NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=726632

U.S. town turned into an open-air prison

Charles Lewis, National Post Published: Friday, August 15, 2008

The town of Postville, Iowa, population 2,000, has been turned into an open-air prison. Jerry Johnson, who works at nearby Luther College, called it something out of a bad science-fiction movie or the kind of thing a 1930s totalitarian regime might have cooked up.

"This was not only a grievous injustice but a shame on the state of Iowa and the federal government," said Mr. Johnson. "These were good, decent people who were also the most defenseless."

On May 12, immigration officials swooped in to arrest 400 undocumented workers from Mexico and Guatemala at the local meat-packing plant, a raid described as the biggest such action at a single site in U.S. history. The raid left 43 women, wives of the men who were taken away, and their 150 children without status or a means of support. The women cannot leave the town, and to make sure they do not they have been outfitted with leg monitoring bracelets.

"The women are effectively prisoners," said Father Paul Ouderkirk at St. Bridget's Roman Catholic Church. "The difference between them and anybody who is in jail is that in jail the government pays for them, but if they're on the streets we pay for them.

"What kind of a government makes prisoners of 43 mothers who all have children and then says, ‘You can't work, you can't leave and can't stay?' That boggles the imagination."

A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the law does not provide for work authorization for illegals.

Since the raid, St. Bridget's, with a staff of four, has raised $500,000 to pay for rent, clothing, food and other necessities of life. Donations have come from other faith groups and individuals who have read about the raid.

Fr. Ouderkirk, who has spent 50 years as a priest and had been in retirement for five years, was called back to active duty by the parish when the crisis hit. "It is the most difficult, most challenging situation I have ever faced. And yet, strangely, the incident that has been most strengthening of my faith. It shows there are a lot of compassionate people because if there weren't, we wouldn't be able to do what we're doing."

He said the women and children were so terrified that they refused to go back to their apartments. They lived at the church during the first week after the raid.

Meanwhile, the men were taken to the National Cattle Congress building in Waterloo, Iowa, where immigration judges were on hand. They were charged and then sent to nine different prisons around the state. Fr. Ouderkirk said some of the men were deported and others are serving five-month prison terms for violating immigration laws - but he said no one ever explained why some were held and others sent home.

The men were all working at Agriprocessors, believed to be the largest kosher meat-packing plant in the world. Fr. Ouderkirk and others have said the plant was a disgrace that abused workers who had little understanding of their rights. He said conditions were dangerous, accidents were common and that workers were often forced to work extremely long hours. As well, he and others said the plant knew full well that many of their workers were undocumented.

The Iowa Labor Department's documents show there have been a number of safety and health issues. And last week, Iowa officials said they uncovered dozens of child-labour violations. No charges have been laid and the company called the allegations untrue.

The company said that since the raid, it has voluntarily gone to a more sophisticated electronic system to verify the documents of workers. It also said it was waiving rent for women living in company-owned apartments and making regular food contributions.

The plant was founded more than 20 years ago and it brought to this small Iowa town - a place settled by Norwegian Lutheran farmers - a community of Hasidic Jews. Eventually more than 1,000 workers were hired, bringing the population of Postville up to 2,400 residents.

The story of two such dissimilar cultures living side by side attracted the attention of University of Iowa journalism professor Stephen Bloom, who wrote a book about the town called Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America.

Prof. Bloom spent five years in the town doing research. He said it was inevitable that the plant would turn to undocumented workers because they were the only ones who would stay, and the locals were not interested in such gruesome work.

He also came to the conclusion that the Hasidic Jews did not make the best neighbours and were unwilling to co-operate with the rest of the town.

But Aaron Goldsmith disagrees with that assessment and thinks that many have made Agriprocessors the bogeyman in all this. Mr. Goldsmith, also a Hasidic Jew, does not work for Agriprocessors but runs his own business in the town. He came with his family 11 years ago from California and said they all fell in love with Postville.

He said at the beginning of the plant there was a clash of cultures, but much of that has settled down. He points to his own experience of being elected a city councilman, winning more than 60% of the vote. "And only 3% of the voters are Jews."

He calls the company a good corporate citizen that did its best to document its workers and make sure conditions were acceptable. He said the plant was rated above average for the industry in terms of safety. The plant brought enormous prosperity to the region, Mr. Goldsmith said, which improved the lives of everyone. He said the plant is also helping the women and children with food baskets and other assistance.

Even Fr. Ouderkirk, a huge critic of the company, said that with people coming because of the plant, all sorts of new businesses opened up. "Business was booming and life was good."

Mr. Goldsmith calls what the government did the height of hypocrisy. "They arbitrarily enforce a law when it's a well-known truth that there are millions of illegal workers. They could step into Los Angeles tomorrow and pick up a million people."

He said the raid looked like something out of the war in Afghanistan, with helicopters circling above. He does not understand why the government could not have sat down with the plant and tried to work something out.

Instead, he said, everyone got hurt: the families of the illegal workers, the townspeople who now have to deal with transient workers instead of family people, and the school board, which lost many students who were starting to integrate into the town.

After 40 years of being a priest, and two heart attacks and two open heart surgeries, Father Richard Gaul had hoped for a chance to reduce his stress levels. But after May 12 that idea went out the door. He said he understands that the people arrested were illegal, but he said they were also desperate.

"This was their last option. They would not have chosen this as their first option. They wanted to feed their families. Scripture tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, give shelter to the shelterless. If you and your family were starving, what would you do?"


Wow. I am thankful that at least common citizens are decent enough to help these poor people out. Here is another case of the US treating brown people worse than fecal matter. The only thing that I saw good out of this was the fact that there was a stop to child labor, as mentioned in the middle of the article. So, what type of precedent is this setting, if we allow the gov't to just turn a town into an "open air prison"?

Well, someone forgot to pay off the local politicos.

Clearly the real culprits here are the hundreds of illegal immigrants hiding in the back of a truck with their forged documents who forgot to take a left turn at Albuquerque and ended up in Iowa needing work. :p

Over 400 undocumented workers, many living in company owned 'apartments', accusations of child labor law and safety violations...sounds like a 'good corporate neighbor' to me...

and as usual no actions taken against the company, I think you're wrong g-o-g, somebody did pay off the politicos....

Here is another case of the US treating brown people worse than fecal matter.
How so?

The only thing that I saw good out of this was the fact that there was a stop to child labor, as mentioned in the middle of the article.
Yeah, the company should face serious sanctions. For both the child labour, the abuse of the workers, and the employment of illegal immigrants.

So, what type of precedent is this setting, if we allow the gov't to just turn a town into an "open air prison"?
It's cheaper than to house them all in a closed air prison, so... a good one?

How so? By deporting hard working people, who's only wrong doing was avoiding legal documentation. They caused no one harm, and were really willing to take a job that no one in that community would.


Yeah, the company should face serious sanctions. For both the child labour, the abuse of the workers, and the employment of illegal immigrants.
Sanctions for use of child labor, I can agree on. But for the conditions of the workers/work place, I am not so sure on. Read the part where it says this:

He said the plant was rated above average for the industry in terms of safety. The plant brought enormous prosperity to the region, Mr. Goldsmith said, which improved the lives of everyone. He said the plant is also helping the women and children with food baskets and other assistance. So what harm is done here? The safety is above average for that particular industry. And why should people be prosecuted for hiring "illegal" immigrants? This company was doing good things for this community, the people that worked there, and so on.


It's cheaper than to house them all in a closed air prison, so... a good one?
Or the pigs could have left them alone and allowed them to continue their peaceful lives. However, they came in and ruined EVERYTHING. They made matters worse, by trying to enforce ignorant laws.

By deporting hard working people, who's only wrong doing was avoiding legal documentation. They caused no one harm, and were really willing to take a job that no one in that community would.
Is that the only thing they've done wrong? Illegal entry into the country, residing without a permit, working without a permit...

How do you know they caused no other harm? Can you show that no one who could legally work were willing to take one of these 400 jobs? Can you show that they were all paying taxes as they should? Can you show that they weren't costing the community something in some way, and not only by hollowing out and disregarding the immigration system?

Sanctions for use of child labor, I can agree on. But for the conditions of the workers/work place, I am not so sure on. Read the part where it says this:
Read the part that says this:

The men were all working at Agriprocessors, believed to be the largest kosher meat-packing plant in the world. Fr. Ouderkirk and others have said the plant was a disgrace that abused workers who had little understanding of their rights. He said conditions were dangerous, accidents were common and that workers were often forced to work extremely long hours. As well, he and others said the plant knew full well that many of their workers were undocumented.

The Iowa Labor Department's documents show there have been a number of safety and health issues. And last week, Iowa officials said they uncovered dozens of child-labour violations. No charges have been laid and the company called the allegations untrue.
If true, strong sanctions are called for.

So what harm is done here? The safety is above average for that particular industry.
Is it? An unsubstantiated claim.

And why should people be prosecuted for hiring "illegal" immigrants? This company was doing good things for this community, the people that worked there, and so on.
Because they're aiding an illegal enterprise, and making it possible and attractive for people to enter the country illegally and work without proper documentation, making it impossible for the government to ensure that unsafe elements aren't allowed into the country.


Or the pigs could have left them alone and allowed them to continue their peaceful lives. However, they came in and ruined EVERYTHING. They made matters worse, by trying to enforce ignorant laws.
Yeah... Just like those pesky drug laws, speed limits, and child abuse laws, just to mention some...

It's cheaper than to house them all in a closed air prison, so... a good one?

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.

Illegal immigration is a difficult issue. While, granted, many hard-working, good-hearted people illegally enter the United States each year...what about the thousands that have gone through the cumbersome documentation/citizenship process?

I understand that Mexican citizens enter the US illegally in search of employment, but things have gotten entirely out of hand. Making matters worse, we retaliate with threats of fence-building and vigilante patrols. In my opinion, the solution rests on improving the Mexican economy to the point where they can successfully employ their own citizens. Perhaps we should implement an incentives program for the Mexican government; we have significant leverage being both a neighbor and a formidable world power.

I don't agree with Zilam's comment about 'brown people being treated worse than fecal matter,' they WERE breaking National laws by accepting employment without worker visas, and illegally residing in an alien state. Having said that, the depicted treatment seems inappropriate...especially if conditions are unsanitary/unsafe. Unfortunately, many Americans correlate anti-illegal aliens with anti-hispanic racism. This is an ignorant perspective. Why are the majority of detained illegal aliens Mexican? Because the majority of illegal aliens are Mexican. If we experienced a greater influx of Canadian aliens, I'm sure we'd see similar profiling.

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.

My thoughts exactly.

Is that the only thing they've done wrong? Illegal entry into the country, residing without a permit, working without a permit...

How do you know they caused no other harm? Can you show that no one who could legally work were willing to take one of these 400 jobs? Can you show that they were all paying taxes as they should? Can you show that they weren't costing the community something in some way, and not only by hollowing out and disregarding the immigration system? The fact that the company had to go out of the country to hire people to fill spots should show that they weren't simply stealing jobs. Also, I suppose you missed the part about how the community had really grown together after awhile. If these immigrants were causing such a ruckus and a strain on the community, then that community would surely still be very divided.

If true, strong sanctions are called for. Again, I will agree that sanctions will be needed, but only for the children labour laws.


Because they're aiding an illegal enterprise, and making it possible and attractive for people to enter the country illegally and work without proper documentation, making it impossible for the government to ensure that unsafe elements aren't allowed into the country. But at the same time, this company hired people that likely would have had to wait long times for visas, and time is something people cannot afford to waste, when their families are starving and going without.


Yeah... Just like those pesky drug laws, speed limits, and child abuse laws, just to mention some...

Right, because all of those laws are archaic and xenophobic like immigration laws.

Illegal immigration is a difficult issue. While, granted, many hard-working, good-hearted people illegally enter the United States each year...what about the thousands that have gone through the cumbersome documentation/citizenship process?

I understand that Mexican citizens enter the US illegally in search of employment, but things have gotten entirely out of hand. Making matters worse, we retaliate with threats of fence-building and vigilante patrols. In my opinion, the solution rests on improving the Mexican economy to the point where they can successfully employ their own citizens. Perhaps we should implement an incentives program for the Mexican government; we have significant leverage being both a neighbor and a formidable world power.

I don't agree with Zilam's comment about 'brown people being treated worse than fecal matter,' they WERE breaking National laws by accepting employment without worker visas, and illegally residing in an alien state. Having said that, the depicted treatment seems inappropriate...especially if conditions are unsanitary/unsafe. Unfortunately, many Americans correlate anti-illegal aliens with anti-hispanic racism. This is an ignorant perspective. Why are the majority of detained illegal aliens Mexican? Because the majority of illegal aliens are Mexican. If we experienced a greater influx of Canadian aliens, I'm sure we'd see similar profiling.


I would almost believe this if it wasn't for the fact that US officials (i'll have to dig up a link) said that the reason they are more harsh on mexicans is because Mexicans and Al-Qaeda cannot be differentiated between. Sounds a bit racist to me. Seems to associate skin color with a threat.

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.

Yes, because detaining people who are breaking the law is exactly like the holocaust.

Once, a long time ago, you actually displayed enough intellectual honesty to be above overly emotive crap like this. What the hell happened to you?

Yes, because detaining people who are breaking the law is exactly like the holocaust.

Once, a long time ago, you actually displayed enough intellectual honesty to be above overly emotive crap like this. What the hell happened to you?

Once upon a time, it was illegal to be Jewish, hence they were breaking the rules and put in detention camps. Rules can be made for anything.

It's not as though the employer is not in legal hot water, either.

Yes, because detaining people who are breaking the law is exactly like the holocaust.


Gosh you're right, it's not *exactly* like the holocaust. Also the Germans spoke German and we speak English. Also, that was the 20th century and this is the 21st. We could spend all day pointing out ways in which the two things are not precisely the same. For any analogy, for any comparison at all for that matter.

The Jews were in violation of German law. They were detained in 'open air' prisons. Reasons for it included that it was cheaper than alternatives. I see enough similarities to make the comparison. Don't like it? Too bad.

Once, a long time ago, you actually displayed enough intellectual honesty to be above overly emotive crap like this. What the hell happened to you?

I like how you whinge about "overly emotive crap" and then the next sentence you melodramatically blurt out "What the hell happened to you?" It's refreshing to see you debase yourself with hilariously unintentional irony.

I would almost believe this if it wasn't for the fact that US officials (i'll have to dig up a link) said that the reason they are more harsh on mexicans is because Mexicans and Al-Qaeda cannot be differentiated between. Sounds a bit racist to me. Seems to associate skin color with a threat.

Which is ridiculous. Mexicans and Arabs look nothing alike and even if they did, there are a few simple tests:

Make a stain shaped like Jesus on the back of a road sign. If upon seeing it, they stop and weep openly then they're mexican.

When have you ever seen arabs shingle a roof?

Mexicans eat pork.

I would almost believe this if it wasn't for the fact that US officials (i'll have to dig up a link) said that the reason they are more harsh on mexicans is because Mexicans and Al-Qaeda cannot be differentiated between. Sounds a bit racist to me. Seems to associate skin color with a threat.

I doubt anyone of any stature in the US government said this, especially since "mexico" is a country and "al qaeda" is a political organization, and there's nothing mutually exclusive about them. If however you mean they can't tell the difference between a hispanic person and a middle eastern person, I have to question the competance of who ever supposedly said that, considering they look nothing alike, sound nothing alike, have totally different languages and radically different cultural, social, and religious practices. Saying you can't tell the difference between a mexican and an afghani is like saying we can't tell the difference between you and a water buffalo.

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.
So you're unable to make a substantial on-topic argument, and you fail completely.

My thoughts exactly.
I hope not, because that would mean that you fail as well.

It's not as though the employer is not in legal hot water, either.

It's true. They could be fined several percent of the profit margin gained by employing illegal workers in the first place!

I doubt anyone of any stature in the US government said this, especially since "mexico" is a country and "al qaeda" is a political organization, and there's nothing mutually exclusive about them. If however you mean they can't tell the difference between a hispanic person and a middle eastern person, I have to question the competance of who ever supposedly said that, considering they look nothing alike, sound nothing alike, have totally different languages and radically different cultural, social, and religious practices. Saying you can't tell the difference between a mexican and an afghani is like saying we can't tell the difference between you and a water buffalo.

Water buffalo are clearly more handsome than I.

It's true. They could be fined several percent of the profit margin gained by employing illegal workers in the first place!

No, criminal charges

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html?fta=y

But in the aftermath of the arrests, labor investigators have reaped a bounty of new evidence from the testimony of illegal immigrants, teenagers and adults, who were caught in the raid. In formal declarations, immigrants have described pervasive labor violations at the plant, testimony that could result in criminal charges for Agriprocessors executives, labor law experts said.

Out of work and facing deportation proceedings, many of the immigrants say they now have nothing to lose in speaking up about the conditions in the plant. They have told investigators that they were routinely put to work without safety training and were forced to work long shifts without overtime or rest time. Under-age workers said their bosses knew how young they were.

Because of the dangers of the work, it is illegal in Iowa for a company to employ anyone under 18 on the floor of a meatpacking plant.

And...

Other investigations are also under way. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is examining accusations of sexual harassment of women at the plant. Lawyers for the immigrants are preparing a suit under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for wage and hour violations.

Federal justice and immigration officials, speaking on Thursday at a hearing in Washington of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee, said their investigations were continuing. A federal grand jury in Cedar Rapids is hearing evidence.

While federal prosecutors are primarily focusing on immigration charges, they may also be looking into labor violations. Search warrant documents filed in court before the raid, which was May 12, cited a report by an anonymous immigrant who was sent to work in the plant by immigration authorities as an undercover informant. The immigrant saw “a rabbi who was calling employees derogatory names and throwing meat at employees.”

and...

In another episode, the informant said a floor supervisor had blindfolded an immigrant with duct tape. “The floor supervisor then took one of the meat hooks and hit the Guatemalan with it,” the informant said, adding that the blow did not cause “serious injuries.”

So you're unable to make a substantial on-topic argument

Oh I'm sorry, the problems you are experiencing are the result of the point going completely over your head.

Your argument that these prisons are "cheaper" is not a positive. "Cheaper" is not an argument concerning Justice, which is the actual topic here. Justice has no price nor profit, and treating it like it does is exactly how the Nazis justified deporting, imprisoning and later executing those undesirable ethnic minorities.

, and you fail completely.

Ooh, say it three times, maybe it'll become true by sheer willpower! There's no place like home.

I hope not, because that would mean that you fail as well.

...this from the guy who snivels about "not making a substantial argument." Well Gravlen, I'm going to tell you a secret, and try not to take it as a sign of your inferiority:

Dismissing people as "fail" does not constitute a substantial argument, except of course to b/tards and internet children who still think Rickrolling is a pretty funny concept.

Dismissing people as "fail" does not constitute a substantial argument.

No, but it is a pretty accurate description of those who seem unwilling, or unable to do so.

Like you, for example.

The Jews were in violation of German law. They were detained in 'open air' prisons. Reasons for it included that it was cheaper than alternatives. I see enough similarities to make the comparison. Don't like it? Too bad.

I don't really care, to be honest. Your inability to make an actual, honest argument, and not rely on imagery of the holocaust to make a point about immigration law. To compare the two in any way not only demonstrates your complete and total inability to contemplate the situation like an adult, but also shows you willing to compare the death and suffering of millions just to further your "point". It's dishonest, it's immature, and it's disrespectful to those who died in those traumas.

You should be ashamed. but you won't be, because you find such a thing acceptable.

Which is all the more shameful

The fact that the company had to go out of the country to hire people to fill spots should show that they weren't simply stealing jobs.
Who said the company had to go out of the country? If that was true, why not just outsource the whole damned thing?

You still haven't shown me what I was asking for, mind.

The article says the illegal workers may be replaced by "transient workers" - is that problematic?

Also, I suppose you missed the part about how the community had really grown together after awhile. If these immigrants were causing such a ruckus and a strain on the community, then that community would surely still be very divided.
So you are unable to show me what I was asking for here as well. OK.

And who says the community isn't divided? This one article is not the final source that gives all the answers.

Regardless, I don't care a whick about what the local community says. They have a interest because they know the people, and can afford the luxury of ignoring the bigger picture.

Again, I will agree that sanctions will be needed, but only for the children labour laws.
Why?

But at the same time, this company hired people that likely would have had to wait long times for visas, and time is something people cannot afford to waste, when their families are starving and going without.
Who says the families were "starving"? You assume too much.

And so what if the waiting time is long? Does that make it OK to break the law? Your argument here should rather be that they would never have gotten visas in the first place - I have no sympathy if the fact is that you choose not to go through proper procedure because the waiting period is too long.


Right, because all of those laws are archaic and xenophobic like immigration laws.
And finally, we get to the crux of the matter: Namely, you disagree with immigration laws and wants free and unrestricted immigration. A valid point of view, destroyed by your choice to paint this situation as "being mean to brown people".

Just come out and say it already. Going the way you are, through this article, is cowardly and unproductive.

No, criminal charges

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html?fta=y



And...



and...

I wonder if they have electronic bracelets too.

Oh I'm sorry, the problems you are experiencing are the result of the point going completely over your head.
I got your "point". However, it was totally worthless.


Your argument that these prisons are "cheaper" is not a positive. "Cheaper" is not an argument concerning Justice, which is the actual topic here. Justice has no price nor profit, and treating it like it does is exactly how the Nazis justified deporting, imprisoning and later executing those undesirable ethnic minorities.
That's not my argument. Sorry you fail to understand it.


Ooh, say it three times, maybe it'll become true by sheer willpower! There's no place like home.
It is true based on its own merit. You chose to Godwin the debate, and for no valid reason whatsoever.


...this from the guy who snivels about "not making a substantial argument." Well Gravlen, I'm going to tell you a secret, and try not to take it as a sign of your inferiority:

Dismissing people as "fail" does not constitute a substantial argument, except of course to b/tards and internet children who still think Rickrolling is a pretty funny concept.
You are aware that you've still not made a single argument relevant to the OP, right?

So ya. You fail. Completely.

I hope that makes you feel good.

Gosh you're right, it's not *exactly* like the holocaust. Also the Germans spoke German and we speak English. Also, that was the 20th century and this is the 21st. We could spend all day pointing out ways in which the two things are not precisely the same. For any analogy, for any comparison at all for that matter.

The Jews were in violation of German law. They were detained in 'open air' prisons. Reasons for it included that it was cheaper than alternatives. I see enough similarities to make the comparison. Don't like it? Too bad.



I like how you whinge about "overly emotive crap" and then the next sentence you melodramatically blurt out "What the hell happened to you?" It's refreshing to see you debase yourself with hilariously unintentional irony.

Okay, let's talk about this, pal. I went to elementary school with a guy who's grandmother was sent to a German concentration camp. She showed him the branding on her wrist and told him stories that would make your skin curl. Frankly, if she saw what you posted, she would become furious. Millions upon millions of NATIVE GERMAN JEWS and other jews (along with gypsies, the handicapped, and political dissenters) were butchered like animals by what could be the very incarnation of evil.
I'm not Jewish, but I'm still horribly offended by your inconsiderate analogy.

Some differences between the United States and Nazi Germany (it makes me sick to even dignify your comments, but I feel you should be called on this):

Nazi Germany: Fascist police state intent on racially purifying all of human existence, favoring 'Aryans.'

The United States of America: One of the most politically progressive states in history with the longest standing Constitutional government; also has a population noted for its heterogeneous nature (i.e. diversity).

Nazi Germany: Systematically massacred millions of German, Polish, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, French, etc. Jews by way of concentration camps and society-wide events such as kristalnacht.

The United States of America: Infrequently deports Mexican aliens back to Mexico, yet still provides ER treatment if requested (curing the sick is a far-cry from murdering the healthy), and also recognizes children of immigrants born on US soil as citizens.

Nazi Germany: An atmosphere of terror pervaded the entire reich...i.e. no one would be able to discuss Nazi policy in a critical fashion.

The United States of America: Everyone has a right to free speech, even people like you that apparently ditched their civics class.

In summary, keep your trashy comparisons in your own head where they belong.

No, criminal charges

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html?fta=y



And...



and...

Thank you for the link. It shows exactly that: The employers are abusing the illegal immigrants, having them work under conditions that no ordinary worker would find acceptable. Thus making it profitable for the company to not even bother to follow the rules and regulations, and creating a marked for illegal workers - and quite possible making it more difficult for those that go through the proper legal channels to find work.

The company should be hit hard.

Sounds to me like a bunch of criminals getting caught and dealt with. The situation could probably have been better handled, but I have no problem with the final upshot: illegals getting thrown out and the assholes who both facilitate their presence and exploit them being prosecuted.

And Zilam: our immigraton laws are both fair and just.

Thank you for the link. It shows exactly that: The employers are abusing the illegal immigrants, having them work under conditions that no ordinary worker would find acceptable. Thus making it profitable for the company to not even bother to follow the rules and regulations, and creating a marked for illegal workers - and quite possible making it more difficult for those that go through the proper legal channels to find work.

The company should be hit hard.

I'm in agreement.

I am amazed at the number of people who blame this sort of thing solely on the immigrants - people who will say, "they're stealing our jobs".

Well, illicit paperwork can cover a lot more than illegal immigration. And who wants to have that kind of "job"?

It's the employer who is creating the conditions where this sort of thing happens - and as much as the immigrants might be breaking a law, they are also victims of poor wages, crap working conditions, and other violations.

And Zilam: our immigraton laws are both fair and just.

How would you know?

Here is another case of the US treating brown people worse than fecal matter.

Yes, strange that "brown people" are breaking the law just to live in such a backward, racist country.

I'm in agreement.

I am amazed at the number of people who blame this sort of thing solely on the immigrants - people who will say, "they're stealing our jobs".

Well, illicit paperwork can cover a lot more than illegal immigration. And who wants to have that kind of "job"?

It's the employer who is creating the conditions where this sort of thing happens - and as much as the immigrants might be breaking a law, they are also victims of poor wages, crap working conditions, and other violations.
I agree with you.

:eek2:
*Faints*


Ahem.

And as I was saying:
In addition to the employer creating a market and profiting from such irregular immigration, it's a fact that where there's illegal immigration there will be additional crime in connection to the illicit activity. Human trafficker, forgerers, and other types of organized crime (including drug smuggling and gun running) flourish in the wake of illegal immigration. And others who would seek to abuse the migrants, of course.

I agree with you.

:eek2:
*Faints*


Give me a minute to pick my bowels up off the floor and tuck them back in.

Give me a minute to pick my bowels up off the floor and tuck them back in.

Superglue will help, I'm told :tongue:

Superglue will help, I'm told :tongue:

We have a major problem with illegal immigrants here in Herndon, Va.

The local city government is trying to figure out how to solve the "problem" and is bound by Federal law not to really do anything (it falls under federal jurisdiction).

If they were investigating the local construction companies and local landscaping companies, for wage and labor violations (not immigration violations), the problem would probably resolve itself.

But they're not doing that. Which is stupid.

This thread caused me some serious palm-to-face type pain. Comparing this to the Holocaust is just insane.
I'm declaring this thread in violation of Godwin's Law and ending all discussion.
Or I would be. Except I cant.
Dammit.

Thank you for the link. It shows exactly that: The employers are abusing the illegal immigrants, having them work under conditions that no ordinary worker would find acceptable. Thus making it profitable for the company to not even bother to follow the rules and regulations, and creating a marked for illegal workers - and quite possible making it more difficult for those that go through the proper legal channels to find work.

The company should be hit hard.

Okay, since there has been substantial proof shown that the company did indeed mistreat its workers, I will change my mind and agree on sanctions for that. However, I still don't think it should face any charges on hiring illegal immigrants.

Sounds to me like a bunch of criminals getting caught and dealt with. The situation could probably have been better handled, but I have no problem with the final upshot: illegals getting thrown out and the assholes who both facilitate their presence and exploit them being prosecuted.

And Zilam: our immigraton laws are both fair and just.

Separating families like that doesn't seem to be fair, nor just.

Okay, since there has been substantial proof shown that the company did indeed mistreat its workers, I will change my mind and agree on sanctions for that. However, I still don't think it should face any charges on hiring illegal immigrants.

and....why not?

Separating families like that doesn't seem to be fair, nor just.

My brother committed a crime and spent 2 years in a state prison. He was separated from my family.

Okay, since there has been substantial proof shown that the company did indeed mistreat its workers, I will change my mind and agree on sanctions for that. However, I still don't think it should face any charges on hiring illegal immigrants.

Why shouldn't the company face any charges for breaking the law? I don't think I should face any charges if I rob a bank, but I bet I would.

and....why not?

Because, obviously, they're only taking jobs that American citizens and legal immigrants don't want.
Never mind the fact that, for some reason, I can't seem to get a job anywhere around here. Even at jobs that an elitist, middle-class, white kid like me shouldn't want.

Because, obviously, they're only taking jobs that American citizens and legal immigrants don't want.

He didn't say the immigrants shouldn't face charges. He said the company that hired them should not.

Separating families like that doesn't seem to be fair, nor just.
They can go back home, you know. They have no reasonable expectation to keep living together in the country without the authorization of the government.

and....why not?
^This^

He didn't say the immigrants shouldn't face charges. He said the company that hired them should not.

I know. That reasoning works for the company too. They're hiring illigals because nobody else wants those jobs, right?
It has nothing to do with the fact that they can pay them two bucks an hour.

My brother committed a crime and spent 2 years in a state prison. He was separated from my family.

And the breaking of the law was done why?

On one hand you have a person breaking the law to better their flipping family.
On the other hand, you have someone who did something probably to try and get himself better.

How about this for an example:

You have a medical emergency, and thus you are speeding to the hospital. You get pulled over and get fined for speeding.

You are late getting home from a late party,and you have missed curfew, so you speed through town. You get pulled over and fined for speeding.

Isn't there a clear difference? Is it just for the first person to be fined in light of an emergency?

You must realize, Mr. Legalist, that sometimes laws are not just. When people suffer from laws, they are not just. They might be the law, but they are still unacceptable.

You must realize, Mr. Legalist, that sometimes laws are not just.

"just" is a subjective opinion. There are certainly laws that I do not find just, and in a democratic society I have the right and responsibility to seek the repeal of such laws. But above all else, it's still the law. They were in a country illegally. Whether I think that's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that their presence was illegal. Whether I like current immigration policy or not doesn't change the fact that they broke the law.

He didn't say the immigrants shouldn't face charges. He said the company that hired them should not.

And then I changed my mind when given the evidence that said the company actually was treating them worse off. The company should be fined.

And of course, I'd never be in agreement of charging immigrants with breaking the immigration law. Now if they kill someone, rob a bank, punch a baby, etc, yes. But why is it illegal for a person to come here undocumented to work? If they cause a problem, yes take care of them, but if they are like these folks and are just living a normal life in the community, then what is the harm?

And the breaking of the law was done why?

On one hand you have a person breaking the law to better their flipping family.
On the other hand, you have someone who did something probably to try and get himself better.
So as long as I've got good intentions for my family, I can break any law I want?


How about this for an example:

You have a medical emergency, and thus you are speeding to the hospital. You get pulled over and get fined for speeding.

You are late getting home from a late party,and you have missed curfew, so you speed through town. You get pulled over and fined for speeding.

Isn't there a clear difference? Is it just for the first person to be fined in light of an emergency?

You must realize, Mr. Legalist, that sometimes laws are not just. When people suffer from laws, they are not just. They might be the law, but they are still unacceptable.
Emergency situations are different, so your example isn't really comparable.

And of course, I'd never be in agreement of charging immigrants with breaking the immigration law.

Let me ask you again: Why don't you just say this and take the argument from there? Why do you feel the need to obfuscate the debate?

Say it with me now:

I don't believe that there should be any regulations on immigration because [fill in the blank].

And of course, I'd never be in agreement of charging immigrants with breaking the immigration law.

And I am generally in favor of charging criminals with the crimes they committed.

but if they are like these folks and are just living a normal life in the community, then what is the harm?

Because the law is the fundamental foundation of our society, and they broke it.

"just" is a subjective opinion. There are certainly laws that I do not find just, and in a democratic society I have the right and responsibility to seek the repeal of such laws. But above all else, it's still the law.
Of course, there are some unjust laws that needs to be actively fought - through civil disobedience or other means - but the immigration laws in general aren't even close to being placed in that category.

Let me ask you again: Why don't you just say this and take the argument from there? Why do you feel the need to obfuscate the debate?

Say it with me now:

I don't believe that there should be any regulations on immigration because [fill in the blank].

Because humans are not items! They don't need tracking numbers like they are pieces of mail. On top of that, why should someone who happens to be born here say to a person born across our imaginary borders, that they cannot come here. What right does person A have? They had the fortune of being here, and that is all. They didn't earn anything. They were just born here. Its luck.

Oh well.

Should've deported all of them, including the women and children (unless any of them were US citizens, of course)

Because humans are not items! They don't need tracking numbers like they are pieces of mail. On top of that, why should someone who happens to be born here say to a person born across our imaginary borders, that they cannot come here. What right does person A have? They had the fortune of being here, and that is all. They didn't earn anything. They were just born here. Its luck.
See? Doesn't that feel better? Now you don't have to sneak around and use such a story to conjure up some righteous indignation at how badly "brown people" are treated, and desperately try to justify why some laws should be followed and others ignored.

Attack this issue head on, and you'll see that your opponents will have a much harder time at defending their position - because when you silently accept that there needs to be some regulation of the immigration, you will have a much more difficult time of it, like you may have noticed.

In essence, it's two different debates. One you might win, and one you will lose.

And the breaking of the law was done why?

On one hand you have a person breaking the law to better their flipping family.
On the other hand, you have someone who did something probably to try and get himself better.

So... if my baby is crying because someone scared them, I can shoot them in the face?

The whole point of the argument against illegal immigration is the fact that, despite their good intentions toward their families, they're actually hurting people already here. The unemployment rate in America is currently a tad over 5%. And how much does illegal immigrants take up in the workforce? Wow... lemme see... around 5%? Whoda thunk? Maybe they are hurting someone. After all, how many homeless and jobless do we have?

Don't be so quick to say that any legal resident of the United States won't take the jobs that the illegals have. I find no precedent for that statement. As proven with illegal immigration, anyone with enough desperation will do anything to get by.

But at the same time, this company hired people that likely would have had to wait long times for visas, and time is something people cannot afford to waste, when their families are starving and going without.

My question whenever this argument is raised is this:

Why not focus on fixing the problems in their own country instead of looking for quick relief through us? And I really don't mean that out of spite. I'm totally puzzled. Why not focus on their own economical problems? They obviously know of the problems or else they wouldn't be flocking to us in droves. And when they do that, a lot of the money they earn goes directly out of the country to their families.

And so I don't sound completely like a racist hatemongering ass, I am in support of U.S. support in the form of helping government reformation in Mexico. Show them how to do it so they can get it done and succeed on their own. After all... "teach a man to fish."

If they were investigating the local construction companies and local landscaping companies, for wage and labor violations (not immigration violations), the problem would probably resolve itself.

But they're not doing that. Which is stupid.

And who do you think is padding their pockets? Certainly not the illegals.

They can go back home, you know. They have no reasonable expectation to keep living together in the country without the authorization of the government.


Uhm. No.


The raid left 43 women, wives of the men who were taken away, and their 150 children without status or a means of support. The women cannot leave the town, and to make sure they do not they have been outfitted with leg monitoring bracelets.


"We don't want you, but you can't go home, and we won't let you work either."

Seems to be what they're saying. Maybe they're trying to encourage crime by enforcing desperation.

Uhm. No.



"We don't want you, but you can't go home, and we won't let you work either."

Seems to be what they're saying. Maybe they're trying to encourage crime by enforcing desperation.

Well what Gravlen was really saying was that it was the undocumented workers' choice. Because they could after all choose between being mercilessly exploited by US or mercilessly exploited plus starved and/or oppressed by other countries. A clear and definite choice for which we, the innocent people who lock them up in cages with no charges nor due process of law nor even a bloody good reason, are exonerated.

"just" is a subjective opinion. There are certainly laws that I do not find just, and in a democratic society I have the right and responsibility to seek the repeal of such laws. But above all else, it's still the law.

Thank you Inspector Javert.

They were in a country illegally.

Oh no! They were on the wrong side of an imaginary line!

Let me ask you again: Why don't you just say this and take the argument from there? Why do you feel the need to obfuscate the debate?

Say it with me now:

I don't believe that there should be any regulations on immigration because [fill in the blank].

Because countries don't actually exist.

Oh no! They were on the wrong side of an imaginary line!

Luckily this imaginary line is demarcated by a bloody great fence, so you don't forget.

Don't go demolishing the line between rich and poor, as sharing wealth means *I* would have less!
Not to mention the fact it makes you sound like a Communist.

:eek2:

Uhm. No.


"We don't want you, but you can't go home, and we won't let you work either."

Seems to be what they're saying. Maybe they're trying to encourage crime by enforcing desperation.
Um, yes. You really think the authorities won't let them go home if they want to?

And you really think the authorities will just take their word for it and trust them after they've broken the immigration law for so long, when they say "Just let us go, we will go home and not to some other state, really!" ?

Well what Gravlen was really saying was that it was the undocumented workers' choice. Because they could after all choose between being mercilessly exploited by US or mercilessly exploited plus starved and/or oppressed by other countries. A clear and definite choice for which we, the innocent people who lock them up in cages with no charges nor due process of law nor even a bloody good reason, are exonerated.
The choice is between going through the legal channels or not. When they choose not to, they do so at the expense of those who do.

And you assume that all economic migrants will be exploited, starved and/or oppressed in their home country. That assumption is wrong.

You also assume that there are no charges, no due process of law, and no good reasons, all of which are wrong. But hey, you demonstrated early in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about, so I shouldn't be surprised at your lack of knowledge about this topic.

Because countries don't actually exist.

*Looks around*

I could have sworn...

Um, yes. You really think the authorities won't let them go home if they want to?

And you really think the authorities will just take their word for it and trust them after they've broken the immigration law for so long, when they say "Just let us go, we will go home and not to some other state, really!" ?


If you don't want illegals, you deport them. You don't put trackers on them and tell them that they'll be tracked if they leave the city that you don't want them hanging around in the first place.

Is your hate of illegals so great that you cannot see the logical disconnect, and derive pleasure from turning them into virtual prisoners? What is the rationale behind imprisoning people you don't want where you don't want them? What possible reason is there for keeping these people in a city, free to roam, yet trapped, without a means of supporting themselves, other than short sighted maliciousness, which will force them to turn to crime?

Unless of course, that is your hope. That they will turn to crime to make ends meet, because all other means barred to them, creating more fuel to feed a misguided hate.

Explain this if you can Gravlen.

If you don't want illegals, you deport them. You don't put trackers on them and tell them that they'll be tracked if they leave the city that you don't want them hanging around in the first place.
Would it be better to place them in jails until you get the chance to deport them? Nobody has shown me that this isn't meant to be a temporary measure.

Is your hate of illegals so great
Fail.

that you cannot see the logical disconnect,
If it's meant to be a permanent solution, it's wrong. If the alternative is detaining them in a jail, I don't see the problem.

and derive pleasure from turning them into virtual prisoners?
Fail.

What is the rationale behind imprisoning people you don't want where you don't want them? What possible reason is there for keeping these people in a city, free to roam, yet trapped, without a means of supporting themselves, other than short sighted maliciousness, which will force them to turn to crime?
See above. There were 389 people with families. The logistics involved in deporting them all cannot be arranged over night.

Unless of course, that is your hope. That they will turn to crime to make ends meet, because all other means barred to them, creating more fuel to feed a misguided hate.
Fail.

That was thrice, but that was just to make Trostia happy...

Explain this if you can Gravlen.
I believe I have.

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.

Yeah I mean why not, we shouldn't arrest people for breaking the law.

But I like it how the OP decided to chuck in racism in to the mix as well, because we all know that if I moved to the US illegally and started working illegally in a factory then I wouldn't be arrested and deported.

Would it be better to place them in jails until you get the chance to deport them? Nobody has shown me that this isn't meant to be a temporary measure.

If it's meant to be a permanent solution, it's wrong. If the alternative is detaining them in a jail, I don't see the problem.

See above. There were 389 people with families. The logistics involved in deporting them all cannot be arranged over night.



The town was raided in May. If government officials have any other solution for the families held in the town, they sure are taking their sweet time implementing it. In the meantime, the actual American citizens in the town have almost two hundred people that cannot legally support themselves or leave. The entire place is getting fucked hard.

they sure are taking their sweet time implementing it.

Welcome to the world of bureaucracy, that's how they role. :)

The town was raided in May. If government officials have any other solution for the families held in the town, they sure are taking their sweet time implementing it. In the meantime, the actual American citizens in the town have almost two hundred people that cannot legally support themselves or leave. The entire place is getting fucked hard.

Is it? 297 of them are currently in prison, serving five months. They will be deported afterwards. It would only make sense to deport them together with their families.

As for the rest: What options do they have? I don't know, the article doesn't seem to deem such information relevant. But I still don't see this as worse than being kept in a holding cell for the duration.

Welcome to the world of bureaucracy, that's how they role. :)

Anything below six months would be considered quick.

Fail.

That was thrice, but that was just to make Trostia happy...
Hardly. Crime is the logical ends of people who have no other means of supporting themselves yet are forced to.

But I still don't see this as worse than being kept in a holding cell for the duration.
In a cell you are provided with food, water, and living quarters. What they did to these people was toss them out into the streets. I think even concentration camps beat this.

Hardly. Crime is the logical ends of people who have no other means of supporting themselves yet are forced to.
When the authorities are watching them closely? Hmm...

And the "fail" was directed at the implication that more crime was somehow my goal.

In a cell you are provided with food, water, and living quarters. What they did to these people was toss them out into the streets. I think even concentration camps beat this.
Then you are beyond reasoning and are in need of serious professional help.

Would it be better to place them in jails until you get the chance to deport them? Nobody has shown me that this isn't meant to be a temporary measure.

And you haven't shown that it is.


Fail.


Of course you would say that. Thank you for following previously recorded behavior parameters and further reinforcing my points.


If it's meant to be a permanent solution, it's wrong. If the alternative is detaining them in a jail, I don't see the problem.

As per the article's date, the raid occurred on May 12, 2008. As of August 15, the same year, they are still trapped in the city. If deportation is intended, the government is being rather slow about it. And if you think to argue "deport them as a whole", then you are simply asking the families to resort to illegal methods, if no charity can be found on hand, to not dying of exposure and/or hunger while waiting for their spouses to complete their prison terms. Logically, that would mean either finding employment, illegally as a consequence of being undocumented, or more serious crimes.

Thereby, logical inference is that rather than immediate deportation, you would rather see more crime and instances of illegal labor. Either that, or, if you are against such a stance, and argue the Orwellian eye of the authorities would prevent such crime, you would rather they die from exposure and/or hunger.

It seems the ability to see in the long term in matters such as this, if only for a few weeks ahead, is severely stunted. Either that, or you do take a perverse delight at hoping for their deaths.


See above. There were 389 people with families. The logistics involved in deporting them all cannot be arranged over night.


Or over the period of months it seems.

Then you are beyond reasoning and are in need of serious professional help.
I am beyond reason? You argue that dumping them on the streets with the inability to support themselves is preferable to putting them in a cell. You can't see the forest for the trees.

The choice is between going through the legal channels or not. When they choose not to, they do so at the expense of those who do.


Tell me, how does immigrant X's illegal immigration affect immigrant Y's legal immigration? It doesn't as far as I can tell, but apparently there's a zero sum game here I wasn't aware of.

I rather like the phrase "choice," as if they could immigrate legally, but just for kicks decided whimsically not to. I guess you assume there can be no reason good enough to Break The Law (if you're an immigrant).

And you assume that all economic migrants will be exploited, starved and/or oppressed in their home country. That assumption is wrong.

Yeah maybe they leave their third world shithole countries just for a change of scenery, and the high levels of poverty and corruption in those countries are just a coincidence.

You also assume that there are no charges, no due process of law, and no good reasons, all of which are wrong.

Hey there are good reasons for putting the Jews in concentration camps too. They Broke The Law. And they Chose to attack and sabotage the economy of the Fatherland. This is similar to how some immigrants Break The Law, and Choose to attack and sabotage the economy of the Homeland.

But hey, you demonstrated early in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about, so I shouldn't be surprised at your lack of knowledge about this topic.

I'm taking your tiresome and pathetic ad-homs to mean that you keep trying to squirm away from the fact that you're still championing what amounts to little more than a concentration camp. Rather than rethink your own (morally repugnant, callous, and frankly stupid) opinion you're gonna take it out on me. Well you do that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

And you haven't shown that it is.
Not my task.


Of course you would say that. Thank you for following previously recorded behavior parameters and further reinforcing my points.
Which is... what, exactly? Making straw men? No, wait! That wasn't me! :eek2:


As per the article's date, the raid occurred on May 12, 2008. As of August 15, the same year, they are still trapped in the city.
How many?

If deportation is intended, the government is being rather slow about it.
It is first and foremost the responsibility of the illegal immigrant to leave the country. Are they fighting it? If so, no wonder it takes time.

And if you think to argue "deport them as a whole", then you are simply asking the families to resort to illegal methods, if no charity can be found on hand, to not dying of exposure and/or hunger while waiting for their spouses to complete their prison terms.
So would you rather have them sent out of the country separately?

And resorting to illegal methods... You mean like working without a permit, identity theft, etc?

Logically, that would mean either finding employment, illegally as a consequence of being undocumented, or more serious crimes.
Which means that you have a problem with the access to the social security system in the US the illegal immigrants have - or lack thereof - doesn't it? Or would you rather have them jailed for three months and more?

Thereby, logical inference is that rather than immediate deportation, you would rather see more crime and instances of illegal labor. Either that, or, if you are against such a stance, and argue the Orwellian eye of the authorities would prevent such crime, you would rather they die from exposure and/or hunger.
So because I support the move to curb illegal work, I support illegal work... Either that or you somehow deduce that I somehow want them to die, despite you not having asked me if I would be in favour of other measures - like having the government aid them through the social security system until they leave?

Nice use of logic.


It seems the ability to see in the long term in matters such as this, if only for a few weeks ahead, is severely stunted. Either that, or you do take a perverse delight at hoping for their deaths.
On the contrary, I have the ability to look at the bigger picture. Unlike some...

T
Or over the period of months it seems.
As I've said, I would expect a period of six months at least.

I am beyond reason? You argue that dumping them on the streets with the inability to support themselves is preferable to putting them in a cell. You can't see the forest for the trees.
You are beyond reason when you compare this situation with extermination camps, yes.

Tell me, how does immigrant X's illegal immigration affect immigrant Y's legal immigration? It doesn't as far as I can tell, but apparently there's a zero sum game here I wasn't aware of.
X's illegal immigration compromises the integrity of the immigration system. An increased illegal immigration makes politicians tighten the belt and reduce the number of people whom can be granted permits. The tolerance towards immigrants are reduced when illegals flood into the country. Hence, the actions of X has an impact on Y.


I rather like the phrase "choice," as if they could immigrate legally, but just for kicks decided whimsically not to. I guess you assume there can be no reason good enough to Break The Law (if you're an immigrant).
Have they even tried going through the legal process?

And a good enough reason to Break The Law would be a good enough reason to be granted asylum in the host country.


Yeah maybe they leave their third world shithole countries just for a change of scenery, and the high levels of poverty and corruption in those countries are just a coincidence.

Maybe they leave their home countries for better opportunities, have you ever considered that? Not because they need to?


Hey there are good reasons for putting the Jews in concentration camps too. They Broke The Law. And they Chose to attack and sabotage the economy of the Fatherland. This is similar to how some immigrants Break The Law, and Choose to attack and sabotage the economy of the Homeland.
And here you're simply not worth responding to.


I'm taking your tiresome and pathetic ad-homs to mean that you keep trying to squirm away from the fact that you're still championing what amounts to little more than a concentration camp. Rather than rethink your own (morally repugnant, callous, and frankly stupid) opinion you're gonna take it out on me. Well you do that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Yeah, you're incredibly persuasive, and your posts do indeed invite me to rethink my position. :rolleyes:

Talk about ad-hominems, by the way. You are the master there, it's true, but I think you're blind to my position on this matter. Actually, I don't think you have a position of your own, all you do is succumb to hysterics. You don't WANT a debate, because that would reveal that the emperor is indeed without clothes. Next time, try to include at least one substantial argument, yeah?

I'll let you in on a secret: I rethink my position on this every single day. I would like to see more constructive debate on this subject, but people like you make that impossible. Your drama-queen'esqe shrieking and worthless comparisons to extermination camps just derail the whole issue.

But then again, that's what you do.

How would you know?

Because I've had to deal with them.

I, personally, was born in the USA. Not all of my family was; my father was an immigrant. I've served as sponsor for several members of my family to come to the country, either on work visas or with the intent of settling in the US for good, and I've helped friends of mine become citizens, including people I served with.

It's a bureaucratic process, which means it can take a certain amount of time, and effort, to get the job done. But the simple fact is, it's quite eminently possible for anyone with a bit of drive and respect for our laws to get into the USA absolutely legally - even if there are strikes against them. I was able to get a waiver to allow entry for a man who had drug convictions in his native Venezuela, because I was able to show he had reformed his life and had many upstanding people willing to vouch for him. I felt very proud, a few years later, when he invited me to his citizenship ceremony.

This is why I know that what Zilam is bitching about is a load of bullshit. It's also why I prefer not to refer to them as "llegal immigrants" - I'd rather call them what they are: criminals.

Not my task.

Yet you assert that it is a temporary thing.


Which is... what, exactly? Making straw men? No, wait! That wasn't me! :eek2:

Behaving according to the profile I have on you.


How many?


How many what?


It is first and foremost the responsibility of the illegal immigrant to leave the country. Are they fighting it? If so, no wonder it takes time.


You are asserting that they are fighting the deportation process? You have proof of this?

It is the responsibility of the government to carry out the law with reasonable promptness, not to make excuses when it makes stupid or slow decisions, else you are no different than a certain military officer who said "It's an attempt at attacking us", in regards to suicide cases amongst people of dubious guilt interned without charge or trial for years.


So would you rather have them sent out of the country separately?


By the information provided, the families of the illegals were either caught on the same day or within a very short period of time following the arrest of the workers. The logistics were already in place.

And give me a good rationale for choosing not to deport them as soon as is physically possible. Try not to leave out the consequences of following said rationale.


And resorting to illegal methods... You mean like working without a permit, identity theft, etc?

This, as well as theft and murder. This was an artificially created dire situation amongst the families, but the end result will always be the same. If legal means of sustaining one's existence is not possible, then there is either crime, or death.


Which means that you have a problem with the access to the social security system in the US the illegal immigrants have - or lack thereof - doesn't it? Or would you rather have them jailed for three months and more?


You on the other hand, seem quite happy to condemn these people to a slow death by starvation and exposure.

Or perhaps you simply do not care that people are being interned without trial or charge and left to die in limbo.

At least the inmates of Guantanamo are fed.


So because I support the move to curb illegal work, I support illegal work... Either that or you somehow deduce that I somehow want them to die, despite you not having asked me if I would be in favour of other measures - like having the government aid them through the social security system until they leave?

You have made no such indication whatsoever of the latter, or for that matter, indicated in your language that you may even consider such a possibility to support, despite the article clearly showing that no such government support was available from the very beginning.


On the contrary, I have the ability to look at the bigger picture. Unlike some...


You have not demonstratively shown to be able to do so.


As I've said, I would expect a period of six months at least.


Even assuming whatever can be saved from the typical sub-par pay for illegal immigrants, it is simply unrealistic to expect any family to survive for a period of six months without any means of income.

Yet you assert that it is a temporary thing.
I'm asking if it is or not. I'm saying that nobody - those up in arms about the situation - has shown that it's not a temporary thing. I'm not asserting anything. Rather, I've also said:
If it's meant to be a permanent solution, it's wrong.


Behaving according to the profile I have on you.
Oooh, exiting! And what's that, exactly? Evil right wing conservative? Do entertain me!


How many what?
How many have these bracelets? 43. Well, 10 of them have already left, voluntarily going back to their homeland.



You are asserting that they are fighting the deportation process? You have proof of this?
Immigration lawyer Sonia Parras Konrad, who represents many of the women with electronic ankle bracelets, said that a couple of the women have left the United States since Fujimoto's order. She said others did not ask for voluntary releases, because they are seeking special visas that would allow them to stay here.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS/808140379/1131

It is the responsibility of the government to carry out the law with reasonable promptness, not to make excuses when it makes stupid or slow decisions, else you are no different than a certain military officer who said "It's an attempt at attacking us", in regards to suicide cases amongst people of dubious guilt interned without charge or trial for years.
What is "reasonable promptness" in the context of the immigration system in the US, with the amount of immigrants and the number of deportation hearings that needs to be done here?


By the information provided, the families of the illegals were either caught on the same day or within a very short period of time following the arrest of the workers. The logistics were already in place.
The logistics were not in place. Don't imagine that the logistics involved in carrying out this raid is the same as the logistics involved in returning the people to their home countries.

And give me a good rationale for choosing not to deport them as soon as is physically possible. Try not to leave out the consequences of following said rationale.
They should be deported as soon as physically possible, though with the natural limitations that resources place on the process. Mind you, their rights need also to be safeguarded, hence the need for an individual hearing in each case - which will take time. And the possibility for appeals should also be present.



You on the other hand, seem quite happy to condemn these people to a slow death by starvation and exposure.

Or perhaps you simply do not care that people are being interned without trial or charge and left to die in limbo.

At least the inmates of Guantanamo are fed.
You don't read through posts completely before responding, do you?



You have made no such indication whatsoever of the latter, or for that matter, indicated in your language that you may even consider such a possibility to support, despite the article clearly showing that no such government support was available from the very beginning.
What would you call my last post then? Was that not an indication?



You have not demonstratively shown to be able to do so.

Sure, baby.

I manage to look at the system as a whole. You don't, it seems.



Even assuming whatever can be saved from the typical sub-par pay for illegal immigrants, it is simply unrealistic to expect any family to survive for a period of six months without any means of income.
Which is why the government should aid them through the social security system. The failure to do so is not a result of enforcing the immigration laws however, but rather a failure that is caused due to the lack of an adequate security net throughout the US.

Homeless citizens that don't qualify for social security exists too, people depending on private charity to survive. That's an equal outrage.

You are beyond reason when you compare this situation with extermination camps, yes.
What do you propose is the difference? Had it not been for the church groups, these people would have no food or roofs. The government prevents them from leaving and prevents them from supporting themselves.

What do you propose is the difference?
Dude, seriously, if you have to ask that question...

*Shakes head*

Had it not been for the church groups, these people would have no food or roofs. The government prevents them from leaving and prevents them from supporting themselves.

Except those who ask to go home voluntarily, of course.
About 45 people, mostly women, were facing that situation in the weeks after the raid. Their lawyers said some of them wanted to return to their homelands, but immigration officials insisted they stay in the United States until full deportation hearings could be held as late as next year. Their lawyers asked for quicker, voluntary returns for those who wanted to leave.

Federal Immigration Judge James Fujimoto of Chicago granted the requests last week.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS/808140379/1131

Except those who ask to go home voluntarily, of course.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS/808140379/1131
Are those the families of ones that got deported immediately and released or the families of those pointlessly thrown in jail?

Are those the families of ones that got deported immediately and released or the families of those pointlessly thrown in jail?

Those are the illegal immigrants who have not been convicted but face deportation. The ones with the bracelets. The ones that causes Postville to be an "open air prison".

It would be nice of people realize that they are illegal immigrants, not "illegal" immigrants as said group does willingly, not counting those who are forced by human traffickers, violate the immigration laws of the countries they enter illegaly into.

It would be nice of people realize that they are illegal immigrants, not "illegal" immigrants as said group does willingly, not counting those who are forced by human traffickers, violate the immigration laws of the countries they enter illegaly into.

While our treatment of illegal aliens might be less-than-perfect, these aliens ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

Oh you know what would be even cheaper?

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/holocaust/essaypics/auschwitz.jpg

While we're at it, maybe we can make lamp shades from their skins and help the US economy.
Not funny.

And the breaking of the law was done why?

On one hand you have a person breaking the law to better their flipping family.
On the other hand, you have someone who did something probably to try and get himself better.

How about this for an example:

You have a medical emergency, and thus you are speeding to the hospital. You get pulled over and get fined for speeding.

You are late getting home from a late party,and you have missed curfew, so you speed through town. You get pulled over and fined for speeding.

Isn't there a clear difference? Is it just for the first person to be fined in light of an emergency?

You must realize, Mr. Legalist, that sometimes laws are not just. When people suffer from laws, they are not just. They might be the law, but they are still unacceptable.

Stupid analogy. Get up in front of a judge and say "I was speeding to the hospital" and the ticket's overturned. It's an emergency.

"I want a better life" is not an emergency. *I* want to be a millionaire. Going bankrupt after buying a house I had no means to buy will not prevent me being foreclosed on.

Why is illegal in quotations? They came here against the law; they are illegal. If they get found, they get sent back. I don't have anything against them, but it is in fact illegal. If I snuck into France, and they caught me without documentation, I would be in hot water. What's the difference here?

Why is illegal in quotations? They came here against the law; they are illegal. If they get found, they get sent back. I don't have anything against them, but it is in fact illegal. If I snuck into France, and they caught me without documentation, I would be in hot water. What's the difference here?

France has better cheese?

Why is illegal in quotations? They came here against the law; they are illegal. If they get found, they get sent back. I don't have anything against them, but it is in fact illegal. If I snuck into France, and they caught me without documentation, I would be in hot water. What's the difference here?

In the EU, if you didn't agree to leave voluntarily, or if the authorities believed you could go into hiding, you could be held for up to 18 months while local officials await your extradition to your home country.

Why is illegal in quotations? They came here against the law; they are illegal. If they get found, they get sent back. I don't have anything against them, but it is in fact illegal. If I snuck into France, and they caught me without documentation, I would be in hot water. What's the difference here?

They have broken your laws. They are not, however 'illegal'.

You don't call anyone else who has broken any other law an 'illegal'. You call them someone who has committed a crime. Person first, crime second.

Only within the context of THIS discussion do people seem to want to reach for the most perjorative term...the term that makes it absolutely clear that these are not people, because people have rights, and these 'illegals' should have none.

They are irregular migrants, pure and simple.

They have broken your laws. They are not, however 'illegal'.

You don't call anyone else who has broken any other law an 'illegal'. You call them someone who has committed a crime. Person first, crime second.

Only within the context of THIS discussion do people seem to want to reach for the most perjorative term...the term that makes it absolutely clear that these are not people, because people have rights, and these 'illegals' should have none.

They are irregular migrants, pure and simple.

So...you're saying that an IMMIGRANT, who is here ILLEGALLY, shouldn't be called an illegal immigrant, because its demeaning?
And 'irregular migrant' is somehow...better? Personally it puts me in the mind of guerrilla warfare or partisan fighting.
Seems to me that its a lot like calling a plane crash an 'undesirable ground/air interaction'.

They have broken your laws. They are not, however 'illegal'.

You don't call anyone else who has broken any other law an 'illegal'. You call them someone who has committed a crime. Person first, crime second.

Only within the context of THIS discussion do people seem to want to reach for the most perjorative term...the term that makes it absolutely clear that these are not people, because people have rights, and these 'illegals' should have none.

They are irregular migrants, pure and simple.

We don't call people illegal murders or illegal rapists because there is no way to legally do those things. It's redundant. There are legal immigrants, however, and no one wants to deport them. Unless your one of those crazy Nazi types.

They are illegal migrants, pure and simple.

We don't call people illegal murders or illegal rapists because there is no way to legally do those things. It's redundant. There are legal immigrants, however, and no one wants to deport them. Unless your one of those crazy Nazi types.

They are illegal migrants, pure and simple.

There are legal ways to kill people, for example in self defense. Yet we don't call murderers "illegal killers." Even if we did, shortening the term to just "illegals" carries the distinct connotation that the person themselves are illegal - that they are not just committing a crime, but that their existence itself is criminal. That is why I strongly oppose the term "illegals."

And I've never once seen a good reason for using that term. Laziness doesn't cut it, especially as people will spend far more energy defending their vocabulary choice than they would have simply typing "immigrant."

There are legal ways to kill people, for example in self defense. Yet we don't call murderers "illegal killers." Even if we did, shortening the term to just "illegals" carries the distinct connotation that the person themselves are illegal - that they are not just committing a crime, but that their existence itself is criminal. That is why I strongly oppose the term "illegals."

And I've never once seen a good reason for using that term. Laziness doesn't cut it, especially as people will spend far more energy defending their vocabulary choice than they would have simply typing "immigrant."

Ahh, but there is no way to legally murder, because the definition of murder is killing illegally. This is the dictionary definition. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder)

Entirely irrelevant legal terms aside, I notice you do not protest the use of "Illegal Immigrant," just calling them "Illegals." I agree with that. But I do disagree with the people who don't think that they should be called illegal immigrants.

There are legal ways to kill people, for example in self defense. Yet we don't call murderers "illegal killers."

Why would we? "murder" means an illegal killing with malice aforethought, so we don't need to say "illegal killer" since "murderer" already includes that idea, that's what it means. On the other hand there is no word for "immigrant" which also includes the concept of illegality.

Oooh, exiting! And what's that, exactly? Evil right wing conservative? Do entertain me!

Specifically for this thread? Someone with too much emphasis on bureaucracy.


How many have these bracelets? 43. Well, 10 of them have already left, voluntarily going back to their homeland.

By the article wording, only after receiving permission from a federal judge months after they were tagged.


What is "reasonable promptness" in the context of the immigration system in the US, with the amount of immigrants and the number of deportation hearings that needs to be done here?

The logistics were not in place. Don't imagine that the logistics involved in carrying out this raid is the same as the logistics involved in returning the people to their home countries.

The people were rounded up for tagging, yes? This would involve a significant amount of personnel and transport to a central location for the process. Unless you are saying that the authorities went around tagging these people one by one that is.

Arranging for bulk transport from the central location to the country where they are to be deported is a simple matter then. It happens here often enough.


They should be deported as soon as physically possible, though with the natural limitations that resources place on the process. Mind you, their rights need also to be safeguarded, hence the need for an individual hearing in each case - which will take time. And the possibility for appeals should also be present.

Appeals? On what grounds? The case of an undocumented worker certainly has clear cut rules on what must be done no? The only exception I can think of is those seeking sanctuary with reasonable grounds of expecting immediate threat to life and limb upon being deported.


You don't read through posts completely before responding, do you?


I do actually. You'll see why below.


What would you call my last post then? Was that not an indication?


Only after the several posts where you made no such indication until you were pressed.


Sure, baby.

I manage to look at the system as a whole. You don't, it seems.

Well why don't you elaborate then hmm?


Which is why the government should aid them through the social security system. The failure to do so is not a result of enforcing the immigration laws however, but rather a failure that is caused due to the lack of an adequate security net throughout the US.

Homeless citizens that don't qualify for social security exists too, people depending on private charity to survive. That's an equal outrage.

All well and good, but far less likely to come to pass than immediate deportation.

They have broken your laws. They are not, however 'illegal'. Agreed, they are criminals.

You don't call anyone else who has broken any other law an 'illegal'. You call them someone who has committed a crime. Person first, crime second.Actually, we don't do this either, we call them criminals

Only within the context of THIS discussion do people seem to want to reach for the most perjorative term...the term that makes it absolutely clear that these are not people, because people have rights, and these 'illegals' should have none.

They are irregular migrants, pure and simple.Uh, no, assuming they are in fact present as the result of deliberate violations of our immigration laws, they are criminals.

I notice you do not protest the use of "Illegal Immigrant," just calling them "Illegals." I agree with that. But I do disagree with the people who don't think that they should be called illegal immigrants.

Who are these people? Seriously I've never heard of anyone who doesn't think "illegal immigrant" is an appropriate term for illegal immigrants.

Why would we? "murder" means an illegal killing with malice aforethought, so we don't need to say "illegal killer" since "murderer" already includes that idea, that's what it means. On the other hand there is no word for "immigrant" which also includes the concept of illegality.

All murder is illegal killing, but not all illegal killing is murder. Anyway the point is on the term "illegals" here. "Illegal" is an insufficient term because while it sure does hint at the concept of illegality, it doesn't even mention the immigrant part. Which is silly at best.

They are irregular migrants, pure and simple.
I don't like that term because I feel it's not precise enough. The term "irregular immigrants" does not concern itself with the legal status of the immigrants, only if they followed the proper procedure or not - which in some cases doesn't correspond with any illegality.

I know that some organizations (including the EU general assebly) prefer the term because it's more neutral and doesn't carry the stigmatisation of the term "Illegal immigrant", but still...


Luckily I don't have to use it in daily life.


By the article wording, only after receiving permission from a federal judge months after they were tagged.
And when did they file their request?


The people were rounded up for tagging, yes? This would involve a significant amount of personnel and transport to a central location for the process. Unless you are saying that the authorities went around tagging these people one by one that is.

Arranging for bulk transport from the central location to the country where they are to be deported is a simple matter then. It happens here often enough.
You seem to fail to realize that they have to be transported over long distances to another country, and that they have to make sure that those without the proper documentation are turned away at the border.


Appeals? On what grounds? The case of an undocumented worker certainly has clear cut rules on what must be done no? The only exception I can think of is those seeking sanctuary with reasonable grounds of expecting immediate threat to life and limb upon being deported.
Seeking asylum, seeking residence on humanitarian grounds, seeking family reunification with any family members with a legal residence status in the country, seeking temporary visas - like the women mentioned in the article.

That, or generally appealing the deportation decision on the grounds that it's somehow incorrect.


Only after the several posts where you made no such indication until you were pressed.
"Pressed"? Riiiiiiight.

It didn't come up in the discussion before that point. Yet you wrongfully assumed a whole lot before bothering to inquire further.


Well why don't you elaborate then hmm?
I can. And if you had bothered to read my other posts you would have seen examples of just that.

So what do you want me to elaborate on? How the immigration system as a whole is weakened for those who seeks to enter the country legally by those who violate immigration laws? Or something else?


All well and good, but far less likely to come to pass than immediate deportation.
So what's your alternative? Immediate deportation, ignoring the appeals and protests of the people?

Keeping the people locked up while waiting deportation?

Letting them go free, and hope they stay put until they can be deported or go home voluntarily, and not hide or go somewhere else in the US?