Illegal Immigration - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 04-20-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Guys, let's remember that it's better if discussion brings us together. What I mean is that we're not on teams, and our beliefs are defined by far more than who we attack.

I agree and that is what I was trying to point out in my warped way.

That we are all individuals and on some issues every single person may have a differing viewpoint.

In fact it should be encouraged rather than attacked and treated as if the person all of a sudden is a babbling idiot.

It's how true change within parties and in society works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Pan...settle down, man. Roach didn't "attack" you. He has a differing opinion is all. Now you know how I feel when I find myself in agreement with Ustwo.
With very few exceptions, no one is totally "liberal", or totally "conservative". You have found an issue that, because of you own personal life experiences, has you sounding a little...well...conservative. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect your "friends" to come along for this ride. Maybe they'll catch the next bus, or the one after that...who knows. Just remember...all of the buses go to the same depot. Cool?

I know the buses get to the same depot, but it is just amazing how interesting this is.

I have often said I am more conservative than I appear. I am very liberal but one can and should be, it allows one to see each issue that is important to them as an entity of its own and thus allow one to formulate an opinion true to themselves (if that makes any sense).

I guess I definately cannot be seen as a lamb that quietly and without question goes with the party line.

ubertuber · 04-20-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I guess I definately cannot be seen as a lamb that quietly and without question goes with the party line.

No matter what party you support, I see this as a good thing. You gotta believe what you believe for your own reasons.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2006, 11:00 AM

Did everyone get up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning?

As the employer of someone who at one point worked for me on a tourist visa and later as straight up illegal immigrant who now has a green card (long story), I've got to tell you that not all companies that hire illegals are out to screw them. I paid my guy one of the highest wages for what he does in the city, and he worked hard for it. Believe it or not, there are times where businesses need to go outside the country to find certain kinds of workers who have skills that Americans just don't have. The government can make it very hard to get those folks here legally. Since I'm a good corporate citizen, I bought my guy health insurance and workers comp. It was a gamble as to whether or not those claims would ever get paid (if there had been any), but not all employers of illegals are out to do the wrong thing.

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

...not all employers of illegals are out to do the wrong thing.

True...perhaps. I mean...you, obviously, are testimony for that. However, I would venture to say that you were/are the exception to the rule. I don't feel out of line by saying that I believe that most employers of illegal aliens, undocumented workers...whatever you want to call them...are out to exploit their cheap labor.
Now, let's imagine for a moment (just for my own amusement) that the labor law had teeth in it. By that, I mean that by employing an illegal alien you would be facing severe fines, and mandatory jail time...would you still have held this individual in your employ? And no, I'm not implying anything. I'm genuinly curious.

SteelyLoins · 04-20-2006, 12:05 PM

Lots of good stuff in this thread. Pan has nailed my opinion of the problem, for the most part. Xepherys too. I'm not a fan of land mines, but I like the "tax amnesty" argument of Stevo.

In another thread, I mentioned that Mexico treats its non-citizens very differently from its citizens. I had a little trouble documenting that, but then this fell into my lap:

Link

Quote:

Few Protections for Migrants to Mexico
By MARK STEVENSON
Associated Press Writer
Apr 19, 8:28 AM EDT

TULTITLAN, Mexico (AP) -- Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money.

While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.

And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., regardless of their legal status, Mexico provides few protections for migrants on its own soil. The issue simply isn't on the country's political agenda, perhaps because migrants make up only 0.5 percent of the population, or about 500,000 people - compared with 12 percent in the United States.

The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was apparent Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard outside Mexico City shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made officers think he was a migrant.

Virginia Sanchez, who lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border, said such shootings in Tultitlan are common.

"At night, you hear the gunshots, and it's the judiciales (state police) chasing the migrants," she said. "It's not fair to kill these people. It's not fair in the United States and it's not fair here."

Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.

"If you're carrying any money, they take it from you - federal, state, local police, all of them," said Carlos Lopez, a 28-year-old farmhand from Guatemala crouching in a field near the tracks in Tultitlan, waiting to climb onto a northbound freight train.

Lopez said he had been shaken down repeatedly in 15 days of traveling through Mexico.

"The soldiers were there as soon as we crossed the river," he said. "They said, 'You can't cross ... unless you leave something for us.'"

Jose Ramos, 18, of El Salvador, said the extortion occurs at every stop in Mexico, until migrants are left penniless and begging for food.

"If you're on a bus, they pull you off and search your pockets and if you have any money, they keep it and say, 'Get out of here,'" Ramos said.

Maria Elena Gonzalez, who lives near the tracks, said female migrants often complain about abusive police.

"They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them," she said.

Others said they had seen migrants beaten to death by police, their bodies left near the railway tracks to make it look as if they had fallen from a train.

The Mexican government acknowledges that many federal, state and local officials are on the take from the people-smugglers who move hundreds of thousands of Central Americans north, and that migrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse by corrupt police.

The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency, documented the abuses south of the U.S. border in a December report.

"One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," commission president Jose Luis Soberanes said.

In the United States, mostly Mexican immigrants have staged rallies pressuring Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants rather than making them felons and deputizing police to deport them. The Mexican government has spoken out in support of the immigrants' cause.

While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that "Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants," the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years, and many
undocumented migrants who are detained are deported.

Although Mexico objects to U.S. authorities detaining Mexican immigrants, police and soldiers usually cause the most trouble for migrants in Mexico, even though they aren't technically authorized to enforce immigration laws.

And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common.
The number of undocumented migrants detained in Mexico almost doubled from 138,061 in 2002 to 240,269 last year. Forty-two percent were Guatemalan, 33 percent Honduran and most of the rest Salvadoran.

Like the United States, Mexico is becoming reliant on immigrant labor. Last year, then-director of Mexico's immigration agency, Magdalena Carral, said an increasing number of Central Americans were staying in Mexico, rather than just passing through on their way to the U.S.

She said sectors of the Mexican economy facing labor shortages often use undocumented workers because the legal process for work visas is inefficient.

Sounds like a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

The_Jazz · 04-20-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

True...perhaps. I mean...you, obviously, are testimony for that. However, I would venture to say that you were/are the exception to the rule. I don't feel out of line by saying that I believe that most employers of illegal aliens, undocumented workers...whatever you want to call them...are out to exploit their cheap labor.
Now, let's imagine for a moment (just for my own amusement) that the labor law had teeth in it. By that, I mean that by employing an illegal alien you would be facing severe fines, and mandatory jail time...would you still have held this individual in your employ? And no, I'm not implying anything. I'm genuinly curious.

I'm not going to go into details for obvious reasons. If my partners knew I was posting this, they'd probably be pissed, but that's their problem, not mine (by the way, this is for a side business, not my main line of work). However, I can tell you that in this particular industry that I'm mentioning, illegals are the rule, not the exception, at least at first. Most of the immigrants that my competitors and my company bring over generally work illegally on student or tourist visas for a while and then apply for a streamlined green card. Given who they tend to be, there's usually not a problem getting a work permit quickly if you go about it the right way. I'll agree that people outside this particular niche probably are out to exploit their workers, but that's fairly impossible in my case since it would pretty much kill the business.

As far as your hypothetical scenario goes, yes, I think that we still would have risked it. The opportunity was too great and the employee was too valuable of an asset to pass up. As it stands, he's probably responsible for increasing our net income by about 40%. So yeah, we'd still have gone after him.

pan6467 · 04-20-2006, 12:56 PM

Ok so those who advocate ILLEGALS, do you also advocate their being shipped across the country in semi-trailers with very little ventilation or cooling/heating, for days on end shoved in like cattle with no food or water?

This is what you are advocating.

Quote:

Smuggling charges filed after 18 human cargo die

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) --A federal prosecutor filed smuggling charges Thursday against the owner and driver of a truck allegedly used to bring suspected illegal immigrants from Mexico in a trip that left 18 people dead.

The victims, ranging from a 7-year-old boy to a 91-year-old man, suffocated Wednesday after riding in the back of the semitrailer with dozens of others from Mexico to south Texas, said U.S. Attorney Michael Shelby.

Tyrone Williams of Schenectady, New York, has been charged with smuggling aliens and conspiracy, Shelby said, adding that more indictments will be handed up that could result in additional charges.

Williams -- a legal permanent U.S. resident from Jamaica and the truck's registered owner -- was arrested Wednesday in Bel Air, Texas, Shelby said. He is currently being held without bond.

Williams made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Houston Thursday. However, since he had no attorney with him, he was ordered back to court Friday. That hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. (3 p.m. EDT).

In an affidavit filed Thursday, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Steven E. Greenwell said Williams told officers that two men paid him $5,000 to bring what he thought was a group of 16 people to Houston.

According to the criminal complaint, Williams saw an object dangling from the trailer so he stopped at a Victoria, Texas, gas station.

When approaching the back of the trailer, Williams heard banging and screaming. He opened the trailer door and panicked when he saw that something "appeared to be wrong" with the passengers jammed into the sweltering trailer, according to the complaint.

One woman reportedly screamed, "El niño! El niño!" which is Spanish for "the boy," an apparent reference to a 7-year-old boy who died.

Williams said he ran into the gas station and bought 20 bottles of water for the migrants. He then unhitched the trailer and drove 120 miles to Houston where he went into a hospital.

Nurses there said that Williams appeared agitated and nervous. They also said he had a woman passenger in the cab, according to the complaint.

The criminal complaint against Williams also names Joe, Abel, and the female passenger Fatima -- all with last names unknown. Authorities say the woman is Hispanic with a dark complexion and one of the men is white "who perhaps speaks Spanish," Shelby did not detail what their involvement may be.

Officials believe anywhere from 107 to 137 passengers from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador were packed in the truck. One of them, Oscar Estrada, said he was to pay $1,000 for his transport.

Some 20 to 50 people fled from the back of the truck as deputies tried to administer first aid to the 62 left behind, Victoria County Sheriff Mike Ratcliff said.

Of the 18 people who died, 13 were found inside the truck, and four were found on the ground outside, Ratcliff said. One person died at a hospital.

Seven of the survivors were in hospitals, and two of them were in critical condition, the sheriff said. At the moment, the rest are staying at a community shelter with food and services provided by the Red Cross, he said.

Three of the people who fled were found Thursday by authorities in the general area of the "crime scene," assistant U.S. attorney Daniel Rodriguez said.

Federal authorities leading the investigation said they believe the suspected illegal immigrants were locked inside the truck. All the deaths were due to asphyxiation, dehydration or heat-related conditions, officials said.

Investigators said the temperature in the truck was hotter than 100 degrees. They said the truck was equipped with a functioning refrigeration system, but it was not turned on.

The scope of the case became clear after officers from the Victoria County Sheriff's Office responded to a 911 call. Authorities told CNN they were alerted to the truck when one of those packed inside used a cell phone to call 911 and pleaded for help.

"When the deputies opened the door, they didn't expect that there was going to be people inside," Shelby said, "and when they opened this door, they were flooded by human beings that were pouring out of there."

Investigators said they believe that the trailer had been parked at the convenience store on U.S. 77 for less than a day and that people had not been inside it for much longer.

But Victoria County District Attorney Dexter Eaves said, "In my opinion, they were in there a real long time."

Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security, called the situation "the greatest loss of life in recent history in what appears to be an alien smuggling case" and said he has given the investigation "the highest priority."

"This grim discovery is a horrific reminder of the callous disregard smugglers have for their human cargo," Hutchinson said in Washington.

Bob Wallis, regional director for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, called it a "heinous, heinous crime."

Penalties for immigrant smuggling resulting in death range from life in prison to no jail time at all, Shelby said. However, if the death is found to be intentional, a defendant could be subject to the death penalty, he said.

Authorities said Williams has a business transporting milk from New York to Texas and transporting watermelons back to New York.

LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest.../truck.bodies/

Don't like the laws, CHANGE them. But somehow I don't think the majority of Americans are going to agree with you.

A poll that show the VAST majority feel we need to limit immigration and ILLEGAL immigration is out of control. (Poll not placed here for spacial reasons)

LINK: http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Here's a poll that says: "Americans agree (85%) that illegal immigration is a “serious” problem, and over half (55%) say it is “very serious.”

Link: http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

Yet the Dems are trying to ease laws and the BUSHIES refuse to do anything...... why? Because as someone opposite this issue stated earlier (paraphrased) basically it is about cheap labor, jobs no one else wants, more money in the CEO's pockets and cheap prices.

But neither side cares about the loss of lives to the ILLEGALS, as I pointed out above.

Or the loss of lives the ILLEGALS have taken, as I have previously posted and this site shows:

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org...mevictims.html

Here's just a couple of the stories:

Quote:

In a particularly tragic example of government inattention to illegal aliens who have run amock, one of the snipers who terrorized the Washington DC area for three weeks in October 2002 was a foreign national who had been apprehended the previous year. As a stowaway, he was required by law to be immediately deported back to his home country. Instead, the INS overroad the Border Patrol's designation and released John Lee Malvo upon the unsuspecting American public. Had immigration law been followed by the INS, there would have been no two-man hit team and it is likely that there would have been no devastating series of murders. As columnist Michelle Malkin has observed, the INS releases dangerous alien criminals all the time.

Quote:

David Nadel was a familiar community activist in Berkeley, California, and owned the popular Ashkenaz dance club that featured eclectic music, such as zydeco, cajun, klezmer and the blues. In 1996, he was murdered in the club by an apparent Mexican illegal alien, Juan Rivera Perez, whom Nadel had earlier ejected for harassing other patrons. Perez was in Ashkenaz as part of an English as a Second Language program graduation party. Police believe Perez escaped to Mexico, which is famously unhelpful in extraditing violent criminals. Despite the outcry from law enforcement, victims and the press, our government does not insist on normal compliance in law enforcement from Mexican authorities.

Quote:

In another case of justice denied, the murderer of Phoenix high school student Tanee Natividad merely crossed the border into Mexico to escape law enforcement. A local television station was able to track down the murderer in a bar just a few miles across the border without much effort. Max LaMadrid has no reason to hide because the Mexican government actually helps violent criminals escape American justice. According to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano, action by the Mexican supreme court making it more difficult to extradite criminals has "created an incentive for people to flee into Mexico as a safe harbor." At one time, Mexico would not extradite criminals who might be subject to the death penalty; the Mexican court recently extended this "protection" to any Mexican who might receive a life sentence, thereby giving a free pass to rapists, kidnappers and child molesters. In fact, the investigating reporter found 100 cases of violent criminals from the Phoenix area escaping into Mexico in just the last few years. Meanwhile, the grieving family of 16-year-old Tanee gets no justice — like thousands of others in the southwest.

Shall I continue????????

Get the point?

How can you support this? How can you say you are the party that is for human rights yet be so fucking hypocritical?

"we have to open our borders and love these people, who cares if they come over and kill, rape, take BILLIONS of our tax dollars, recieve free medical on our tax dollar,don't pay the taxes we do, sue the government and companies for more of ouir tax dollars and the increase in costs incurred by those companies sued because they demand we become bi-lingual and they REFUSE to learn English and try to assimilate into OUR culture. We shouldn't expect them to want to learn our culture, to become US citizens legally...... NOOOOOOO we need to kiss ass and wipe it while they shit on us."

WHY?????

"Because the US is so mean to Mexico and we have soooooo much and Mexico doesn't have anything and we are just being racist, bullying, class warfared ignorant people."

Meanwhile the employers hiring these people are laughing at you as they cash their big bonus checks and increase their pay while the average US LEGAL citizen is mired in taxes, low wages, their jobs being shipped away, plants closing and so on.

All the while the vast majority of America is scratching their heads asking WTF.

pan6467 · 04-20-2006, 01:01 PM

But after all according to some I respected..... I am just propogating the class warfare and am uninformed and pretty mush just plain a rednecked prejudiced idiot who doesn't deserve their time for debate on such a vital issue where only THIER opinion is the right one.

boatin · 04-20-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Is it ok to have ILLEGALS come here and kill our tax-paying citizens and their families or steal from them, only to have their only punishment a deportation back to Mexico, where they cross the border again and are back within months??????

It's ok for them to kill us and to get off with nothing and have our own people cry about how badly we treat them. Yet when anyone points out what the reality is that these people are criminals and should be treated as such, those people are ignored.

And again, I notice my friends to the left have totally ignored any argument I have given them.

Amazing.

I've done my best to follow this thread, but confess that much of it seems like rhetoric, not discussion. I'd be happy to discuss any argument you'd care to make, Pan. At this point, I'm not bright enough to figure out what your points are beyond: "let's get all the illegals out of our country, and not let them back in". Is that a fair description of your desire? If not, could you restate it?

Since I don't write much here, I don't think I'm who you refer to as "friends on the left", but I'd be happy to enter the fray. I suspect many of them haven't, because it's unclear what the argument is. I'm sorry to be thick, and hesitate to make you restate a position that I'm sure is clear to you, but it's all I know how to do at this point.

If you do that, I promise I'll respond to each and every one of your points. It's easier if you number them.

I'd hate to be part of the non responsive group...

boatin · 04-20-2006, 01:19 PM

So you were posting something while I was. And I guess I really am thick, because I don't get your point. Beyond general dissatisfaction. What ARE you advocating, pan?

rlbond86 · 04-20-2006, 01:20 PM

Here's how I feel about illegal immigrants:

Honestly, these people do not belong in the U.S.A. Why we don't have some sort of wall or something to keep them out baffles me.
They don't have health insurance, they can't legally get jobs, they don't have car insurance. Most do not speak English, and do not try to learn it. Many are not well educated. Some do not pay taxes. Our tax money goes toward services for them (Medicaid, Food Assistance, Court systems).
Also, if it's so easy to get mexicans into the country, what's stopping terrorists?

Of course there are some illegals who work hard and pay taxes, but the majority hurt our country, unfortunately.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2006, 01:23 PM

OK, this is the official warning to whoever pissed in Pan's cheerios to cut it out!

To repeat my original sentiment and expound on it - not all companies screw illegal immigrants, and not all illegal immigrants get here packed like sardines in trucks. My guy flew here (on his own dime). There are lots of illegals in Chicago who work as contractors - one of them was the general contractor for my old condo. They aren't all picking grapes or cleaning toilets. Some of them are out there doing jobs that American could do but maybe not as well. I can just about promise you that there's no way that ANYONE on this board could do the job that my now-legal immigrant employee as well as he can - there are probably 3 native-born Americans and 15 naturalized Americans that could. There are a shitload of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are out there doing it now - the number is probably in the high 100's.

For everyone out there using their broad brushes on this subject, stop it. You don't have the full story.

pan6467 · 04-20-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

OK, this is the official warning to whoever pissed in Pan's cheerios to cut it out!

To repeat my original sentiment and expound on it - not all companies screw illegal immigrants, and not all illegal immigrants get here packed like sardines in trucks. My guy flew here (on his own dime). There are lots of illegals in Chicago who work as contractors - one of them was the general contractor for my old condo. They aren't all picking grapes or cleaning toilets. Some of them are out there doing jobs that American could do but maybe not as well. I can just about promise you that there's no way that ANYONE on this board could do the job that my now-legal immigrant employee as well as he can - there are probably 3 native-born Americans and 15 naturalized Americans that could. There are a shitload of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are out there doing it now - the number is probably in the high 100's.

For everyone out there using their broad brushes on this subject, stop it. You don't have the full story.

I do use a broad brush Jazz and I read your post above and commend you.

roachboy · 04-20-2006, 01:44 PM

pan: i really am surprised that you took my posts as you did--and i apolgize for the aspects of them that tipped over into what you took as a personal attack. no doubt it is my fault, tone-wise.

let me explain a few things...and if this amounts to a threadjack then so be it.

1. your posts do not function in isolation in this thread--i tried to make a distinction between your positions as i understand them and those of folk like xephyrx, but maybe i didnt do an adequate job of it. you write alot about both the position you are coming to and the trouble you seem to be having squaring it with other aspects of your political positions, and i did not mean to disrespect your conflicted metaview (the problem f integration is a metaproblem--the problem concerning the undocumented or illegal is a specific area, and so is a problem)

2. there are multiple ways in which one can find an argument advanced by someone else to be a problem--one general route is internal to the postion itself, that is problems of data or category or combination/logic--another is to find the consequences of the argument repellent regardless of the internal logic of the arguments advanced. in this thread, you have folk who are advocating killing people because they---like the posters themselves---operate in the context of this economic space looking for work or having work and feeling threatened.
there is no argument that will function for me as valid that leads to any such conclusions. period.

3. you complained in an earlier post that your arguments were not being answered. so i answered them and now you complain about my having answered them. i dont really know what to do at this point about any of that.

4. this debate over the status of undocumented workers--i'll stick with this--did not originate all of a sudden in the states--it has been done over and over again in other countries--western european neo-fascist parties make the issue, framed in ways that are point for point those you see in posts by yourself (on this matter) stevo and xephryx, the center of their politics. the direction in which these arguments run has been demonstrably---um--problematic, and this repeatedly since the emergence of this latest wave of neofascist organizations across the 1980s/early 90s. this is a frame of reference that i carry into this discussion. you should look into it for yourself. the organizations are easy enough to find out about. their history and effects are easy enough to find out about as well.

thing is that reasonable folk who find themselves trying to work out responses to threats to their sense of well-being sometimes arrive at these positions by relying on "common sense" reponses--the problem is that "common sense" is usually of a piece with a very truncated view of the context that they operate in. the one advantage the western european context has over the american is that teh greater diversity of political options there means that these various positions are named, are formalized via being named, and so the implication of these positions is more evident publicly at least. in the states, with its narrow, stifling political environment, such positions often go unmarked and with that the consequences of them can be obscured.

5. similar point about naming. in other places, the folk who vilify with caps (an annoying tic--but i am sure that my dislilke for caps is also anoying, so i am in no real position to complain beyond voicing an aesthetic preference)--in france, for example, as a function of the political mobilization around the issue triggered by the actions of the front national on the part of groups like sos racisme, the discourse on the matter has been shifted--the operative category is undocumented workers, not ILLEGAL immigrants. the state has also adopted this kind of terminology as well, in part in order to prevent the kind of---um--problematic mobilizations on the question that you see starting here. these terms matter. much of what i see happening in this thread is held together by the implications of the term ILLEGAL immigrant. i posed a series of objections. they are not taken up.

xepherys · 04-20-2006, 01:48 PM

Jazz, you admit you are speaking to the exception and not the rule?

If so, your point is moot. If not, you need to realize that you ARE, in fact, speaking about a far fewer number of people than we are.

First, what kind of work is it? You can PM me if you'd prefer, I'm just curious. Second, "There are a shitload of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are out there doing it now - the number is probably in the high 100's" does not have any bearing on the tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of illegal immigrants in just a part of the US alone, let alone the whole country. One smart Peruvian illegal doesn't make up for (or really make the case for) 50,000 illegals who are NOT able to contribute so much.

pan6467 · 04-20-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

So you were posting something while I was. And I guess I really am thick, because I don't get your point. Beyond general dissatisfaction. What ARE you advocating, pan?

I am saying ILLEGAL entry is just that ILLEGAL.

No company has the right to hire ILLEGALS as that would be aiding and abetting a criminal and since I do believe that crossing the border ILLEGALLY is a felony, it should be treated as such and anyone caught doing so or hiring ILLEGALS should be tried as felons.

(My appologies to JAZZ, but ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL.)

You want to change the laws to allow these people to come over and work legally then work to change the laws.

Those who are on here saying that we should welcome ILLEGALS and that ILLEGALS are a welcome addition to society..... are also advocating the above examples I have shown. Regardless of their intent....

I'm all for changing immigration laws IF Mexico decides to change their laws and allow us to speedily extradite murderers, rapists and so on that were here ILLEGALLY and crossed back over.

I'm all for changing the laws if we see Mexico and other Central American countries work to better their own economic and social systems.

I'm all for changing immigration laws when those who cross realize they are crossing into another country and try to assimilate and learn the laws and language of the country. Not expect everyone to bow down to them (the immigrants) and meet their demands.

I'm all for LEGAL immigration and change to the laws if the people coming are law abiding, tax paying, citizens here to honestly try to help and advance their families.

But I refuse to accept those that come over ILLEGALLY, expect us to change for them, commit crimes and sneak back over the border, use our medical systems and programs for free while taxpayers are turned away and the system goes bankrupt.

Until those criteria are met, I flatly refuse to even talk about giving "amnesty to illegals" or accept them into the society my LEGAL ancestors helped build.

boatin · 04-20-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am saying ILLEGAL entry is just that ILLEGAL.

Can't argue with the definition of a word.

I would say that there are a number of things that are illegal that shouldn't be. And I'd bet you'd even agree. We can make any manner of "illegal" drugs legal as pharmecuticals, but somehow can't with cannabis. Prostitution is on my list in this category, so are some traffic laws. My point here is that we break/skirt/ignore many laws as a society. I can't back the logic of "it's the law, therefore I support it" without being a hypocrit. I need better reasons than that. And I haven't even touched the whole Civil Disobediance aspect of this - which ultimately may be more appropriate. Short version: this 'argument' holds no water for me.

Quote:

No company has the right to hire ILLEGALS as that would be aiding and abetting a criminal and since I do believe that crossing the border ILLEGALLY is a felony, it should be treated as such and anyone caught doing so or hiring ILLEGALS should be tried as felons.

I'm not sure hiring illegals is a felony. For the sake of this, I'll believe you, however. If so, are you saying that we should spend the law enforcement time/money to enforce this? Because without that focus, nothing is going to change. With that focus, other things will get lost in the cracks. Is that exchange worth it to you?

Assuming it IS a felony, I might actually be in favor of that type of prosecution. That might be the only way to highlight the issue of how much of our economy would grind to a halt without this labor. That would be a real eye opener! And that's the real problem I see with the 'keep em out' strategy.

Quote:

You want to change the laws to allow these people to come over and work legally then work to change the laws.

Couldn't agree more. I'd go so far as to say ANY option to fix the problem is on the table, for me. And that includes amnesty. Better to fix it at that cost, then not fix it at all. I see no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Quote:

Those who are on here saying that we should welcome ILLEGALS and that ILLEGALS are a welcome addition to society..... are also advocating the above examples I have shown. Regardless of their intent....

Not sure if this is a direct response to this comment or not, but:

illegals in this country do more good than harm. From construction to food production to many other industries, the benefits FAR outweigh the costs. I readily admit that is my subjective opinion, but living in a state that has a significant illegal population (Oregon), it's what I witness. I'd happily look at any studies that anyone could provide that might teach me otherwise. But in a game of 'he said/he said' I'm standing by my opinion.

Quote:

I'm all for changing immigration laws IF Mexico decides to change their laws and allow us to speedily extradite murderers, rapists and so on that were here ILLEGALLY and crossed back over.

Changing our laws contingent upon what other countries do seems counter productive to me. The United States has labor problems that immigrants (illegal or not) help solve. To resist fixing our problems because of a separate issue creates a bizarre and needless bottleneck. Labor issues and criminal issues are not connected, and shouldn't be tied together.

Furthermore, I question how large the criminal extradition problem is. Are we talking about more than 50 instances a year? 100? 10?

Quote:

I'm all for changing the laws if we see Mexico and other Central American countries work to better their own economic and social systems.

I'm sure in favor of any country working to better themselves. But I'm not holding up our progress as a country based on their actions. Why would you want to do that?

Quote:

I'm all for changing immigration laws when those who cross realize they are crossing into another country and try to assimilate and learn the laws and language of the country. Not expect everyone to bow down to them (the immigrants) and meet their demands.

Again you seem to be talking about changing our laws IF other things happen. How about we change our laws because we have a problem that needs fixing?

And I'm not really seeing the "bowing down" thing. At all. I believe if someone is sick, a hospital should treat them. If that makes our costs go up because they can't pay, I'm prepared to live with that. Not only do the benefits of this massive labor force outweigh those costs, but I believe that's the humane thing to do. I'm not turning away sick people because they can't pay. I would need to see examples of 'demands' and 'bowing down' to understand what you mean.

I would PREFER to have people be covered medically, and be able to pay. I'm not advocating a literal free for all. But let's reform the laws and remove the issue. I'm sure in favor of collecting more taxes.

Quote:

I'm all for LEGAL immigration and change to the laws if the people coming are law abiding, tax paying, citizens here to honestly try to help and advance their families.

The VAST majority of people that cross illegally are just as you describe. I say that with confidence, because the vast majority of people in the world are as you describe. People working here illegally are not not paying taxes because they are trying to cheat anyone, laughing manically about how sneaky they are; but because they are hiding and don't want to be sent back.

We need the labor, and over the next 15 years as the boomers retire, we need a HUGE influx of labor. We have a problem, and it is only growing. We must find a way to fix this asap in a way that maximizes the amount of willing labor.

Quote:

But I refuse to accept those that come over ILLEGALLY, expect us to change for them, commit crimes and sneak back over the border, use our medical systems and programs for free while taxpayers are turned away and the system goes bankrupt.

I understand this concern, but I think it's overstated. Certainly there are criminals. There are people that use and abuse our medical systems. Certainly there are taxpayers that are turned away from services. There is no doubt that some systems are in financial trouble. But I doubt most vehemently that illegal immigrants are a significant causal issue for those last two items. They are a convenient scapegoat, however.

The bulk of immigrants, illegal or not, are part of the solution. As they have been for 200+ years.

Quote:

Until those criteria are met, I flatly refuse to even talk about giving "amnesty to illegals" or accept them into the society my LEGAL ancestors helped build.

It's certainly your right to refuse to talk about amnesty. Seems odd to devote so much time to a message thread when your mind is so solidly made up, however. But perhaps we can agree to disagree.

pan6467 · 04-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Can't argue with the definition of a word.

I would say that there are a number of things that are illegal that shouldn't be. And I'd bet you'd even agree. We can make any manner of "illegal" drugs legal as pharmecuticals, but somehow can't with cannabis. Prostitution is on my list in this category, so are some traffic laws. My point here is that we break/skirt/ignore many laws as a society. I can't back the logic of "it's the law, therefore I support it" without being a hypocrit. I need better reasons than that. And I haven't even touched the whole Civil Disobediance aspect of this - which ultimately may be more appropriate. Short version: this 'argument' holds no water for me.

There's a big difference between speeding and crossing the border illegally.

You say the argument holds no water for you, and I say that it does for me.

To me every ILLEGAL thumbs his nose at our country's laws and at those who did work hard to become legal.

Quote:

I'm not sure hiring illegals is a felony. For the sake of this, I'll believe you, however. If so, are you saying that we should spend the law enforcement time/money to enforce this? Because without that focus, nothing is going to change. With that focus, other things will get lost in the cracks. Is that exchange worth it to you?

Assuming it IS a felony, I might actually be in favor of that type of prosecution. That might be the only way to highlight the issue of how much of our economy would grind to a halt without this labor. That would be a real eye opener! And that's the real problem I see with the 'keep em out' strategy.

It would be a great deterrent and a way to keep businesses from hiring ILLEGALS. I seriously doubt that this would "halt labor" but I'm willing to take the chance.

I am not advocating a "Keep them out" I am advocating a "keep out the lowlifes that want us to change our way of life, our language and our laws to suit them."

Quote:

Couldn't agree more. I'd go so far as to say ANY option to fix the problem is on the table, for me. And that includes amnesty. Better to fix it at that cost, then not fix it at all. I see no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Amnesty won't work, and how many do you amnesty every single one of them? When and where do you stop? You are just inviting more in and you are pissing off the vast majority of LEGAL TAX PAYING CITIZENS here. It just won't work and is not feasible.

Quote:

Not sure if this is a direct response to this comment or not, but:

illegals in this country do more good than harm. From construction to food production to many other industries, the benefits FAR outweigh the costs. I readily admit that is my subjective opinion, but living in a state that has a significant illegal population (Oregon), it's what I witness. I'd happily look at any studies that anyone could provide that might teach me otherwise. But in a game of 'he said/he said' I'm standing by my opinion.

Soooooo you advocate the cheap labor and exploitation of ILLEGALS because it helps YOUR wallet.

But I'm the one involved in prejudice and class warfare???????

I see. So when they do become legal, through your amnesty program and thus have to make at least minimum wages and can join unions and so on and thus they start demanding to make more and prices skyrocket, then what?

Your wallet sees less green doesn't it? You end up having your hard earned tax paying dollars go to Bi-ligualize everything and since you showed them that "we are so forgiving if you break our laws" that they feel they can get away with anything then.

Quote:

Changing our laws contingent upon what other countries do seems counter productive to me. The United States has labor problems that immigrants (illegal or not) help solve. To resist fixing our problems because of a separate issue creates a bizarre and needless bottleneck. Labor issues and criminal issues are not connected, and shouldn't be tied together.

I agree but ask the 1000's that have family members killed, raped, robbed and violated by illegals who simply cross back over to Mexico and face no justice.

Quote:

Furthermore, I question how large the criminal extradition problem is. Are we talking about more than 50 instances a year? 100? 10?

Try 1000's and read the links I provided. 1 is too many. How many do you want?

I'm sure your attitude would change real fast if one of your close family members got violated or killed by an illegal only to know he went to Mexico and will probably crossover again.

Quote:

I'm sure in favor of any country working to better themselves. But I'm not holding up our progress as a country based on their actions. Why would you want to do that?

How am I holding up the progress of our nation by not allowing ILLEGALS to be a part of it?

Again if Mexico is so bad there, then they should stay and work to change their own country, not come here use up our taxpaying resources, refuse to assimilate and sue our nation to suit their needs.

If they truly want to be here then they need to go through the processes legally and show that they respect us and our national cultures language and so on. But they flatly refuse to.

Quote:

Again you seem to be talking about changing our laws IF other things happen. How about we change our laws because we have a problem that needs fixing?

And what problem is it that we need fixed? Immigrants MUST learn our language and history before they become legal?

I see so we need to change laws for ILLEGAL immigrants needs not those of our country's citizens.

Quote:

And I'm not really seeing the "bowing down" thing. At all. I believe if someone is sick, a hospital should treat them. If that makes our costs go up because they can't pay, I'm prepared to live with that. Not only do the benefits of this massive labor force outweigh those costs, but I believe that's the humane thing to do. I'm not turning away sick people because they can't pay. I would need to see examples of 'demands' and 'bowing down' to understand what you mean.

I would PREFER to have people be covered medically, and be able to pay. I'm not advocating a literal free for all. But let's reform the laws and remove the issue. I'm sure in favor of collecting more taxes.

I see so where were you when I was in the hospital in October to pay the $25,000 medical bill that is destroying my credit? And I am sure there are many more hard working taxpayers that ask you the same question.

Meanwhile congress and the President signed into law a bill giving $1 BILLION of our tax dollars to hospitals to treat ILLEGALS for FREE!!!!!!

That's fair to me and this country how?????? OOOO life isn't fair you say but then in the next breath you say OUR LAWS aren't fair to the ILLEGALS.

I mean I'm legal, I was born here, my parents were born here, but I am not entitled to free medical because I was born here, meanwhile, ILLEGALS can get all the free medical attention they want. The tax dollars that could go into educating the youth so they can compete for better jobs, the money that could go into rebuilding the infrastructure and loans to businesses so that they can hire more people and jumpstart some economies goes to treating ILLEGALS. And you want me to believe that helps this country HOW????????

Quote:

The VAST majority of people that cross illegally are just as you describe. I say that with confidence, because the vast majority of people in the world are as you describe. People working here illegally are not not paying taxes because they are trying to cheat anyone, laughing manically about how sneaky they are; but because they are hiding and don't want to be sent back.

No, I'm saying they refuse to learn our language, they refuse to learn our culture, they (even if it is a small minority) break our laws knowing they get off scotfree. They refuse to even try to be a positive in our society. They drain us of our tax resources and put nothing but cheap labor, a rise in crime and apathy and hatred into the system.

Quote:

We need the labor, and over the next 15 years as the boomers retire, we need a HUGE influx of labor. We have a problem, and it is only growing. We must find a way to fix this asap in a way that maximizes the amount of willing labor.

Then we work on ways to increase the immigration laws to bring immigrants in legally.

How are we supposed to build a nation on people ILLEGALLY here that have no respect for our system.

I see they are cheap hard workers doing everything they can for a few pennies a day so that they can bring their families over ILLEGALLY. All the while refusing to learn our language, our history and expect us to accomodate them.

Meanwhile, people who come here LEGALLY, who have worked hard to learn our language, customs, history, traditions and laws, should have taken the easy route and just went to Mexico, jumped the border and have people crying to let them be treated as citizens without having had to show any work at all.

Quote:

I understand this concern, but I think it's overstated. Certainly there are criminals. There are people that use and abuse our medical systems. Certainly there are taxpayers that are turned away from services. There is no doubt that some systems are in financial trouble. But I doubt most vehemently that illegal immigrants are a significant causal issue for those last two items. They are a convenient scapegoat, however.

Check out the websites I linked to, obviously you chose not too. I also refer to the above where i addressed this.

Quote:

The bulk of immigrants, illegal or not, are part of the solution. As they have been for 200+ years.

And I have stated that LEGAL immigrants are the lifeblood of this great nation.

Quote:

It's certainly your right to refuse to talk about amnesty. Seems odd to devote so much time to a message thread when your mind is so solidly made up, however. But perhaps we can agree to disagree.

Why? I believe that maybe someone who was thinking amnesty was ok, may have seen what I have written and done some researcg through the links or on their own and found that maybe amnesty isn't a good thing, maybe we do need to try to stop the flow of ILLEGALS.

And yes on this topic my mind is very closed, shut tight, locked and the warden's been thrown away.

It's exploitation of the illegal, exploitation and misuse of tax dollars that could help us in many other ways, and a thumbing of the nose to all that this country stands for and expects from people coming in.

Maybe you should go to Mexico illegally and see if any of your demands are met, or see how much of their tax dollars help you in a hospital, or see what they do to you.

How many ILLEGALS have given money to help the families in New Orleans? Or volunteering to help?

I am tired of how we cannot educate and give to our own people the rights and help we have to to other countries. Meanwhile, these other countries rarely give us anything but headaches. Maybe it's time we sat back, stopped giving any money to any of these countries and took care of our own house first.

boatin · 04-21-2006, 11:33 AM

I'll break some of these topics into individual posts later, after the work is done and the kid is in bed. But for now, I'd ask you to not put so many words in my mouth.

I didn't say anyof these things, and the assumption you've made about me and your links is not correct. I know it's easier to debate with someone when they've been demonized, but how about you try to understand my point rather than just react negatively by putting words in my mouth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Soooooo you advocate the cheap labor and exploitation of ILLEGALS because it helps YOUR wallet. But I'm the one involved in prejudice and class warfare???????

Try 1000's and read the links I provided.

OOOO life isn't fair you say but then in the next breath you say OUR LAWS aren't fair to the ILLEGALS.

Check out the websites I linked to, obviously you chose not too.

Just some quick thoughts on these statements of yours:

I do not advocate cheap labor and exploitation. If we were having this conversation in person, would you say such a thing to someone? That seems inflammatory and trolling (at best). I'm the same guy that said we should serve the poor in hospitals and I'm ok with my taxes going up, remember? Does that sound like I'm concerned about my wallet?

I read all your links, and my question still stands. There are about 50 instances (I didn't do a close count) on that list. How many is that per year? Again, there is no doubt we have abuses of laws, and violence from immigrants. And it's all deplorable. I'm against it. But we have people with blue blood backgrounds shooting their 'friends' in the face and not even seeing the inside of a police station. The world sucks in many ways.

I have never said our laws are unfair to illegals. Not even sure how you got that from what I wrote. Short of me actually saying those words, it seems a stretch to assume I meant that.

I'll write more later, but for now I'd end with this: I'm sorry you're in debt. That sucks, too. My take is pretty simple: if you'd been destitute and couldn't afford whatever it was you needed, I'm in favor of medical help being provided to you. I see no difference between a sick legal person, and a sick illegal person. We should treat them. The fact that you get the debt for yours versus the 'state' getting the poor person's debt is a problem of our health care system. Not our immigration system. It sucks, but I don't believe the solution is not helping sick people. There are shades of grey, obviously, but charity hospitals have worked out some pretty humane ways of making tough choices.

More later...

boatin · 04-23-2006, 10:57 AM

There's a lot of different thoughts going on in this thread, but to start with one...

I see you saying a number of things (pardon me for simplfying):
-illegals are illegal, therefore we should find a way to get rid of them
-illegals commit crimes, and then escape back south, so we should find a way to keep em out to avoid this
-illegals cost us taxpayers money so we should find a way to keep em out
-illegals expect more than equal services, and they pay nothing, it's not fair and we should find a way to keep em out

Again, sorry if that's a ridiculous oversimplification of your points - my getting those right or wrong doesn't really impair the point *I'm* trying to make:

I think there are a lot of valid arguments about immigration. I can agree or disagree with any of them, as can anyone of course. But the argument that means absolutely nothing to me is the "it's illegal, therefore it's illegal" line. Of the 4 things I threw down at the start of this post the last 3 are things I think could be rationally discussed.

The first bit of reasoning is junk logic to me. It's been used as a 'reason' for the some of the most horrific events in history. And a huge number of more mundane, but no less wrong events. From not employing Jews, to prohibition, to the things I mentioned in an earlier post (prostitution, pot, etc), it's held up as a reason things shouldn't happen. Hard for me to use a line of reasoning that has been shown as wrong so often. Right/wrong is ultimately a better line of reasoning than legal/illegal.

My long winded point is: why not argue about the issues - try to convince others that the costs of illegals outweigh the benefits, make the moral arguement, or whatever.

Adult Learning Theory suggests that the best way to convince an adult is to explain, not tell. And to repeatably say 'they're illegal, they should go' doesn't advance the logic, and actually does more to convince me the other way.

But maybe that's just me.

loganmule · 04-23-2006, 09:17 PM

boatin, the rule of law is what makes things work here in the U.S., albeit sometimes imperfectly. If this were Iran, I'd agree with you that the "illegal is illegal" argument doesn't wash. Our laws, on the other hand, derive from representative government by consent. It starts with the Constitution and winds down to local government, at every level laws being enacted only after a majority of the legislative body approves. When someone disagrees with a law, he or she can lobby to change it, or you can go ahead and violate the law and takes your chances.

Your examples of common illegal activity in the U.S. simply reflect how difficult it is to legislate one's inclinations to indulge in certain vices. There is a moral component to the issue of illegal immigration, but not in that sense. Even so, by the will of the majority of people in some communities, prostitution and gambling have been legalized. As for prohibition, the 18th Amendment required two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify it, as was the case some years later, with the adoption of the 21st Amendment.

In a perfect world, all the illegals would return home, and the U.S. would implement appropriate laws and regs which greatly expedite and simplify the process of allowing them legal entry back in to work. That ship obviously sailed a long time ago, and the millions of illegals aren't going back home voluntarily. Things are admittedly a bit problematic at this point. That said, I share pan's concerns and feel that any resolution of the problem needs to address them, including the "illegal is illegal" one.

Nimetic · 04-24-2006, 05:38 AM

Is that true about families?

A friend of my partner had a child in the US, but is apparently going to be deported (with a second due in 6wks). How she has gone about her life bothers me, but I come from a different and relatively comfortable background and have never wanted to leave it - so in truth, I don't know that it's fair to judge.

Anyways, if this is the case, then the mess that she's got herself into would be much less a problem. I would truly appreciate any info you have on the family splitup issue (a good link would do). I've had a quick look at the US laws and too be honest, they seem bloody complex.

xepherys · 04-24-2006, 07:43 AM

Uhm, if this were Iran, they'd wash fine... they'd just be different laws. Just because they aren't our laws or we don't agree with them does not make them any less valid. Laws are laws and if you don't like them, work to change them or move to a place with laws that you find more agreeable. Mankind is not able to live well without laws (at least not all 6+ billion of us). I don't LIKE the argument, but it is, in fact, the truth!

boatin · 04-24-2006, 08:50 AM

Well, it's becoming more clear to me that message board communication isn't a strength for me. I hear what you're saying Logan - I even think I understand and agree.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that as long as we're on a message board, talking about these issues, there are things that are more likely to convince me and things less likely to convince me. Not that convincing *me* is the goal, but I think I'm a pretty typical target.

Laws can be changed (which is one of your points, too). Because they can be changed, arguing that something 'is what it is' because it's the law seems like a waste. Does that make any more sense?

I'll try to post a more interesting angle in my next post. I don't want Pan to think no one is bringing anything to the table...

pan6467 · 04-24-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

There's a lot of different thoughts going on in this thread, but to start with one...

I see you saying a number of things (pardon me for simplfying):
-illegals are illegal, therefore we should find a way to get rid of them
-illegals commit crimes, and then escape back south, so we should find a way to keep em out to avoid this
-illegals cost us taxpayers money so we should find a way to keep em out
-illegals expect more than equal services, and they pay nothing, it's not fair and we should find a way to keep em out

Again, sorry if that's a ridiculous oversimplification of your points - my getting those right or wrong doesn't really impair the point *I'm* trying to make:

I think there are a lot of valid arguments about immigration. I can agree or disagree with any of them, as can anyone of course. But the argument that means absolutely nothing to me is the "it's illegal, therefore it's illegal" line. Of the 4 things I threw down at the start of this post the last 3 are things I think could be rationally discussed.

The first bit of reasoning is junk logic to me. It's been used as a 'reason' for the some of the most horrific events in history. And a huge number of more mundane, but no less wrong events. From not employing Jews, to prohibition, to the things I mentioned in an earlier post (prostitution, pot, etc), it's held up as a reason things shouldn't happen. Hard for me to use a line of reasoning that has been shown as wrong so often. Right/wrong is ultimately a better line of reasoning than legal/illegal.

My long winded point is: why not argue about the issues - try to convince others that the costs of illegals outweigh the benefits, make the moral arguement, or whatever.

Adult Learning Theory suggests that the best way to convince an adult is to explain, not tell. And to repeatably say 'they're illegal, they should go' doesn't advance the logic, and actually does more to convince me the other way.

But maybe that's just me.

I did argue along that basis but I'll give you the same argument again:

ILLEGAL Immigration supporters say that the vast majority come over to "help their families because they are poor and starving and the US gives them the oppurtunity to feed their families."

Ok using that argument let's say...... I worked for a big company made VERY good money but was downsized and found the savings went fast. I couldn't find a job, because at 40 no one wants to give you a shot.

I have a wife and 4 kids, and we are extremely hungry and poor. So I go and steal some food to feed my family.... nothing more than FOOD. There's plenty of it, Hell, Americans waste more food than most other nations will see in a week. But I get caught.

Now do you think the judge should let me go?

I increased costs, because the store and manufacturer have to make up for the loss of their goods. I burdened the taxpayers, because I am taking up courtroom time, the taxes lost on the sale, the taxes for the police that caught me, and so on.

Now let's argue this point:

You say the most cases you saw are 50 of ILLEGALS coming across murdering someone and going back across the border. I say the ILLEGALS probably have killed many more, and even just 1 is too many considering they were here illegally. But you say you can live with the just 50 you saw and don't believe there's more.

So one day your family goes out and a couple of ILLEGALS are out to rob the 7-11 your wife walked into. they get scared and blow everyone away. The police find out who they are from the surveillence cams and witnesses but cannot bring to justice those ILLEGALS because they jumped the border.

A year later, you find out that those same ILLEGALS are back in town working again, but the police can't do anything because there is no hard proof they were the ones.

They then go out again, get drunk and kill a family in an accident.

They get treated at the hospital for free..... released on "bond" paid for by a schill for the company they work for so the company's name doen't get involved in anyway. And they are back in Mexico in no time.

Yeah, it's a hypothetical here, but it has happened.

Who are you to tell the families that the crimes have happened to, that these crimes are rare and that ILLEGALS should be embraced and cared for and allowed here.

There are very small groups that are in support of ILLEGALS they are:
- Businesses who get the cheap labor and exploit them
- the unions who believe if we give them amnesty they can be unionized and bring the unions back to strength (of course the unions refuse to truly try to work hard to evolutionize and recruit on their own merits)
- some DEMS and some GOP who each believe that if they can somehow show support for the ILLEGALS and make it easier they'll get the important Hispanic voting block.

Who disagrees and sees the tax burden and the overall cost of ILLEGALS as deplorable and too expensive...... last poll I saw was 75% of the country (Both GOP and DEMS almost equally share this view. It isn't a partisan view.)

SO until the HUGE majority is overcome and changes their minds..... the government needs to respect the wishes of the people and be responsive and make it harder for ILLEGAL immigration and severely punish those that do so that fewer are tempted to cross.

Others have argued LAWS ARE LAWS and ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL.

I cannot go into court and say "Gee Judge, I admit I was doing 80 in a 35 but man that law is just wrong and I refuse to honor it because well I am a man and I can do what I want."

I can't go into court and say, "I refuse to honor and respect any law I deem is just wrong. Sure 75% think the law should be stronger but Judge, I am one who finds the law invasive and wrong."

AFter being hauled away and having the warden thrown away, maybe someone will point out: "if you don't like a law, don't break it.... work to reform it."

boatin · 04-24-2006, 09:30 AM

I'll start by admitting that I have no facts and figures for my stance on what I'm about to say. I haven't seen any of either (facts or figures) so far on this thread. I apologize if I've missed them, but here's my take:

It costs the US taxpayer some amount of money to educate, give health care, and do a number of other kinds of support. That adds up to real money, I'm sure. On the other side, we get cheaper food, cheaper houses and a number of economic positive factors for the average taxpayer.

I'm NOT talking about what's right or wrong here, just what is.

My contention is that if we could wave a magic wand, and make the border impassable, and magically remove every illegal immigrant, the average taxpayer's life would get worse economically.

If one accepts the premise that there is more economic benefit than harm, it would behoove us (the taxpayers) to find a solution that takes advantage of that, helps solve some of the real problems in the system and puts us in a better place than we currently are.

I believe amnesty could be part of that solution. Another part would be to ensure that we're not abusing immigrants and making things fair for all. There's always a middle road...

Now, if you don't accept that premise, you'll have a different take of course. I would sure be interested in seeing someone attempt to show that the costs are higher than the benefits.

Part of why I believe the benefits outweight the costs, btw, is that I know the free market system works. If we didnt' get great benefits, this wouldn't have developed the way it has...

So there's more ramble from me. Here's hoping it makes sense outside of my head...

boatin · 04-24-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You say the most cases you saw are 50 of ILLEGALS coming across murdering someone and going back across the border. I say the ILLEGALS probably have killed many more, and even just 1 is too many considering they were here illegally. But you say you can live with the just 50 you saw and don't believe there's more.

Who are you to tell the families that the crimes have happened to, that these crimes are rare and that ILLEGALS should be embraced and cared for and allowed here.

We posted at the same time, and I just now saw your post. I'm bummed that you're still putting words into my mouth. I didn't say what you say I did. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

Who am I??? I'm someone that's trying to have a conversation and learn something. I'm not someone saying anything like what you seem to be reading.

Nowhere am I saying we/I/you get to choose which laws to obey. I've explained as best I can that in a message board conversation, saying "it's the law, it's the law, it's the law" isn't that effective at convincing me that a position is the RIGHT position. I agree it's the law, for god's sake.

Have a nice day.

loganmule · 04-25-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I'll start by admitting that I have no facts and figures for my stance on what I'm about to say. I haven't seen any of either (facts or figures) so far on this thread. I apologize if I've missed them, but here's my take:

It costs the US taxpayer some amount of money to educate, give health care, and do a number of other kinds of support. That adds up to real money, I'm sure. On the other side, we get cheaper food, cheaper houses and a number of economic positive factors for the average taxpayer.

I'm NOT talking about what's right or wrong here, just what is.

My contention is that if we could wave a magic wand, and make the border impassable, and magically remove every illegal immigrant, the average taxpayer's life would get worse economically.

If one accepts the premise that there is more economic benefit than harm, it would behoove us (the taxpayers) to find a solution that takes advantage of that, helps solve some of the real problems in the system and puts us in a better place than we currently are.

I believe amnesty could be part of that solution. Another part would be to ensure that we're not abusing immigrants and making things fair for all. There's always a middle road...

Now, if you don't accept that premise, you'll have a different take of course. I would sure be interested in seeing someone attempt to show that the costs are higher than the benefits.

Part of why I believe the benefits outweight the costs, btw, is that I know the free market system works. If we didnt' get great benefits, this wouldn't have developed the way it has...

So there's more ramble from me. Here's hoping it makes sense outside of my head...

You've nailed both the issue and the problem, boatin. I (and presumably the majority of citizens) would advocate a change in existing law where it could be shown to improve our situation as a country to do so. Regrettably, it's easier said than done.

First, you need to prove that your cost-benefit analysis assumption is in fact correct. Then you need to propose a reform that would be acceptable to a majority of Americans, understanding the difficulty in changing the minds of the 75% who oppose illegal immigration, many to the point that somehow getting the 11 million plus illegals out of the U.S. is the only answer.

Personally, I would only consider the decriminalization of illegals, as opposed to full amnesty, and even then on a number of conditions. My partial list: all are subject to prosecution and punishment for violating U.S. laws; illegals must come in and register, to obtain decriminalization status, and remain illegal and without any protection until then; they would not receive the right to vote; there would be no path to citizenship, other than under current immigration laws; and they would pay a special tax to cover our regulation and enforcement costs.

The reps and dems are batting around proposed legislation, and luck to them. This is a divisive issue, and even if they can put politics aside and come up with a solution that a majority of us can accept, the result will be to polarize the minority opposing it.

pan6467 · 04-25-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

:
Originally Posted by pan6467
You say the most cases you saw are 50 of ILLEGALS coming across murdering someone and going back across the border. I say the ILLEGALS probably have killed many more, and even just 1 is too many considering they were here illegally. But you say you can live with the just 50 you saw and don't believe there's more.

Who are you to tell the families that the crimes have happened to, that these crimes are rare and that ILLEGALS should be embraced and cared for and allowed here.

We posted at the same time, and I just now saw your post. I'm bummed that you're still putting words into my mouth. I didn't say what you say I did. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

Who am I??? I'm someone that's trying to have a conversation and learn something. I'm not someone saying anything like what you seem to be reading.

Nowhere am I saying we/I/you get to choose which laws to obey. I've explained as best I can that in a message board conversation, saying "it's the law, it's the law, it's the law" isn't that effective at convincing me that a position is the RIGHT position. I agree it's the law, for god's sake.

Have a nice day.

You gave me the words to put into your mouth right here the BOLD and Italics were added by me but the quote is very much your words and only your words......

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I read all your links, and my question still stands. There are about 50 instances (I didn't do a close count) on that list. How many is that per year? Again, there is no doubt we have abuses of laws, and violence from immigrants.

boatin · 04-25-2006, 10:49 AM

And there are some Catholic Priests that do have done horrible, inexcusable things. Should we kick all priests out of the country? Or do they have license to do those things because they are citizens?

My very simple point is that numbers matter. If half the illegals are raping and looting, that's a different scale of problem than if .01% does. It's still wrong, I don't like it, but the difference does matter.

Look: I'm not saying crime is ok. I'm not saying that we should be embracing murderers. F**k them. I'm TRYING to say that some small subset of horror shouldn't control the greater strategy.

If you look at what YOU are saying:

Quote:

Who are you to tell the families that the crimes have happened to, that these crimes are rare and that ILLEGALS should be embraced and cared for and allowed here.

I said nothing of the sort. I don't know how you miss that you are taking my words and spinning them in the most negative way possible.

I don't understand why you would do that. If you want to get into a pissing match about minor comments from a post, have fun with that.

I'll try to have a conversation with Loganmule.

boatin · 04-25-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loganmule

You've nailed both the issue and the problem, boatin. I (and presumably the majority of citizens) would advocate a change in existing law where it could be shown to improve our situation as a country to do so. Regrettably, it's easier said than done.

Boy, are you right on that. I'm not sure that anything can be done, frankly. Moving policy on something like this is a nightmare! My interest is coming to some conclusions for myself, so that I can feel that I'm on solid ground in my beliefs. Since the only thing I can control is me, I need to get my own house in order. Perhaps once I do, I could have some influence on those around me. That's about as high as I can aim

Quote:

First, you need to prove that your cost-benefit analysis assumption is in fact correct. Then you need to propose a reform that would be acceptable to a majority of Americans, understanding the difficulty in changing the minds of the 75% who oppose illegal immigration, many to the point that somehow getting the 11 million plus illegals out of the U.S. is the only answer.

I'd just like to start with a cost-benefit analysis. I've tried to take my crappy google skills and figure something out, but I can't find a thing. Where's Host when you need him?? (that's a comment ONLY in love/respect/admiration for Host, btw).

Assuming we could definitively prove that there's a net benefit, I'm not sure that would matter for the majority of Americans. But I'd sure love to take it to a better level of understanding...

Quote:

Personally, I would only consider the decriminalization of illegals, as opposed to full amnesty, and even then on a number of conditions. My partial list: all are subject to prosecution and punishment for violating U.S. laws; illegals must come in and register, to obtain decriminalization status, and remain illegal and without any protection until then; they would not receive the right to vote; there would be no path to citizenship, other than under current immigration laws; and they would pay a special tax to cover our regulation and enforcement costs.

I'd like to see something like this, but I'm not clear on what's in for the illegals. Why would someone be motivated to do that? Maybe it could be supply side driven - the crime of hiring a trule illegal would be actually enforced and penalized? Without some driver to get them to register, they won't, and we'll be right where we are. Can you tell me more?

Quote:

The reps and dems are batting around proposed legislation, and luck to them. This is a divisive issue, and even if they can put politics aside and come up with a solution that a majority of us can accept, the result will be to polarize the minority opposing it.

Couldn't agree more. I'm skeptical anything can actually happen on this. On a strangely connected note, check out this article:

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

This has nothing to do with immigration, but it discusses something called a Power-law solution that sheds some light on why it's hard to solve problems. Plus, it's written by the best non fiction writer alive

pan6467 · 04-25-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

And there are some Catholic Priests that do have done horrible, inexcusable things. Should we kick all priests out of the country? Or do they have license to do those things because they are citizens?

My very simple point is that numbers matter. If half the illegals are raping and looting, that's a different scale of problem than if .01% does. It's still wrong, I don't like it, but the difference does matter.

Look: I'm not saying crime is ok. I'm not saying that we should be embracing murderers. F**k them. I'm TRYING to say that some small subset of horror shouldn't control the greater strategy.

If you look at what YOU are saying:

I said nothing of the sort. I don't know how you miss that you are taking my words and spinning them in the most negative way possible.

I don't understand why you would do that. If you want to get into a pissing match about minor comments from a post, have fun with that.

I'll try to have a conversation with Loganmule.

Have you addressed any changing of the law? Not that I have seen.

Have you argued for ILLEGALS to be in this country? Yes.

Do you believe in amnesty then? I assume, you do.

Amnesty from what? Breaking the law to enter the country ILLEGALLY?

Alright then I want amnesty on my taxes, on any speed limit laws I make break, on all peoples who steal from stores because they don't have enough money to provide for their families. I demand amnesty from medical bills.... Hell if we the taxpayers can shell out a BILLION to treat ILLEGALS we sure as Hell can afford the $25,000 bill I a taxpaying citizen raked up in October.

You are saying breaking the law is acceptable, because you do not believe there should be any retribution for ILLEGALLY entering the US. You have offered no defenses to your stance, except to say YOU dislike the law. Well, a MAJORITY disagrees with you and instead of offering some form of option or reworking of the law, you dismiss it and that's it.

I dismiss speed limits, jaywalking and grand theft. In fact, I propose that anyone who wants to test drive a new car should be able to just take it home and keep it until they tire of it and then they can go and get a new one.

I do so simply because I like none of those laws and I want a Lambourghini this week, next week I want a Hummer.

Hell, my stealing means that people work to make new cars, so I'm helping the economy through my illegal actions.

Sound absurd?

So does allowing ILLEGAL immigrants into this nation while they refuse to assimilate, learn English and use our tax dollars while putting nothing in (in bi-lingual lawsuits, in the BILLION dollar free healthcare bill, and so on). Then expecting the rest of us to gladly accept them and telling me, "they help our economy". That's absurd to me, it's a slap in my face and a slap to everyone who has come into this country and worked to assimilate and become true citizens of the US.

pan6467 · 04-26-2006, 07:26 AM

And what of these people:

Augustin_Cepeda
(Representing the Brown Berets de Aztlán, a paramilitary offshoot of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), delivered during a Fourth of July rally held outside the Federal Building in Westwood, California, in 1996)

Richard_Alatorre
(Served in the California State Assembly from 1973 to 1985 and was a member of the Los Angeles City Council from 1985 to 1999)

Jose_Angel_Gutierrez
(Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington (and a former leader of the La Raza Unida political party)

Gloria_Molina (A Los Angeles County Supervisor, at a Southwest Voter Registration Project rally in June 1996)

and what they say.

Here's the link: http://www.wtam.com/pages/frantz_page.html

Please give it a listen and hear things like this:

"Go back to Simi Valley you skunks..... Deport us? haha the only ones deported will be you white Anglo Saxons, this is our land, it has always been Mexico and it is now.... we outnumber you and our numbers grow every day.......go back to the Plymouth Rock and Boston you pigs.......the old white people need to die it is your duty.... even your leaders say they take up too much space and air...... this is our land and we claim it for Mexico and we will take it back peacefully or violently we have more people and more come join us every day."

Still want the ILLEGALS here and want to give them amnesty?

Ooooo let me guess these are just a minority...... the same minority that kill, rape, rob and create havoc then scurry like the rat pigs they are back to Mexico where they know they have NO CONSEQUENCES to pay and then come back later to do it all over again.

"But we need to open our borders and give them amnesty and you're just a racist pig...."

Yeah..... ok..... listen to the link and tell me who's racist who hates who and then tell me that.

pan6467 · 04-26-2006, 07:38 AM

BTW the above is not a hit or in anyway meant to be a slap towards ALL Mexicans. There are a vast majority that are good people and wish to just be happy and have enough to feed their families. To them, I say we share the same goals in life.

But the above IS very much a slap and a pointing out of the hate and anger this vocal minority has and the hate and anger that results because of their beliefs.

Is my reaction right? no.

But hatred begets hatred no matter how hard we believe we can be above it, there will be someone or a group that knows just what buttons to press.

boatin · 04-26-2006, 08:07 AM

Pan,

You asked for debate. YOU did. I have never once mentioned race. I have never once disparaged you.

You have not responded to points I have made, you have not responded to my observation that you keep putting words in my mouth. And you seem very very very angry about something.

It's none of my business, but I would suggest that hatred doesn't HAVE to beget hatred. We all make choices, and each person can be in charge of themselves. Particularly in what they write on a silly message board. Read some of the signatures on this page, there's good words here.

I'm done with this now. Have a nice life. Back to semi lurker status for me.

loganmule · 04-26-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Is my reaction right? no.

Pan, your posts on this thread should be entirely in upper case, instead of just the word "illegal", because the screaming comes right through your words. Whatever the problem is, I hope it gets better for you. I know from your other posts, not to mention your self-proclaimed status as "Lennonite Priest", that you understand hatred doesn't have to beget hatred.

Thanks for your respectful resonse to my post, Boatin, and for the link to the Gladwell cite. As soon as I can read and digest the rather lengthy article, I'll share my thoughts with you on it.

pan6467 · 04-27-2006, 07:02 AM

The anger comes from the fact that there are people in this country willing to give ILLEGAL immigrants anything and everything while there are citizens in this country that are barely making it.

Life may not be fair, but jumping jehosephat, we don't have to give our country away.

Let the ILLEGALS spend the time they do coming into this country trying to change and clean up their own country.

When I see ILLEGALS getting Billions of our dollars for FREE healthcare while I, a taxpaying BORN citizen go deeply in debt trying to pay my medical...... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see ILLEGALS come into this country and sue because they REFUSE to learn our language and demand we become bilingual then expect us to bow down kiss their asses and wipe while they shit on us......... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see ILLEGALS commit violent crimes and scurry back across the border, like the ratscum they are, to avoid prosecution for their actions..... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I hear the above links from "Brown Berets" saying,

Quote:

"Go back to Simi Valley you skunks..... Deport us? haha the only ones deported will be you white Anglo Saxons, this is our land, it has always been Mexico and it is now.... we outnumber you and our numbers grow every day.......go back to the Plymouth Rock and Boston you pigs.......the old white people need to die it is your duty.... even your leaders say they take up too much space and air...... this is our land and we claim it for Mexico and we will take it back peacefully or violently we have more people and more come join us every day."

...... Yes, it pisses me off.

When I see people ok with all this and not standing up and saying, "This is wrong and government, the employers and the ILLEGALS need to be held accountable and need to be taken to task for these actions." ....... Yes, it pisses me off.

How anyone can be ok with any of the above is beyond me.

And as far as hate begetting hate..... when all avenues fail, when the people who should be held responsible (the ILLEGALS, Government and the employers) are doing all they can to shirk the responsibility and allow the above injustices to continue..... then yes, the LEGAL citizens of this country should be pissed and standing up shouting "ENOUGH!".

Bill O'Rights · 04-27-2006, 08:13 AM

PAN!!!

You need to calm down...just a little. I know that this is an emotional issue for you...and I do understand why. That's why I've allowed you to vent for this long.
I'm drawing the line with your attacks on those that only wanted to constructively debate. Not cool, man. WWLD What Would Lennon Do?

dksuddeth · 04-28-2006, 08:30 AM

For anyone who believes that illegals should be given amnesty, ask yourselves, should any group large enough that has broken a law be given amnesty?

loganmule · 04-29-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

For anyone who believes that illegals should be given amnesty, ask yourselves, should any group large enough that has broken a law be given amnesty?

I'm with you that amnesty isn't appropriate, if by that you mean all consequences are removed as to illegal status, and especially so, if illegals are given a free path to permanent residency status or citizenship. Incidentally, much of the problem seems to stem from U.S. recogition of citizenship "by right of birthplace" under the 14th Amendment:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm

Part of the fixing the "illegals" issue is to limit this concept, as has been done, for example, in New Zealand:

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.ns...s?OpenDocument

In a reply to boatin, I suggested decriminalization as a possible option. He pointed out that there would need to be an incentive for illegals to opt for that, over continued illegal status, and I'm still working on the details. That said, I was thinking about the ol' carrot and stick approach. The "carrot" would include receiving a permit granting temporary non-resident worker status (maybe we need more carrot than just this). The "stick" would be imposing and strictly enforcing laws with stiff penalties for illegals, and more importantly, for employers of them. Maybe the prices of certain goods will go up significantly, but that's a fair trade to dry up the existing demand for illegal labor. Employers are all about making a buck, and if they are held strictly liable for employing an illegal and penalized steeply enough, employers will eat the extra labor cost and pass it on to the consumer.

The other part of the "illegals" fix is to not confer citizenship status upon a child of an illegal who is born in the U.S. Since citizenship by birth is a recognized right under the 14th Amendment, however, it would take a further Constitutional amendment to change that. Generally, Constitutional amendments are a tough sell, but given the prevailing current sentiment among Americans, I think it could be done.

04-20-2006, 11:00 AM	#83 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Did everyone get up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning? As the employer of someone who at one point worked for me on a tourist visa and later as straight up illegal immigrant who now has a green card (long story), I've got to tell you that not all companies that hire illegals are out to screw them. I paid my guy one of the highest wages for what he does in the city, and he worked hard for it. Believe it or not, there are times where businesses need to go outside the country to find certain kinds of workers who have skills that Americans just don't have. The government can make it very hard to get those folks here legally. Since I'm a good corporate citizen, I bought my guy health insurance and workers comp. It was a gamble as to whether or not those claims would ever get paid (if there had been any), but not all employers of illegals are out to do the wrong thing. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-20-2006, 01:01 PM	#88 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	But after all according to some I respected..... I am just propogating the class warfare and am uninformed and pretty mush just plain a rednecked prejudiced idiot who doesn't deserve their time for debate on such a vital issue where only THIER opinion is the right one. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-20-2006, 01:23 PM	#92 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	OK, this is the official warning to whoever pissed in Pan's cheerios to cut it out! To repeat my original sentiment and expound on it - not all companies screw illegal immigrants, and not all illegal immigrants get here packed like sardines in trucks. My guy flew here (on his own dime). There are lots of illegals in Chicago who work as contractors - one of them was the general contractor for my old condo. They aren't all picking grapes or cleaning toilets. Some of them are out there doing jobs that American could do but maybe not as well. I can just about promise you that there's no way that ANYONE on this board could do the job that my now-legal immigrant employee as well as he can - there are probably 3 native-born Americans and 15 naturalized Americans that could. There are a shitload of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are out there doing it now - the number is probably in the high 100's. For everyone out there using their broad brushes on this subject, stop it. You don't have the full story. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-20-2006, 01:44 PM	#94 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan: i really am surprised that you took my posts as you did--and i apolgize for the aspects of them that tipped over into what you took as a personal attack. no doubt it is my fault, tone-wise. let me explain a few things...and if this amounts to a threadjack then so be it. 1. your posts do not function in isolation in this thread--i tried to make a distinction between your positions as i understand them and those of folk like xephyrx, but maybe i didnt do an adequate job of it. you write alot about both the position you are coming to and the trouble you seem to be having squaring it with other aspects of your political positions, and i did not mean to disrespect your conflicted metaview (the problem f integration is a metaproblem--the problem concerning the undocumented or illegal is a specific area, and so is a problem) 2. there are multiple ways in which one can find an argument advanced by someone else to be a problem--one general route is internal to the postion itself, that is problems of data or category or combination/logic--another is to find the consequences of the argument repellent regardless of the internal logic of the arguments advanced. in this thread, you have folk who are advocating killing people because they---like the posters themselves---operate in the context of this economic space looking for work or having work and feeling threatened. there is no argument that will function for me as valid that leads to any such conclusions. period. 3. you complained in an earlier post that your arguments were not being answered. so i answered them and now you complain about my having answered them. i dont really know what to do at this point about any of that. 4. this debate over the status of undocumented workers--i'll stick with this--did not originate all of a sudden in the states--it has been done over and over again in other countries--western european neo-fascist parties make the issue, framed in ways that are point for point those you see in posts by yourself (on this matter) stevo and xephryx, the center of their politics. the direction in which these arguments run has been demonstrably---um--problematic, and this repeatedly since the emergence of this latest wave of neofascist organizations across the 1980s/early 90s. this is a frame of reference that i carry into this discussion. you should look into it for yourself. the organizations are easy enough to find out about. their history and effects are easy enough to find out about as well. thing is that reasonable folk who find themselves trying to work out responses to threats to their sense of well-being sometimes arrive at these positions by relying on "common sense" reponses--the problem is that "common sense" is usually of a piece with a very truncated view of the context that they operate in. the one advantage the western european context has over the american is that teh greater diversity of political options there means that these various positions are named, are formalized via being named, and so the implication of these positions is more evident publicly at least. in the states, with its narrow, stifling political environment, such positions often go unmarked and with that the consequences of them can be obscured. 5. similar point about naming. in other places, the folk who vilify with caps (an annoying tic--but i am sure that my dislilke for caps is also anoying, so i am in no real position to complain beyond voicing an aesthetic preference)--in france, for example, as a function of the political mobilization around the issue triggered by the actions of the front national on the part of groups like sos racisme, the discourse on the matter has been shifted--the operative category is undocumented workers, not ILLEGAL immigrants. the state has also adopted this kind of terminology as well, in part in order to prevent the kind of---um--problematic mobilizations on the question that you see starting here. these terms matter. much of what i see happening in this thread is held together by the implications of the term ILLEGAL immigrant. i posed a series of objections. they are not taken up. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-23-2006, 10:57 AM	#100 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	The illegal argument There's a lot of different thoughts going on in this thread, but to start with one... I see you saying a number of things (pardon me for simplfying): -illegals are illegal, therefore we should find a way to get rid of them -illegals commit crimes, and then escape back south, so we should find a way to keep em out to avoid this -illegals cost us taxpayers money so we should find a way to keep em out -illegals expect more than equal services, and they pay nothing, it's not fair and we should find a way to keep em out Again, sorry if that's a ridiculous oversimplification of your points - my getting those right or wrong doesn't really impair the point I'm trying to make: I think there are a lot of valid arguments about immigration. I can agree or disagree with any of them, as can anyone of course. But the argument that means absolutely nothing to me is the "it's illegal, therefore it's illegal" line. Of the 4 things I threw down at the start of this post the last 3 are things I think could be rationally discussed. The first bit of reasoning is junk logic to me. It's been used as a 'reason' for the some of the most horrific events in history. And a huge number of more mundane, but no less wrong events. From not employing Jews, to prohibition, to the things I mentioned in an earlier post (prostitution, pot, etc), it's held up as a reason things shouldn't happen. Hard for me to use a line of reasoning that has been shown as wrong so often. Right/wrong is ultimately a better line of reasoning than legal/illegal. My long winded point is: why not argue about the issues - try to convince others that the costs of illegals outweigh the benefits, make the moral arguement, or whatever. Adult Learning Theory suggests that the best way to convince an adult is to explain, not tell. And to repeatably say 'they're illegal, they should go' doesn't advance the logic, and actually does more to convince me the other way. But maybe that's just me. Last edited by boatin; 04-23-2006 at 11:00 AM..

04-20-2006, 01:19 PM	#90 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	So you were posting something while I was. And I guess I really am thick, because I don't get your point. Beyond general dissatisfaction. What ARE you advocating, pan?

04-20-2006, 01:20 PM	#91 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	Here's how I feel about illegal immigrants: Honestly, these people do not belong in the U.S.A. Why we don't have some sort of wall or something to keep them out baffles me. They don't have health insurance, they can't legally get jobs, they don't have car insurance. Most do not speak English, and do not try to learn it. Many are not well educated. Some do not pay taxes. Our tax money goes toward services for them (Medicaid, Food Assistance, Court systems). Also, if it's so easy to get mexicans into the country, what's stopping terrorists? Of course there are some illegals who work hard and pay taxes, but the majority hurt our country, unfortunately.

04-20-2006, 01:48 PM	#95 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Jazz, you admit you are speaking to the exception and not the rule? If so, your point is moot. If not, you need to realize that you ARE, in fact, speaking about a far fewer number of people than we are. First, what kind of work is it? You can PM me if you'd prefer, I'm just curious. Second, "There are a shitload of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are out there doing it now - the number is probably in the high 100's" does not have any bearing on the tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of illegal immigrants in just a part of the US alone, let alone the whole country. One smart Peruvian illegal doesn't make up for (or really make the case for) 50,000 illegals who are NOT able to contribute so much.

04-23-2006, 09:17 PM	#101 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	boatin, the rule of law is what makes things work here in the U.S., albeit sometimes imperfectly. If this were Iran, I'd agree with you that the "illegal is illegal" argument doesn't wash. Our laws, on the other hand, derive from representative government by consent. It starts with the Constitution and winds down to local government, at every level laws being enacted only after a majority of the legislative body approves. When someone disagrees with a law, he or she can lobby to change it, or you can go ahead and violate the law and takes your chances. Your examples of common illegal activity in the U.S. simply reflect how difficult it is to legislate one's inclinations to indulge in certain vices. There is a moral component to the issue of illegal immigration, but not in that sense. Even so, by the will of the majority of people in some communities, prostitution and gambling have been legalized. As for prohibition, the 18th Amendment required two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify it, as was the case some years later, with the adoption of the 21st Amendment. In a perfect world, all the illegals would return home, and the U.S. would implement appropriate laws and regs which greatly expedite and simplify the process of allowing them legal entry back in to work. That ship obviously sailed a long time ago, and the millions of illegals aren't going back home voluntarily. Things are admittedly a bit problematic at this point. That said, I share pan's concerns and feel that any resolution of the problem needs to address them, including the "illegal is illegal" one.

04-24-2006, 05:38 AM	#102 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Is that true about families? A friend of my partner had a child in the US, but is apparently going to be deported (with a second due in 6wks). How she has gone about her life bothers me, but I come from a different and relatively comfortable background and have never wanted to leave it - so in truth, I don't know that it's fair to judge. Anyways, if this is the case, then the mess that she's got herself into would be much less a problem. I would truly appreciate any info you have on the family splitup issue (a good link would do). I've had a quick look at the US laws and too be honest, they seem bloody complex.

04-24-2006, 07:43 AM	#103 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Uhm, if this were Iran, they'd wash fine... they'd just be different laws. Just because they aren't our laws or we don't agree with them does not make them any less valid. Laws are laws and if you don't like them, work to change them or move to a place with laws that you find more agreeable. Mankind is not able to live well without laws (at least not all 6+ billion of us). I don't LIKE the argument, but it is, in fact, the truth!

04-24-2006, 08:50 AM	#104 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Well, it's becoming more clear to me that message board communication isn't a strength for me. I hear what you're saying Logan - I even think I understand and agree. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that as long as we're on a message board, talking about these issues, there are things that are more likely to convince me and things less likely to convince me. Not that convincing me is the goal, but I think I'm a pretty typical target. Laws can be changed (which is one of your points, too). Because they can be changed, arguing that something 'is what it is' because it's the law seems like a waste. Does that make any more sense? I'll try to post a more interesting angle in my next post. I don't want Pan to think no one is bringing anything to the table...

04-24-2006, 09:30 AM	#106 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	I'll start by admitting that I have no facts and figures for my stance on what I'm about to say. I haven't seen any of either (facts or figures) so far on this thread. I apologize if I've missed them, but here's my take: It costs the US taxpayer some amount of money to educate, give health care, and do a number of other kinds of support. That adds up to real money, I'm sure. On the other side, we get cheaper food, cheaper houses and a number of economic positive factors for the average taxpayer. I'm NOT talking about what's right or wrong here, just what is. My contention is that if we could wave a magic wand, and make the border impassable, and magically remove every illegal immigrant, the average taxpayer's life would get worse economically. If one accepts the premise that there is more economic benefit than harm, it would behoove us (the taxpayers) to find a solution that takes advantage of that, helps solve some of the real problems in the system and puts us in a better place than we currently are. I believe amnesty could be part of that solution. Another part would be to ensure that we're not abusing immigrants and making things fair for all. There's always a middle road... Now, if you don't accept that premise, you'll have a different take of course. I would sure be interested in seeing someone attempt to show that the costs are higher than the benefits. Part of why I believe the benefits outweight the costs, btw, is that I know the free market system works. If we didnt' get great benefits, this wouldn't have developed the way it has... So there's more ramble from me. Here's hoping it makes sense outside of my head...

04-26-2006, 07:26 AM	#113 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	And what of these people: Augustin_Cepeda (Representing the Brown Berets de Aztlán, a paramilitary offshoot of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), delivered during a Fourth of July rally held outside the Federal Building in Westwood, California, in 1996) Richard_Alatorre (Served in the California State Assembly from 1973 to 1985 and was a member of the Los Angeles City Council from 1985 to 1999) Jose_Angel_Gutierrez (Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington (and a former leader of the La Raza Unida political party) Gloria_Molina (A Los Angeles County Supervisor, at a Southwest Voter Registration Project rally in June 1996) and what they say. Here's the link: http://www.wtam.com/pages/frantz_page.html Please give it a listen and hear things like this: "Go back to Simi Valley you skunks..... Deport us? haha the only ones deported will be you white Anglo Saxons, this is our land, it has always been Mexico and it is now.... we outnumber you and our numbers grow every day.......go back to the Plymouth Rock and Boston you pigs.......the old white people need to die it is your duty.... even your leaders say they take up too much space and air...... this is our land and we claim it for Mexico and we will take it back peacefully or violently we have more people and more come join us every day." Still want the ILLEGALS here and want to give them amnesty? Ooooo let me guess these are just a minority...... the same minority that kill, rape, rob and create havoc then scurry like the rat pigs they are back to Mexico where they know they have NO CONSEQUENCES to pay and then come back later to do it all over again. "But we need to open our borders and give them amnesty and you're just a racist pig...." Yeah..... ok..... listen to the link and tell me who's racist who hates who and then tell me that. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 04-26-2006 at 07:32 AM..

04-26-2006, 07:38 AM	#114 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	BTW the above is not a hit or in anyway meant to be a slap towards ALL Mexicans. There are a vast majority that are good people and wish to just be happy and have enough to feed their families. To them, I say we share the same goals in life. But the above IS very much a slap and a pointing out of the hate and anger this vocal minority has and the hate and anger that results because of their beliefs. Is my reaction right? no. But hatred begets hatred no matter how hard we believe we can be above it, there will be someone or a group that knows just what buttons to press. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-26-2006, 08:07 AM	#115 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Pan, You asked for debate. YOU did. I have never once mentioned race. I have never once disparaged you. You have not responded to points I have made, you have not responded to my observation that you keep putting words in my mouth. And you seem very very very angry about something. It's none of my business, but I would suggest that hatred doesn't HAVE to beget hatred. We all make choices, and each person can be in charge of themselves. Particularly in what they write on a silly message board. Read some of the signatures on this page, there's good words here. I'm done with this now. Have a nice life. Back to semi lurker status for me. Last edited by boatin; 04-26-2006 at 08:09 AM..

04-27-2006, 08:13 AM	#118 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	PAN!!! You need to calm down...just a little. I know that this is an emotional issue for you...and I do understand why. That's why I've allowed you to vent for this long. I'm drawing the line with your attacks on those that only wanted to constructively debate. Not cool, man. WWLD What Would Lennon Do? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-28-2006, 08:30 AM	#119 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	For anyone who believes that illegals should be given amnesty, ask yourselves, should any group large enough that has broken a law be given amnesty? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."