NationStates Jolt Archive


Legal immigrants against illegal immigrants? WTF, over??

Eutrusca
20-07-2006, 22:23
COMMENTARY: These guys make a pretty good argument, but then again, almost everyone involved in this can of worms makes a pretty good argument. The immigration conundrum isn't going to go away anytime soon, that much is sure.

Your thoughts??


'You Don't Speak for Me,'
Legal Hispanic Immigrants Shout (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200607/CUL20060720a.html)



By Alison Espach
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A group of American Hispanics -- legal residents of the U.S. -- are blasting efforts to convert illegal immigrants into "guest workers," arguing that their own pursuit of the American dream is being impeded by the influx of illegal aliens.

"We are American citizens, we're voters. We elect our officials in office right now. Our voices need to be heard, not those of illegal aliens and their well-funded advocates," said Mariann Davies, vice-chairman of the group You Don't Speak For Me (YDSFM). Davies is the daughter of legal immigrants from Ecuador.

Davies told Cybercast News Service that YDSFM has attracted about a thousand members since it was launched earlier this year and represents the majority of Americans and American Hispanics against illegal alien rights.

YDSFM was formed by Col. Al Rodriguez in response to this year's media coverage of Latino and Hispanic "pro-immigration" rallies -- a phrase that Rodriguez said his group resents. YDSFM was angry that the rallies were portrayed as representing the position of all Latinos and Hispanics in the U.S.

In a statement on the YDSFM website, Davies indicated that she first noticed the problems in immigration control when she worked as a college volunteer during the implementation of the Immigration and Control Act of 1986. That law provided legal status to 3.1 million people who had come to the United States illegally.

"I witnessed chaotic and inconsistent paperwork for people with no documentation. It was a mess, and we now know that much of the information provided by illegal immigrants was fraudulent," Davies said.

"We also know that terrorists were also granted amnesty under the 1986 program, something that should shock and anger all Americans. We also know that all 19 hijackers from September 11 took advantage of our legal system, staying here on expired or fraudulent visas to wage their war of terror," she added.

Davies said she is outraged by more recent problems linked to the illegal immigration problem, such as the "84 hospitals that have closed emergency rooms in California" because of excessive illegal alien use and "the massive amount of public dollars that have been spent educating illegal alien students and children of illegal aliens."

According to a Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) report, the "utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegal aliens (29 percent) is more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (11 percent).

"How about social services programs that are meant for our own most vulnerable citizens?" Davies asked. "How about school districts that are overrun and having to have bilingual education and thousands and thousands of non-English speaking students who are taking resources away from the rest of the students?"

Davies said many school districts are forced to eliminate programs in arts and music "because they have so many non-English speaking illegal alien children that they have to spend the money on special services and teachers and social workers for them."

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) -- an advocacy group for Latino rights -- said YDSFM's point is not the one shared by most Hispanics and Latinos.

"The majority of Latinos do support comprehensive immigration reform," said Michele Waslin from NCLR.

Waslin favors President Bush's "guest worker" provision, which would provide many current undocumented immigrants new legal channels for working in the U.S. and an eventual path to citizenship. The U.S. Senate's version of immigration reform includes the "guest worker" provision, but the bill passed by the U.S. House does not. The House bill also calls for a fence along the U.S. border, a crackdown on alien smuggling rings and those who illegally enter the U.S. It would establish a system for employers to verify the legal status of the people they hire as well.

According to a Pew Hispanic immigration study this month, 56 percent of American Hispanics said that they would participate in a pro-immigration rally; 52 percent favored a policy that provided a path to citizenship for undocumented migrant workers; 41 percent said they thought some undocumented workers should be eligible for citizenship and only 5 percent said all undocumented immigrants should be blocked from citizenship

But Davies argued that the Senate legislation would reward illegal aliens with "amnesty" and is "not a solution to what is happening in this country."

"It is completely unfair to every single immigrant who has played by the rules, including those who have pending applications and have been waiting outside of this country for years," said Davies.

YDSFM also criticized President Bush for his approval of the bill that would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country.

"The president tries to justify this, saying they are going to have to wait 11 years to go through the process," said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for YDSFM and FAIR. "That, he says, is going to the back of the line.

"But for the people who broke the law, the back of the line forms here in this country; whereas people who have been playing by the rules, the back of the line is in some other country," he added.

State governments have stepped up their immigration enforcement, passing 57 bills this year that cut benefits for illegal immigrants and place sanctions on employers who hire them. For example:

- Georgia lawmakers passed a bill that sanctions employers who hire illegals and forces people seeking benefits to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship. The bill also mandates that police check the legal status of those they arrest;
- Colorado employers must now show that recent hires are of legal status. Colorado also banned non-emergency services to illegals;
- Louisiana's new legislation allows any state agency to investigate an employer's hiring practices if it is suspected that illegals are being hired. All employers who do not cooperate can be fined.

If more similar legislation is passed and enforced, Mehlman claims "the supply of jobs will dry up [for illegals], fewer people will come, and in fact, many people will get discouraged and decide to leave."

"That's the way you enforce laws. You make an example out of enough employers and everyone starts to get the message," added Mehlman.

But Waslin's group stated that legislation focusing on border enforcement is useless. "We have seen enforcement-only approaches for the past 20 years and they obviously have not worked," said Waslin.
Pledgeria
20-07-2006, 22:30
The best way to knock down the people arguing against illegal immigration is to ignore the "illegal" aspects and focus on ALL immigration.

Person X: "I'm against illegal immigration."
Person Y: "What do you have against people coming to this country."
Person X: "Nothing, if they do it legally."
Person Y: "So you favor keeping people from freedom."
Person X: "No, not if they get a visa, request permanent residency, etc."
Person Y: "This country was founded by people coming here and ..."
Person X: "Are you retarded?"

Don't get me wrong. Both sides of the debate make good and shitty points. Each side ignores half of what the other says, then claims moral superiority. I have no opinion on the subject one way or the other (before people start flaming me), just trying to show how the argument gets distorted.
Eutrusca
20-07-2006, 22:32
The best way to knock down the people arguing against illegal immigration is to ignore the "illegal" aspects and focus on ALL immigration.

Person X: "I'm against illegal immigration."
Person Y: "What do you have against people coming to this country."
Person X: "Nothing, if they do it legally."
Person Y: "So you favor keeping people from freedom."
Person X: "No, not if they get a visa, request permanent residency, etc."
Person Y: "This country was founded by people coming here and ..."
Person X: "Are you retarded?"

Don't get me wrong. Both sides of the debate make good and shitty points. Each side ignores half of what the other says, then claims moral superiority. I have no opinion on the subject one way or the other (before people start flaming me), just trying to show how the argument gets distorted.
Yup! It does get distorted, almost beyond all recognition. Our best hope is that concern over border security will prodominate, and some system acceptable to at least most of those concerned will be devised. This, however, is going to take time.
Pledgeria
20-07-2006, 22:35
I'm surprised that people haven't considered just annexing all of Mexico. Make it part of the U.S. and it's no longer immigration. It's migration. It'd get rid of that even-more-corrupt government down there, too. :-D

(Just playing devil's advocate.)
Ignorant LawStudent
20-07-2006, 22:38
I think illegal immigration's a problem, but just once I'd like to see someone address the issue without bringing up terrorism.
Free Soviets
20-07-2006, 23:00
"We also know that terrorists were also granted amnesty under the 1986 program"

yeah, sure
Farnhamia
20-07-2006, 23:03
Sure the issue will go away. Right after the November elections, no matter how they turn out.
Eutrusca
20-07-2006, 23:16
I'm surprised that people haven't considered just annexing all of Mexico. Make it part of the U.S. and it's no longer immigration. It's migration. It'd get rid of that even-more-corrupt government down there, too. :-D

(Just playing devil's advocate.)
I've had some thoughts along those lines, but we've got some pretty significant problems that need addressing already. We don't need to adopt an enitre country with even more problems just yet.
Trostia
21-07-2006, 01:21
We don't need to adopt an enitre country with even more problems just yet.

...which is a good reason to leave Iraq already.:cool:
Corneliu
21-07-2006, 01:37
Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigrants? Who'd have thunk it.

I say down with the illegals and kick them all back to Mexico City where those criminals belong.
Monkeypimp
21-07-2006, 01:41
I've had some thoughts along those lines, but we've got some pretty significant problems that need addressing already. We don't need to adopt an enitre country with even more problems just yet.


Central American's would love that, as they wouldn't have to sneak into Mexico and travel as far to get all the way to the US :D
Barrygoldwater
21-07-2006, 01:44
Well, the legal ones did it the ethical way and the hard way, while the illegals are a bunch of criminal sneaks. I can see the difference. Many others can't. I am glad that the legal ones do.
NERVUN
21-07-2006, 01:54
COMMENTARY: These guys make a pretty good argument, but then again, almost everyone involved in this can of worms makes a pretty good argument. The immigration conundrum isn't going to go away anytime soon, that much is sure.

Your thoughts??

As with everything, there are two sides.

But I still think that immigration reform coupled with actually investing in Mexico to make it better will keep most of the people home. If we make it easier for people to get into the US along with make it more attractive to stay home, we can then start assuming that the people crossing the border are the bad guys and not someone who wants to mow my lawn cheaply.

But you're right, this isn't going to go away and there isn't an easy solution.
Dissonant Cognition
21-07-2006, 02:05
Legal immigrants against illegal immigrants? WTF, over??


Actually, historically, this is not an uncommon occurance. In the specific case of Mexican immigration, there have been many organizations that advocated legal immigration, assimilation, use of English, etc. Such values and positions were often put forward as a means of combating racism and discrimination; by accepting and promoting "American values," it was hoped that immigrants could demonstrate their value to the greater society. These organizations have directly opposed illegal immigration, and have even at time opposed any immigration. Often their arguments centered around concerns about crime, effect on jobs and wages, and other concerns typically raised in immigration debates. However, anti-immigration should not be confused with anti-immigrant; while certain Mexican American organizations opposed (illegal) immigration, they at the same time championed the civil and political rights of those (illegal) immigrants that were already here. The racism and discrimination mentioned above often served to promote draconian anti-immigration policy that often had serious and devastating effect on legal Mexican-American U.S. citizens and families. This is what is at the very heart of the so-called "pro-illegal immigration" individuals and groups; citizens are observing the record of overzealous, discriminatory, and often racist immigration policy and legislation over the course of United States history and find serious reason to fear for their own liberties and safety in the face of a resurgence of anti-immigration political rhetoric. Something to keep in mind, anyway, when Fox News, CNN, or whoever else wants to hyper-oversimplify a quite complex issue.

Here are two excellent books on the subject:

Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity by David G. Gutiérrez, University of California Press ("walls" refers to the anti-immigration policy of many Mexican-American political organizations while "mirrors" refers to the simultaneous sympathy felt toward all immigrants in the common struggle against racism and discrimination)
Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a New Electorate by Louis DeSipio, University Press of Virginia
Eutrusca
21-07-2006, 02:12
...which is a good reason to leave Iraq already.:cool:
LOL! Perhaps, but not precipitiously and not on some set timetable, IMHO. :)
Lunatic Goofballs
21-07-2006, 02:25
The people toward the end of the article have the right idea; You don't need a fence. You need to target the employers of illegal immigrants. If it is financially or legally unsavory to employ illegals, than the employers won't. If there's no work for illegal immigrants, then there will be no illegal immigration.

There's a tendency among many to blame illegal immigrants. These are poor people just looking for a better life. We need to blame the employers who exploit them. We need to blame the smugglers who use them as a smokescreen.
NERVUN
21-07-2006, 02:54
The people toward the end of the article have the right idea; You don't need a fence. You need to target the employers of illegal immigrants. If it is financially or legally unsavory to employ illegals, than the employers won't. If there's no work for illegal immigrants, then there will be no illegal immigration.

There's a tendency among many to blame illegal immigrants. These are poor people just looking for a better life. We need to blame the employers who exploit them. We need to blame the smugglers who use them as a smokescreen.
Good luck with that though. A few years back there was some screaming about illegal immigration that caught the Congress's attention. The ones who put a stop to ANY legislation were the growers who complained about their field collasping if they couldn't get cheap labor to pick oranges.

Congress backed off.
Lunatic Goofballs
21-07-2006, 02:58
Good luck with that though. A few years back there was some screaming about illegal immigration that caught the Congress's attention. The ones who put a stop to ANY legislation were the growers who complained about their field collasping if they couldn't get cheap labor to pick oranges.

Congress backed off.

I know. That's why we have to porous border to begin with; We need illegal immigrants for cheap disposable labor. No benefits, no minimoum wage, no complaints to labor departments. The only thng those employers want less than a completely secure border is easy legal immigration.
Epsilon Squadron
21-07-2006, 07:22
The people toward the end of the article have the right idea; You don't need a fence. You need to target the employers of illegal immigrants. If it is financially or legally unsavory to employ illegals, than the employers won't. If there's no work for illegal immigrants, then there will be no illegal immigration.

There's a tendency among many to blame illegal immigrants. These are poor people just looking for a better life. We need to blame the employers who exploit them. We need to blame the smugglers who use them as a smokescreen.
What I don't understand, is why can't we have both?

One side of the argument says "no need for border security, go after employers".

Another side says "shut down the border, no workers, no need to worry about employers".

Any reason not to go after the employers while securing the border?
Lunatic Goofballs
21-07-2006, 07:39
What I don't understand, is why can't we have both?

One side of the argument says "no need for border security, go after employers".

Another side says "shut down the border, no workers, no need to worry about employers".

Any reason not to go after the employers while securing the border?

As long as we go after the employers, then you can build a moat filled with grape jelly on the border(which soulds delightful, actually).

I have nothing against a secure border. However, a semi-secure border helps these employers. The more desperate the workers who get here are, the better. The more indebted they are to the smugglers that ship them in, the better.

The partial walls that are being considered, if taken as the lone measure, HELP the employers of illegal immigrants. You have to go after the MONEY.
The Nazz
21-07-2006, 07:47
As long as we go after the employers, then you can build a moat filled with grape jelly on the border(which soulds delightful, actually).

I have nothing against a secure border. However, a semi-secure border helps these employers. The more desperate the workers who get here are, the better. The more indebted they are to the smugglers that ship them in, the better.

The partial walls that are being considered, if taken as the lone measure, HELP the employers of illegal immigrants. You have to go after the MONEY.
Exactly. The short term repercussions would be painful, however, as you'd see prices for goods and services produced by illegal immigrants go up, and quick, as those companies struggled to replace illegals with legals. Productivity would slip at least a little, and labor costs would go up. All these are net gains in my book, by the way. The other thing you'd see happen would be some furious lobbying by those industries to relax immigration laws and allow easier entry for unskilled laborers as citizens.
Capim
21-07-2006, 09:53
USA are only paying the cost for the sucess when shows thenselfs as the "best country in the world, the land of freedoms, the land of opportunities and so on".

Hollywood movies always made this along several years. People around the world saw this movies and believed. And if they can, they will try to go to this "earth´s paradise", when everybody may have 2 or 3 cars, 20 television sets and 5 personal computers ... All they need are to work hard.

So, you can built a fence, a wall, arrest illegal people and deport or kill then. Other will try to enter.

Put a wall alongside the mexican border and they will try to enter by canadian border or by sea.

The hope for a happy life goes to exceed the fear of the death.
ScotchnSoda
21-07-2006, 10:10
i know we both have problems but ... anex mexico
Pledgeria
21-07-2006, 10:15
i know we both have problems but ... anex mexico

I'd recommend annexing Canada, too. We might as well make them all officially U.S. citizens as well. :D
BogMarsh
21-07-2006, 10:51
If I am a legal immigrant, then I'm well on the way towards sharing the benefits of my new society.
If those benefits become watered down due to an influx of unregulated newcomers, my expected benefits become endangered.

Therefore, legal immigrants face risks and threats due to illegal immigrants just like grandfather-claused residents.
BogMarsh
21-07-2006, 11:30
The best way to knock down the people arguing against illegal immigration is to ignore the "illegal" aspects and focus on ALL immigration.

Person X: "I'm against illegal immigration."
Person Y: "What do you have against people coming to this country."
Person X: "Nothing, if they do it legally."
Person Y: "So you favor keeping people from freedom."
Person X: "No, not if they get a visa, request permanent residency, etc."
Person Y: "This country was founded by people coming here and ..."
Person X: "Are you retarded?"

Don't get me wrong. Both sides of the debate make good and shitty points. Each side ignores half of what the other says, then claims moral superiority. I have no opinion on the subject one way or the other (before people start flaming me), just trying to show how the argument gets distorted.

Think so?

Person 'B': The country was founded by carefully selecting the Best of the Best.
Person 'B': One of the basic principles of Calvinism is that there is a tollgate at the Heavenly Gates.
To keep the riff raff out.
Lunatic Goofballs
21-07-2006, 12:33
Think so?

Person 'B': The country was founded by carefully selecting the Best of the Best.
Person 'B': One of the basic principles of Calvinism is that there is a tollgate at the Heavenly Gates.
To keep the riff raff out.

Person B is dead wrong. :p
Harlesburg
21-07-2006, 12:42
Makes sense.
It only proves the Conservatives were right!
Immigrants take jobs!
Gift-of-god
21-07-2006, 13:06
I will admit to a bias here, as some of those illegals in LA have been relatives of mine.

Having said that, I must agree that the current economic system that employs (or exploits, if you prefer) illegal immigrants in the USA is far too powerful to allow for any radical change in the staus quo.

Perhaps a two-pronged approach to the problem: on the one hand, create a guest-worker system that lets people come and work here, for similar wages and benefits that illegals have now and the promise of citizenship after 10 years or so, and secondly, make it very easy to apply to the program, i.e. just present yourself to the border patrol and turn yourself in...

Companies would still enjoy the same benefits, immigrants would have a reason to be up front about their status with the government, people traffickers would lose their clientele, and you can then secure your border as much as you want.

I'm sure there are problems with this solution, and I will now leave it to you to point them out. :)
BogMarsh
21-07-2006, 13:28
Person B is dead wrong. :p

Person B is as right as right can be!

Seriously - I am a legal immigrant in MY country,
the kind who is proud and happy to be a good Subject of Her Britanic Majesty,
and I see no need to hobnob with those who don't want to be good subjects.
Jeruselem
21-07-2006, 13:31
I wonder how many of legal immigrants actually came in illegally? :p
Lunatic Goofballs
21-07-2006, 13:32
Person B is as right as right can be!

Seriously - I am a legal immigrant in MY country,
the kind who is proud and happy to be a good Subject of Her Britanic Majesty,
and I see no need to hobnob with those who don't want to be good subjects.

Generally speaking, most countries were founded by the scum that another country threw out. :)

Take America. Founded by smugglers and religious fanatics. :)

"And then there were the puritans; our ancestors. People so uptight, the English kicked em out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to go, 'Get the fuck out!' "-Robin Williams.
BogMarsh
21-07-2006, 13:32
I wonder how many of legal immigrants actually came in illegally? :p


Is that an insult?
BogMarsh
21-07-2006, 13:33
Generally speaking, most countries were founded by the scum that another country threw out. :)

Take America. Founded by smugglers and religious fanatics. :)

"And then there were the puritans; our ancestors. People so uptight, the English kicked em out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to go, 'Get the fuck out!' "-Robin Williams.


*pokes*
I'd say that the religious fanatics were among the best of the best.
Nuffin wrong with fanatics - provided they're fanatic about the Right Thing.
Banifish
21-07-2006, 13:35
the one thing that really caught my attention was the "wasted tax dollars on educating....children of illegal immigrants"

regardless of parentage, if the kid was born on US soil, its a citzen. but meh.