loganmule

Evidentally, we can all take Monday off, due to the plans of pro-immigration Latino activists to shut down all the major U.S. cities. Here's an excerpt from the full article at this link:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...id=&cap=&sz=13


"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood U.S. streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.

Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos -- nor their leaders -- were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.

"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue."


I like to think of myself as a reasonable guy, but this offends me. It takes mega cahones of the arrogant variety to demand amnesty without consequence for illegals.

magictoy

I'm wondering if the boycott will extend to visits to hospitals and government benefit offices.

SteelyLoins

Stick with it for the big finish.


<!-- message -->
<div><center><embed src="http://medialacache3.badongo.com/0599867970523523/7741126/video/2006-04-30/Apr_6_Rush.wmv?dl=y"></embed></center><br />

MojoRisin

Why not allow them to join the military to earn their citizenship. A man or woman joining will give their spouse and children given temporary citizenship until requirements are met. Large corporations can start work/housing programs and even school programs. Given the situation in the middle east the military may need more strength and out of the 8 million or so illegals at least 2 million would qualify for service.

__________________
Dropping a barbell he points to the sky and says "The suns not yellow, It's chicken!"

barenakedladies

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IF YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

__________________
signature smignature

ubertuber

Wow. That's pretty harsh. I'm actually of a different mindset. I believe we should extend as many of our rights and freedoms as practiceable to non-citizens. We do hold that they should be universal, right?

I can see drawing the line at voting or consuming taxpayer funded services, but the right to assembly?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

Isn't the right to protest a pre-existing right? Like lots of others that the founders claimed?

__________________
"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."

ubertuber

Not to mention, from a practical standpoint it's a universal right. Not many americans want to see the police knocking down a bunch of people who are holding a protest - even if they are illegal immigrants. Memories of the 60's and 70's are still too close for that.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

stevo

sure it is. If you have the right to be here. They aren't here legally, they cannot do anything here legally, including protest. They can protest all they want on the other side of the border. I, as an american, support their right to protest. But I do not support their illegal entry into the United States.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

damianjames

I am a project manager for a construction company. We're working on a hotel refit right now, and the amount of non-english speaking latino workers on that job is staggering. This is skilled labor with a high wage. Sure doesn't seem like an agricultural job no one else wants.

Personally, I don't think big business is the cause of so many illegals gaining employment. Its the smaller businesses who don't get looked at by the government so closely getting away with under-the-table workers. It is unfortunately small business owners that need to be penalized here.

__________________
Visualize Whirled Peas.

ngdawg

Having this take in chat yesterday was like being the target for carnival games.
Giving amnesty to people who came here illegally, put their kids in already stressed out school systems, using up resources they don't pay into at all, including ESL, medical services, etc is asinine. Because of these 8 million or so using up resources without payback, citizens are denied their tax-paid rights to the same services.
Anyone recall the young girl in NC who got a heart/lung transplant then later died? She was an illegal, her hospital costs were free. Meanwhile, someone, a citizen, was waiting for that same heart, maybe worked hard or their parents worked hard for years and suffered through the same things....and were set back because the urgency of someone not even supposed to be here to precedence. If I sound cold, sorry, but the cold facts are for every illegal that freely uses our country's resources, a rightful, LEGAL citizen gets pushed back. Now, multiply that by 8 million.
Crime: No checks and balances means anyone can come in, correct? How did the hijackers of 9/11 get in? Even what we have now has cracks in it. Examples, albeit not the major concern, but a real one: 11 rapes in New Brunswick, NJ. 3 rapes and robberies of elderly women in North Brunswick, NJ. Kidnapping of woman in Bridgwater, NJ(later found alive). Murder of two children in central NJ. One thing they all had in common-the perpetrators were all illegal aliens. And these were just the headline-grabbing stories in the past six months. Open borders mean open. To anyone.
I was told that it was 'cold hearted' that people are starving and that's why they're crossing over illegally. I'll send food.
Granting amnesty to illegals is a slap in the face to every immigrant that went throught PROPER channels to get here, pay their share of taxes and struggle like everyone else, save one glaring exception-they're contributing.
I agree with Pan on every issue he raised, especially going after those employers who hire illegals in the first place. Tax them, fine them the differences they paid to illegals to comparable legal workers. They create a lot of this problem, take total advantage of these people and create dangerous environments with no incentive to improve.
Chinese who come here illegally many times (at least in NY, anyway) live where they work, work 12-13 hour days 7 days a week for substandard wages and have to pay back their 'mules' thousands of dollars-in essence they work in servitude for years. Construction firms hire unskilled workers from Central America to bypass union wages; they also end up shortchanging the public with substandard building practices many times and creating dangerous situations for the workers. How is any of this better for anyone?
I also agree with the point of instead of coming here, work to improve conditions in the homeland. Protesting here?? Why is the US the only country to pull out its wallet? March in Mexico City, Juarez...Long-term, would it not be better to improve conditions where you live instead of going elsewhere and leaving those conditions to fester?
In response to the 'child born here so deportation is null' is false. Six months after 9/11, a Pakistani man in Texas was shot and killed in his store simply for who he was. His family lived here still and less than a year after his death, were threatened with deportation, even though the youngest child was born here. Technically, the illegals of the family can be deported; the children do not have to go. In this case, they got emergency amnesty and were all allowed to stay. A neighbor of mine was from England, her husband from Lebanon, their 3 children born here. When she went to renew her and her husband's visas, she was told there was a 6 month wait-come back. She was in a panic because during that 6 month time, they'd be 'illegal' and if the US really wanted to be a bitch, could deport them. People who are illegal and commit crimes can be deported regardless of where their kids are born-it'd be up to them what to do about those kids.
It's just that the US looks more sympathetically at some cases where the parents are illegal and the children were born here, but it does not guarantee they'll be allowed to stay.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

flstf

I don't understand why the administration and others claim that it is so difficult to send illegal immigrants across the border from the U.S. to Mexico. They seem to be able to cross it from Mexico to the U.S. all the time.

The fair thing to do is to let the illegal immigrants get to the back of the line in their own country and give priority to those who follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing them to stay here after they broke the law and came in illegally is just another form of amnesty and unfair to all those who follow the rules.

Allowing them to stay here while they wait for citizenship also encourages others to break the law. Why should those who wish to immigrate legally wait for years in their home country when they can just come here now and work? The president's and senate bill smacks of politics and I am amazed that they can propose it with a straight face.

If I understand it correctly Reagan (our government) granted amnesty to about 3 million illegals 20 years ago and now we have about 15 million. Do we really want to have 5 times that many in another 20 years?

Nimetic

My thoughts?

Quite simply that immigration is much simpler when your country is an island. And labour costs are probably higher...

tecoyah

When 10% of one country....actually lives in another, there might be something wrong. One way or another we need to stop the migration of illegals.

A bit of perspective for everyone:

"Washington -- The current migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States is one of the largest diasporas in modern history, experts say.

Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States.

Mass migration from Mexico began more than a century ago. It is deeply embedded in the history, culture and economies of both nations. The current wave began with Mexico's economic crisis in 1982, accelerated sharply in the 1990s with the U.S. economic boom, and today has reached record dimensions. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...MMIGRATION.TMP

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

samcol

This is too funny if it's true.

aKula

I think it would be exceedingly difficult. Forcibly removing such a large number of people from a country would not be an easy undertaking. What if mistakes were made and US citizens were sent to Mexico? The effect of removing such a large labour force from the economy would also have a large impact. It's much more realistic to grant amnesty and secure the borders.

Immigration is a very important and exceedingly difficult to manage. Humanitarian (ethical) considerations must be balanced againts social and economic considerations. The mass emigrations that still took place last century do not seem to be possible anymore. The country receiving the immigrants seems to have less to gain and more to lose. If not managed correctly, a strain is placed on the social cohesion of the country, as evidenced by the riots in Paris and anectdotal accounts I have heard (from concerned as well as third parties). Nonetheless closely managed immigration can help a country by attracting needed skilled migrants.

In my mind the ethical case is much clearer when dealing with political refugees (as opposed to economic) as ethical concerns eclipse the other and the numbers involved are much lower.

Economic immigration is harder to deal with. For example, many north africans attempt to reach the EU every year. If an influx of such immigrants were to be aloud access unabated this would lead to an appreciable decrease in the standard of living of the people within the EU. Is this not what we are primarily concerned with? Even though the immigrants come and obtain a greater standard of living than in their home countries (albeit below the average standard of living of the country they now live in) their presence creates an economic, social and eventually political impact. In great enough numbers we may even imagine the country losing much of its former prosperity. In such a light immigration must, of course, be restricted. Ethically seen, however, what right do we have to deny to people to share in this prosperity?

I think this is a contradiction in the dealings of what we largely see western society (particularly the social democracies of western europe) to be, that is socially just. Of course I cannot offer a solution to this contradiction and continue to enjoy the benifits the current system gives me. (Indeed it is similar to what Peter Singer has written about obligations we have to the third world for which he did not offer any clear cut solution either).

__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

flstf

It would be difficult but I know of no other way to be fair to the ones who follow our laws and get in line to immigrate legally sometimes waiting many years. I know that life is not fair but this is something we can have control over.

From what little I understand about the matter, I don't think our immigration laws are that unreasonable and if they are so bad that we must grant amnesty to those who break them then maybe we should change them.

People break laws all the time because they think it is in their best interests to do so (taxes comes to mind) but that is no reason to grant amnesty to those who have violated the law the longest.

sapiens

I don't know, but I wonder if the ones who "get in line" are the wealthy- those that can handle waiting, aren't desperate for a job, or who have skills in demand. The ones that immigrate illegally may be the poor- who are desperate and don't have the means wait in line.

Again, I don't know if this is the case and I don't know if it makes a difference.

jmad

I consider myself liberal on social issues and conservative as far as the economy goes. As much as I want to help the poor, starving and homeless of Mexico, illegal immigration hurts our citizens at the same time, so why should I side with people of another nation before my fellow citizens????

And to everyone who says we need to change immigration laws, I agree completely. But right now, the ship is sinking. We should plug the hole before trying to figure out what to do with all the flood water. Stop the flow of illegal aliens now, and change the laws after.

And for the Mexicans who want to pull a huge street rally in the middle of a working day....

...I wonder how many of these will be illegals??? It would be a great opportunity to send a few million of them back to Mexico! Too bad the National Guard is too busy digging up WMDs in Iraq. Or breaking that link between Al-Qaeda and Sadaam. Or installing a "role model" democracy in the Middle East...
See, I really am a liberal.