalink)
host Banned	rb, it is relevant in that exactly the opposite of what Ustwo asserts is an ancillary problem, is closer to the truth. The DOJ was subverted to devote huge resources to ferret out a partsinized "bogeyman", organized "illegal voting", that does not exist. It is dark comedy, watching people vote for politicians who are committed, along with the people who vote for them, to the idea that government "cannot do anything right". They are on record as having an entrenched belief that government is only effective in areas where their perceived interests and concerns lie. Why do they spend so much more money, compared to prior office holders who were committed to making government work better, then, on government that they don't believe in and are indifferent to the continuation or improvement of, even as they furiously partisanize it to here to fore unexperienced extremes? They would not cotton to promoting generals who do not believe that the military can be an effective force, but they enthusiastically support the notion of people "running" the government who want to loot it as they dismantle it and make it look as if it is grossly incompetent in it's downward spiral that they've championed. Last edited by host; 11-10-2007 at 04:03 PM..

11-10-2007, 12:35 PM	#45 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I think everyone starts to panic when the life raft gets full.

11-10-2007, 03:48 PM	#54 (permalink)
Skutch Crazy	They might pay taxes, but they don't celebrate halloween. Now that's sad.

11-11-2007, 08:25 AM	#58 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm not defending a broken system but pointing out the flaws in the arguments to deport all the illegal immigrants posted by the xenophobes. The system is broken on both sides and I posted earlier what I believe a good solution is. The number one thing is we have to treat people with respect. It is my belief that the greatest human trait is empathy, people who can put themselves into others positions and see things from their point of view. I ask any of you who are anti immigrants to ask yourself. If you were born in a poor and corrupt nation, were taught the importance of family way more than it is in the US, and your family (parents, grandparents, wife, children, etc) were practically starving, and you had a chance to give them a better life by sneaking into another country where you would work jobs that the other country didn't want to work. Would you not go? Or would you not at least feel pride for those who did? I wish every person in America would vote only after seeing the issues from all points of view and not just the a strictly liberal or conservative view.

11-11-2007, 09:22 PM	#67 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	If anyone within the United States should "hate" illegal immigration, it's blacks as they're the ones who are immediately hurt by the influx of illegals (Job wise). No one else should have any real argument against illegal immigration, as they help the overall economy far more than they hurt it. Goes back to being a silent observer __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

11-12-2007, 09:43 AM	#70 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Its common sense that they add a lot on to the gdp because they do more work for less money. That's incredibly valuable.

11-30-2007, 04:42 AM	#75 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:02 PM..