NationStates Jolt Archive

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

No, youre not just being paranoid. This is a legit concern, and its common to scapegoat the immigrants.

As for Lou "Mr. Independent" Dobbs, hes a moron, and anyone who takes him seriously is too.

...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

Just replace "illegal immigrants" with "poor people", or, more accurately, "poor foreigners". Whether they're actually here illegally or not isn't really the point for the people who make comments like the ones you mentioned. The fact that they look different and don't have a lot of money is enough to condemn them, whether they're US citizens or not.

To wit:

Jury awards $2.5 million to teen beaten by Klan members (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/14/klan.sued.verdict/index.html).

To put my views as simply as possible (I am from the UK)

1. I think that the dangers of illegal immigration are exaggerated by the media.
2. But I do think that an excessive number of illegal migrants can cause economic trouble, strain healthcare services, and lead to rising social tensions, often on racial lines.
3. Where undocumented migrants cannot demonstrate any reason other than economic to have moved, and they do not have sufficient skills to pass the tests that legal immigrants must pass they should be returned to the country of entry. To prevent them from disappearing while their application is being evaluated, they should be detained. This is only fair to the legal immigrants, and if everyone who moves in illegally is allowed to stay, its hardly worth anyone following the official channels.

if its illegal i support it.

Remember, just becuase you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ;)

I just finished reading an article about the spike in incidents of racism since Obama got elected.* A bad economy always incites scapegoating. Also, the first black president, gay rights, increased immigration -- every time minorities start to raise their status and/or get more attention, the nativist/know-nothings come running out of the woodwork. I think we are in for a lot of this in the coming years, and we had better watch out, because some people don't draw the line at violence.

It's one of the ironies of life that the closer you get to goals, the more dangerous the road gets.



*http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081115/491fa8d0_3ca6_1552620081116-1503707245

No, it's not just you and unfortunately, if you look at the history of immigration to the US< this crap has been going on long since before the Revolutionary War. Anyone who is not of British descent is usually dumped on. This of course annoys me as the husband of a future (non-White) immigrant and as an immigrant myself.

Of course, what I do REALLY love is the same sort of folks who do manage to make it over here to Japan are usually the first ones to start bitching when some of the more nationalistic Japanese treat them the exact same way.

I second that. There's a growing xenophobia in America that, to me, is exactly like fascist sentiments of the '30s.

snip

*http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081115/491fa8d0_3ca6_1552620081116-1503707245
This one personally scares me, as I live in Marietta, Ga. (the site of one of the reports mentioned) and near Snellville (the site of another). I voted for Obama, though I'm white, as did my conservative family. My car has an Obama bumper sticker and I have an Obama t-shirt and pin in the back seat. Now I'm paranoid that someone will trash my car or my house.

I am against illegal immigration. Other countries also have immigration laws, it's not like the US is super fascist or something.


That said, there is no real "solution" to the 'problem' without drastically improving the standards of living in the usually impoverished areas from which immigrants come. They wouldn't be packing up their bags and leaving the land of their birth if they weren't after a significant improvement in their lives and the lives of their families. And that is why no approach based solely on US judicial action will work. As Pete Stark said, about building a big wall/fence "If that happens, it would be a good idea to buy stock in a company that makes ladders."

Because basically, such an attempt would just be a silly waste of resources that wouldn't work anyway.

This one personally scares me, as I live in Marietta, Ga. (the site of one of the reports mentioned) and near Snellville (the site of another). I voted for Obama, though I'm white, as did my conservative family. My car has an Obama bumper sticker and I have an Obama t-shirt and pin in the back seat. Now I'm paranoid that someone will trash my car or my house.
Seriously, it's very discouraging to see such reactions, but I guess this is why they call it "fighting the good fight."

I am against illegal immigration. Other countries also have immigration laws, it's not like the US is super fascist or something.


That said, there is no real "solution" to the 'problem' without drastically improving the standards of living in the usually impoverished areas from which immigrants come. They wouldn't be packing up their bags and leaving the land of their birth if they weren't after a significant improvement in their lives and the lives of their families. And that is why no approach based solely on US judicial action will work. As Pete Stark said, about building a big wall/fence "If that happens, it would be a good idea to buy stock in a company that makes ladders."

Because basically, such an attempt would just be a silly waste of resources that wouldn't work anyway.
I don't like illegal immigration, either. My main point against it is is that it is exploited by certain employers/industries to depress general wages in an entire region. My secondary issue with it is that the lack of control that makes it possible to such a degree is evidence of a serious weakness in national security.

But that in no way excuses the xenophobic bigotry of many people.

I don't like illegal immigration, either. My main point against it is is that it is exploited by certain employers/industries to depress general wages in an entire region. My secondary issue with it is that the lack of control that makes it possible to such a degree is evidence of a serious weakness in national security.

But that in no way excuses the xenophobic bigotry of many people.

Yeah, this.

No, it's not just you and unfortunately, if you look at the history of immigration to the US< this crap has been going on long since before the Revolutionary War. Anyone who is not of British descent is usually dumped on. This of course annoys me as the husband of a future (non-White) immigrant and as an immigrant myself.

Of course, what I do REALLY love is the same sort of folks who do manage to make it over here to Japan are usually the first ones to start bitching when some of the more nationalistic Japanese treat them the exact same way.

But surely you would be different as you would have moved to Japan by legal means and I presume your wife will also move to the US through legal means rather than by entering illegally.

But surely you would be different as you would have moved to Japan by legal means and I presume your wife will also move to the US through legal means rather than by entering illegally.

That's of little consequence for the people who are hell bent on blaming "illegal immigrants" for their own problems. Read the article I linked in my previous post. The KKK members attacked a US citizen of Native American and Panamanian descent because he looked like an illegal immigrant. It doesn't matter whether they've enterred the country legally or not; to some people, anyone and everyone who looks like an illegal is one.

In my opinion illegal immigration is bad on every front,though not all immigrants are to blame for this,some really have no alternative than to look for a better life away from their country.It is true there are many unscrupulous employers who exploit them and can afford to fire their legal workers without repercussions from a prolonged strike (the unions' uselessness cannot be overstated),and of course not every illegal immigrant is a kind,hard-working person,many of them are criminal drifters with no conscience or morals seeing the new country as a frontier land and themselves as having nothing to loose.

As Pete Stark said, about building a big wall/fence "If that happens, it would be a good idea to buy stock in a company that makes ladders."

Because basically, such an attempt would just be a silly waste of resources that wouldn't work anyway.

No, it wouldn't. Ladders, tunnels or boats aren't the only options around it though.

Unless you also deny foreigners tourist visas or temporary work visas, they'll come with those visas and overstay them.

The cost of legal travel (jet fare I guess) would seem to be a barrier, but really it profits worse criminals who lend that money on extortionate terms and indenture the illegal immigrants within the country.

But surely you would be different as you would have moved to Japan by legal means and I presume your wife will also move to the US through legal means rather than by entering illegally.
The treatment of immigrants is what I mean, and no, it really isn't very different.

I remember right after I came to Japan four years ago I got an email from my wife (Then fiancée) asking me to call home. When I got a hold of her, she was in tears because of a problem with the post office. They had shut down the post box because we hadn't picked up our mail for two weeks and when she went to the post office to reopen the box and get the mail, the clerk wouldn't deal with her because of her Japanese accent and pretty much told her to get out of the country.

I think the amount of scaremongering around illegal immigration coupled with eight years of a president who really doesn't want to get serious about improving anything because he's from a state that lives off of cheap labor has been a recipe for disaster. I think illegal immigration is a symptom, not the disease, and we need to start treating the foundation of the problem.

I also hate when people say that illegal immigrants steal jobs and/or live off the government. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes whose benefits, including social security, they will never see; and as for stealing jobs, there are plenty of natural-born citizens living off of welfare who won't deign to do those jobs.

That's of little consequence for the people who are hell bent on blaming "illegal immigrants" for their own problems. Read the article I linked in my previous post. The KKK members attacked a US citizen of Native American and Panamanian descent because he looked like an illegal immigrant. It doesn't matter whether they've enterred the country legally or not; to some people, anyone and everyone who looks like an illegal is one.
To me, that just indicates that, for people like that, their problem isn't immigration. It's just that they are racists/xenophobes.

I'm not saying I see any solution for certain.

But if there is a market for low-wage work, and the doing of that work with limited rights is preferable to the immigrant than staying in their own country, then surely it would help to raise the number of legal economic refugees permitted into the country. Not according to their skills, simply by being prepared to work for very low wages.

Possibly actually cap what they can legally earn for some number of years, to counter the "stealing our jobs" concerns of the low-to-middle working class. Those low-wage jobs are there, and they're being filled by illegals who cannot bargain for better because their legal rights are almost non-existent. Effectively, the cap is there already.

This idea is even more controversial in Australia than it would be in the States, because the minimum wage is far more widely observed. Theoretically, it's enforced, though Howard's mob put a huge hole in it.

The treatment of immigrants is what I mean, and no, it really isn't very different.

I remember right after I came to Japan four years ago I got an email from my wife (Then fiancée) asking me to call home. When I got a hold of her, she was in tears because of a problem with the post office. They had shut down the post box because we hadn't picked up our mail for two weeks and when she went to the post office to reopen the box and get the mail, the clerk wouldn't deal with her because of her Japanese accent and pretty much told her to get out of the country.

Really? Gee I wasn't aware that it was that bad in the US.

Really? Gee I wasn't aware that it was that bad in the US.
As with all things, it is very, very mixed.

The treatment of immigrants is what I mean, and no, it really isn't very different.

I remember right after I came to Japan four years ago I got an email from my wife (Then fiancée) asking me to call home. When I got a hold of her, she was in tears because of a problem with the post office. They had shut down the post box because we hadn't picked up our mail for two weeks and when she went to the post office to reopen the box and get the mail, the clerk wouldn't deal with her because of her Japanese accent and pretty much told her to get out of the country.

That's awful.

Even if she didn't speak a word of English surely the USPS can't deny her service? It's a federal agency, and the US doesn't have an official language.

Clerk should be officially reprimanded or sacked.

That's awful.

Even if she didn't speak a word of English surely the USPS can't deny her service? It's a federal agency, and the US doesn't have an official language.

Clerk should be officially reprimanded or sacked.
The postal service has been privatized, and believe me, it shows.

how about the fact that nearly half of your "Army" is made up of foreign Citizens, a large portion of your political system is made up of foreign Citizens. Doesn't that bother you that your national sovereignty is almost non-existent. Does it not bother you that they get free money for breaking the law? It sure fucking bothers me to see my family members get fired and replaced by illegal immigrants. (by the way that company was shut down for hiring illegal immigrants)
this is no longer a minor problem.

Illegal Immigrants are not the cause of the housing bubble, that's the credit unions. They are not the only cause our bad economy which is mostly the fault of the Credit unions, banks and our governments activities of the last century. But they are doing something just as bad by destroying our sovereignty.

and before people start calling me shit. if they had come here the legal way, I would welcome them with open arms. I believe in the American dream. That a [Legal] Immigrant can come to America and achieve success, whatever your term of success is.

No, it wouldn't. Ladders, tunnels or boats aren't the only options around it though.

Unless you also deny foreigners tourist visas or temporary work visas, they'll come with those visas and overstay them.

The cost of legal travel (jet fare I guess) would seem to be a barrier, but really it profits worse criminals who lend that money on extortionate terms and indenture the illegal immigrants within the country.

It's called a joke.

Syngia;14218482']how about the fact that nearly half of your "Army" is made up of foreign Citizens, a large portion of your political system is made up of foreign Citizens. Doesn't that bother you that your national sovereignty is almost non-existent. Does it not bother you that they get free money for breaking the law? It sure fucking bothers me to see my family members get fired and replaced by illegal immigrants. (by the way that company was shut down for hiring illegal immigrants)
this is no longer a minor problem.

Illegal Immigrants are not the cause of the housing bubble, that's the credit unions. They are not the only cause our bad economy which is mostly the fault of the Credit unions, banks and our governments activities of the last century. But they are doing something just as bad by destroying our sovereignty.

and before people start calling me shit. if they had come here the legal way, I would welcome them with open arms. I believe in the American dream. That a [Legal] Immigrant can come to America and achieve success, whatever your term of success is.

Lol, ranting n00b

I can rant all I want =P. And by the way anyone who says n00b is probably gay or retarded.

Syngia;14218498']I can rant all I want =P. And by the way anyone who says n00b is probably gay or retarded.

This one has great promise in entertainment value.

Syngia;14218498']I can rant all I want =P. And by the way anyone who says n00b is probably gay or retarded.

Sig'd for lols.

Syngia;14218498']I can rant all I want =P. And by the way anyone who says n00b is probably gay or retarded.
I can see that you will have a long and valuable time here.

Syngia;14218482']how about the fact that nearly half of your "Army" is made up of foreign Citizens, a large portion of your political system is made up of foreign Citizens.

Who is this "you" you are talking to here?

Doesn't that bother you that your national sovereignty is almost non-existent.

"almost non-existent." It bothers me that you use a phrase like that which in effect means, "existent" but you had to paint it in such a way as to promote mindless fear. ZOMG THE BOARDARZ R OPEN! MEXICO IS INVADING!

Does it not bother you that they get free money for breaking the law?

It bothers me that you really think that's how illegal immigration works.

"Free money." LoL. Yeah, I guess the under-the-table substandard pay is just a BONUS they get when they are working on road construction as a HOBBY. And they endure being treated like slaves by unethical companies just, cuz, you know, that's part of what makes it such an enjoyable and pleasant EXPERIENCE.

It sure fucking bothers me to see my family members get fired and replaced by illegal immigrants.

That's funny, because usually when someone gets fired, there's no animosity involved at all!

Or, not. It's just in your case you feel the need to blame the guy the employers chose to hire instead of your apparently underqualified family members.

People like you would also blame "the Irish" for taking over businesses in your city. Apparently there's no such thing as personal responsibility in your view, everyone is just part of some hive-mind. Convenient when you want to hate large groups of people for no good reason, I guess.

(by the way that company was shut down for hiring illegal immigrants)
this is no longer a minor problem.

Heh. You define whether illegal immigration is a minor problem based on how it effects your family personally. How quaint. Well shit, it hasn't effected my family at all, so I guess that means it IS a minor problem!


But they are doing something just as bad by destroying our sovereignty.

...do you just not know what national sovereignty really is?


I believe in the American dream. That a [Legal] Immigrant can come to America and achieve success

Oh, how inspiring.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door,

As long as you come here legally,

and are willing to spend several years for your papers to get processed,

and are one of the many tired and poor who have hundreds or thousands of dollars on hand,

and who don't destroy our national sovereignty by coming here,

where you get free money and all you have to do is slave labor."

My problem with illegal immigration is just that. It's illegal*. I understand that some people have little choice, but I would rather they worked to improve their own country. Instead of coming to mine, and reaping benefits without sowing the seeds.

Having said that, I have no problem with legal immigrants. I see them, and talk with them, all the time in my place of work. :p

*Yes, I realize that some things that are illegal should not be.

That's awful.

Even if she didn't speak a word of English surely the USPS can't deny her service? It's a federal agency, and the US doesn't have an official language.

Clerk should be officially reprimanded or sacked.
I had a chat with the post office about it, yes. The thing that REALLY made ME angry is that my wife, who has a BA and at the time was in a graduate program at an American university, speaks English very, very well and only has a trace of an accent. It was the fact that she doesn't look American and that accent is there that made that clerk decide that he couldn't understand her and therefore would not make any time for her.

I've experienced the same in Japan where people look at me and automatically assume that I cannot speak Japanese. They'll look right past me and talk directly to my wife even if I was the one asking the question, am standing in front of them, and has the wallet full of money.

So I have a lot of sympathy for immigrants, even illegal ones, in the US.

Syngia;14218482']how about the fact that nearly half of your "Army" is made up of foreign Citizens, a large portion of your political system is made up of foreign Citizens. Doesn't that bother you that your national sovereignty is almost non-existent.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but...Huh? Are you talking about the US or somewhere else? And if you're talking about the US, how on earth are foreign nationals a large part of the political system, considering that they can neither vote nor hold office?

Could you expand on the whole "national sovereignty" issue? In my experience, one of the things that distinguishes the US from other countries is our peculiarly strong sense of national identity & national will, both at an individual and a state level.

A lot of people have never, in their life, even tried to move anywhere out of their country of residence. They have no idea of the costs or difficulty involved. People here in Denmark keep crying for a tightening of immigration laws, but what they don't realize is that all they're doing is keeping out the type of people we do need.

What people don't realize is just how difficult it is for even EU citizens to move to Denmark. Since they've never done it themselves, or heard about it, they just assume it's easy. It really isn't.

Now, how many Americans have actually tried to immigrate to the US recently? Do they even know that, as an unskilled worker, it costs 400+ dollars to just make an application, which might be denied and which needs to be made usually half a year to a year in advance?

Would you want to pay 400 dollars for an uncertain chance when you've got a family to feed?

People keep crying about how bad illegal immigration is, but no one ever seems to realize that every time they tighten the immigration laws, they don't make it harder for the so-called criminals. It's not like they're going to start following the laws you make. They're making it harder on the seasonal workers, the hopeful and even the skilled. Every time you tighten an immigration law, you're going to create more illegal immigrants.

I don't really agree with the argument, but since quite a lot of the gun lovers in the US seem to like it, "If you outlaw immigration, only outlaws will immigrate."

My problem with illegal immigration is just that. It's illegal*. I understand that some people have little choice, but I would rather they worked to improve their own country. Instead of coming to mine, and reaping benefits without sowing the seeds.

Having said that, I have no problem with legal immigrants. I see them, and talk with them, all the time in my place of work. :p

You should be against legal immigration too - wouldn't you rather people worked to improve their own countries instead of going to some other place?

As for reaping benefits and not sowing seeds... I hope that's a joke. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, have to work generally harder than anyone else, for less money, and with all the troubles of living in a new country with a potentially bigoted and xenophobic population. That to me counts as "sewing seeds," and it's a hell of a lot more than citizens have to do. All I had to do was be born. How in the fuck is that me sewing seeds? And reaping benefits, what, like social security and welfare and other things that illegal immigrants can't get? Or did you mean they are cruelly making use of our emergency services when emergencies happen? They shouldn't call the police, the police shouldn't respond? Their houses should burn down because otherwise it's a benefit that they didn't earn?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

You should be against legal immigration too - wouldn't you rather people worked to improve their own countries instead of going to some other place? You have a point, but not one that I recognize. If they follow the legal process (A very laborious one, from what some in this thread have posted.) and are determined to come into this country, I have no problem with them.

As for reaping benefits and not sowing seeds... I hope that's a joke. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, have to work generally harder than anyone else, for less money, and with all the troubles of living in a new country with a potentially bigoted and xenophobic population.Yes, tell that to my neighbor who moved in from Mexico last year. The one with the Porsche.

Maybe my area is different than what is generally prevalent in others.

Syngia;14218482']how about the fact that nearly half of your "Army" is made up of foreign Citizens, a large portion of your political system is made up of foreign Citizens. Doesn't that bother you that your national sovereignty is almost non-existent. Does it not bother you that they get free money for breaking the law? It sure fucking bothers me to see my family members get fired and replaced by illegal immigrants. (by the way that company was shut down for hiring illegal immigrants)
this is no longer a minor problem.

Illegal Immigrants are not the cause of the housing bubble, that's the credit unions. They are not the only cause our bad economy which is mostly the fault of the Credit unions, banks and our governments activities of the last century. But they are doing something just as bad by destroying our sovereignty.

and before people start calling me shit. if they had come here the legal way, I would welcome them with open arms. I believe in the American dream. That a [Legal] Immigrant can come to America and achieve success, whatever your term of success is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8Are you drunk again? :tongue:

I had a chat with the post office about it, yes. The thing that REALLY made ME angry is that my wife, who has a BA and at the time was in a graduate program at an American university, speaks English very, very well and only has a trace of an accent. It was the fact that she doesn't look American and that accent is there that made that clerk decide that he couldn't understand her and therefore would not make any time for her.

I've experienced the same in Japan where people look at me and automatically assume that I cannot speak Japanese. They'll look right past me and talk directly to my wife even if I was the one asking the question, am standing in front of them, and has the wallet full of money.

So I have a lot of sympathy for immigrants, even illegal ones, in the US.

Have you read Amy Tan's essay Mother Tongue (http://people.virginia.edu/~pmc4b/spring98/readings/Mother.html)? It's a nice piece that's mostly about the oddities of translation & dialect but it's also about how her mother is sometimes mistreated because of her slightly nonstandard English.

Are you drunk again? :tongue:

No. Thats just the first thought in my mind whenever someone goes on one of those "I HATEZ ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!11!" rants.

No. Thats just the first thought in my mind whenever someone goes on one of those "I HATEZ ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!11!" rants.You have an odd mind, KoL. Treasure it. :D

You have a point, but not one that I recognize. If they follow the legal process (A very laborious one, from what some in this thread have posted.) and are determined to come into this country, I have no problem with them.

Some of 'them' have a problem with you.

I've been over here half a decade, and will probably be a citizen soon. If they stop doubling the cost every year. Then I'll have to take a test, after I've paid and all the rest. A test that - I'm informed - the vast majority of native citizens couldn't pass. I've been paying taxes, social security, etc for half a decade... and yet, when we needed help, my entire family was turned down for assistance... because I'm an immigrant.

A legal one. That speaks English as a first language. I'm even the right 'color'.

It has cost me maybe as much as twenty thousand dollars to join my American wife over here, to try to raise our children. I had to start over, getting authorised to work, finding work, getting employed with no background, and working my way up.

When my wife got pregnant with our third child, and we needed an Ob-Gyn, and we're having a hard time, when we asked for assistance... do you know what we were told? We should get divorced - then she could get assistance.


You wonder why there are so many illegal immigrants in the US?

Because it's a fucking nightmare being a legal one.

You have a point, but not one that I recognize. If they follow the legal process (A very laborious one, from what some in this thread have posted.) and are determined to come into this country, I have no problem with them.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on just what it takes to come to the US as an immigrant then.

Yes, tell that to my neighbor who moved in from Mexico last year. The one with the Porsche.
Ah yes, because as we all know, your one example beats every other national trend. :rolleyes:

Some of 'them' have a problem with you.Then 'they' have a problem with the wrong person. If 'they' want to have a problem with someone, 'they' should have a problem with whoever sets the immigration policy.

You wonder why there are so many illegal immigrants in the US?Uh, no, actually, I don't. ...Did I even say something about the number of legal immigrants? o_0

You have a point, but not one that I recognize.

Too bad for you then.

If they follow the legal process (A very laborious one, from what some in this thread have posted.) and are determined to come into this country, I have no problem with them.

But why not? You said you wanted them to improve their own countries. Do you now no longer want them to do that?

Yes, tell that to my neighbor who moved in from Mexico last year. The one with the Porsche.

Amusing, and highly suspect. What kind of Porsche? Where from in Mexico? How do you know they are an illegal immigrant at all? Have you even talked to him or her?

All I know is I haven't, and your anecdote doesn't contradict a single thing I've said.

Maybe my area is different than what is generally prevalent in others.

Maybe your area is small enough so that your single example is a good way to judge it? But the nation overall is not, so it isn't.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on just what it takes to come to the US as an immigrant then. I think I might do that. I'll ask my history teacher about it, as well. Thanks for the suggestion.


Ah yes, because as we all know, your one example beats every other national trend. :rolleyes:No, it doesn't. My point is that something that is generally true is not universally true.

Have you read Amy Tan's essay Mother Tongue (http://people.virginia.edu/~pmc4b/spring98/readings/Mother.html)? It's a nice piece that's mostly about the oddities of translation & dialect but it's also about how her mother is sometimes mistreated because of her slightly nonstandard English.
That reminds me an awful lot of my wife. Her English is nonstandard and she sometimes talks her way around a word or phrase she doesn't know (Like saying land owner for land lord) and yes, sometimes when we're back home people do hear that and assume that she's stupid or that she cannot understand them. Given that I have the same issue in Japan, I tend to get upset when that happens and while my wife might lack a bit in English eloquence, I most certainly do not.

But it's a trade off though, once my wife went after a store clerk here in Japan for doing the same thing to me. ;)

But why not? You said you wanted them to improve their own countries. Do you now no longer want them to do that?...I think this is referred to as a false dilemma?

Then 'they' have a problem with the wrong person. If 'they' want to have a problem with someone, 'they' should have a problem with whoever sets the immigration policy.


You were saying you 'have no problem' with the legal immigrants, which is mighty big of you.

You are part of the problem. Your complaining about your 'Mexican neighbour with a Porsche' is perpetuating a stereotype. Perpetuating the hate.


Uh, no, actually, I don't. ...Did I even say something about the number of legal immigrants? o_0

You made a complaint about illegal immigration, magnanimously allowing that legal immigrants weren't all that bad. So - I pointed out why the one exists so abundantly, because of the conditions required for the other.

...I think this is referred to as a false dilemma?

No, it's trying to understand and apply your claim in a rational manner. You did after all make the claim about 'wanting them to improve their own countries,' not me.

Speaking of logical fallacies, though:

My point is that something that is generally true is not universally true.

This point of yours is a strawman, and irrelevant. Of course a generally true thing is not absolutely true. So what? I never claimed it did, and it doesn't have to be for what I say to be true. Seems to me that so far, your objection to illegal immigration is based more on gut feelings than any rational process.

You were saying you 'have no problem' with the legal immigrants, which is mighty big of you.

You are part of the problem. Your complaining about your 'Mexican neighbour with a Porsche' is perpetuating a stereotype. Perpetuating the hate.



You made a complaint about illegal immigration, magnanimously allowing that legal immigrants weren't all that bad. So - I pointed out why the one exists so abundantly, because of the conditions required for the other. I read you, but I don't understand you.
Please, explain further.

No, it's trying to understand and apply your claim in a rational manner. You did after all make the claim about 'wanting them to improve their own countries,' not me.
Speaking of logical fallacies, though:
This point of yours is a strawman, and irrelevant. Of course a generally true thing is not absolutely true. So what? I never claimed it did, and it doesn't have to be for what I say to be true. Seems to me that so far, your objection to illegal immigration is based more on gut feelings than any rational process.Accepted, and you're right about the fallacy. Thanks for pointing it out, as well. I obviously didn't think much about it.



Did I break some sort of unspoken rule by admitting that I was wrong? :eek:

I read you, but I don't understand you.
Please, explain further.

My original response explains further.

You have an anecdotal neighbour, and a conflict you see between illegal immigrants (who should go home and die in the streets or something) and legal immigrants. You ignore the fact that most immigrants are not driving Porsches, the illegal ones even more so. You ignore the fact that the reason there are so many illegal immigrants in this country... is because it's so bloody hard to get in legitimately.

You have a story about a neighbour... well, I've LIVED the life of a legal immigrant. And it's hard enough for us. 'Illegals' in this country have nothing but my pity.

My original response explains further.

You have an anecdotal neighbour, and a conflict you see between illegal immigrants (who should go home and die in the streets or something) and legal immigrants. You ignore the fact that most immigrants are not driving Porsches, the illegal ones even more so. You ignore the fact that the reason there are so many illegal immigrants in this country... is because it's so bloody hard to get in legitimately.And, because I'm uneducated about the subject, I'll take what you have to say and refine my own knowledge with it. Thanks for teaching me something.

if its illegal i support it.

<Kills Builic with Builics full support>

And, because I'm uneducated about the subject, I'll take what you have to say and refine my own knowledge with it. Thanks for teaching me something.

Thanks for listening.

I am against illegal immigration. Other countries also have immigration laws, it's not like the US is super fascist or something.


I'm against immigration laws. I still don't understand this obsession people have with which side of an imaginary line other people are on.

Thanks for listening.I try. Ugh, now I've promised to myself that I'll research a subject. I'll never let myself live it down if I remain ignorant of it. I hate holding myself responsible for myself. :p
If that made any sort of sense to anyone, you deserve a medal. Now I'm off to bed, because my blather is probably very boring to you.

Accepted, and you're right about the fallacy. Thanks for pointing it out, as well. I obviously didn't think much about it.

No prob.



Did I break some sort of unspoken rule by admitting that I was wrong? :eek:

Yeah this is NSG, we don't take kindly to that kind of behavior 'round here. :p

Yeah this is NSG, we don't take kindly to that kind of behavior 'round here. :p Good, I like defying the MO. :p

Seriously going to bed now.

I'm against immigration laws. I still don't understand this obsession people have with which side of an imaginary line other people are on.

And those people wonder when and why you became defective. :p

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s?

Well, the methods of the good old "create scare by inventing an enemy" (jews in germany, kulaki in cccp, commies in usa etc) are always the same.
The only difference is that in 1930 Europe was emigrating to the Americas, while today Europe has become a target of immigration.

Here in Italy we have some xenophobic parties like Lega Nord, or even some neofascist (La Destra) and some neonazis (Forza Nuova), who generally blame everything that's wrong on immigrates (be they legal or illegal, they don't care - "they're DIFFERENT, negro albanian gipsy slav chinese latinamerican arab, what do they do here" and things like that). It's expecially sad when you think how Italians were mistreated when they emigrated to the USA, expecially after the introduction of strict quotas.

Anyway, illegal immigration should not be allowed. This is why:
1.there is plenty of people waiting in line to immigrate lawfully, with a regular visa etc
2.legal immigrants are usually better qualified than illegal immigrants
3.illegal immigration is a tool to enact salary dumping
4.illegal immigrants often are blackmailed by organised crime (debts, threats to family in land of origin, reduction in slavery)
5.with legal immigration you can organise school for the immigrants' children, social services, healthcare etc. illegal immigrants become "invisibles", without any rights, even the most basical ones.

Illegal immigrant? Hmm...there's an interesting question. Illegal immigrants are humans. Humans have rights. Thus, illegal immigrants have rights. Humans have the right to shelter, food, water, et cetera, and so do illegal immigrants. By evicting the illegal immigrant from his/her home you are depriving him of basic human rights since he will no longer have proper shelter. Jail does not count. Fine him if you will, but evicting him from his home? Nonsense. Let him have his home. Let him have his food, water, clothing, et cetera. Treat him like you would like to be treated.

Bah, that was incoherent.

It's called a joke.

Sorry? Your entire post was a joke?

This one:

I am against illegal immigration. Other countries also have immigration laws, it's not like the US is super fascist or something.


That said, there is no real "solution" to the 'problem' without drastically improving the standards of living in the usually impoverished areas from which immigrants come. They wouldn't be packing up their bags and leaving the land of their birth if they weren't after a significant improvement in their lives and the lives of their families. And that is why no approach based solely on US judicial action will work. As Pete Stark said, about building a big wall/fence "If that happens, it would be a good idea to buy stock in a company that makes ladders."

Because basically, such an attempt would just be a silly waste of resources that wouldn't work anyway.

Or do you mean the "ladders" thing was a joke?

Illegal immigrant? Hmm...there's an interesting question. Illegal immigrants are humans. Humans have rights. Thus, illegal immigrants have rights. Humans have the right to shelter, food, water, et cetera, and so do illegal immigrants. By evicting the illegal immigrant from his/her home

Good up to there. Problem is, "their home" is according to local law. For instance, "eminent domain" of government.

you are depriving him of basic human rights since he will no longer have proper shelter.

Doesn't stop landlords evicting tenants.

Bah, that was incoherent.

Not entirely. When the Universal Charter on Human Rights applies, you will be entirely correct.

Pretty obvious why so many USians despise the UN, huh?

This is the era of unprecedented mobilty where vast populations move from underdeveloped countries to "The West" to seek a better living. Many are fleeing war and persecution as well as poverty and illness and ......you name it they've got it.

Many of our ancestors were immigrants - illegal and legal. They moved and improved their lives and that's why we're here today.
But getting back to NOW, there are simply too many immigrants wanting to come to developed countries. A government that doesn't have tough immigration policies is one that is comitting electoral suicide. Anti-inmmigration parties (usually fascist leaning) thrive in situations of rising unemployment, economic uncertainty and pressure from immigration.

So what do we do? We can't let everyone in. The answer is a complex one and it has to do with gradually improving the whole world's standard of living. The WTO has been a tool for right-wing economists for too long. We need a fairer system of trade. Foreign Aid is mainly a crock. It must be trade and the world must target corruption and genocidal dictators. The best assistance that we can give to the third world is to buy their exports for a fair price and to visit them.
I give $50 a month to Medecins sans frontieres which I believe to be an activist organisation that goes to hard hit areas in Asia and Africa and carries out medical aid programs. How much good is it doing? I think a lot - but it is only part of the solution.

The main point is, make their living viable in their own countries and maybe they won't be so desperate to become illegal immigrants. If we don't help them there then they'll come here - and who can blame them?

i believe it to be assinign and utterly gratuitous to close any border at all to any unarmed, otherwise law abiding civilian.

the only moral and rational thing to do about immigration, is legalize it. and no, it does not contribute to total human population increase.

of course there is also another moral obligation, and that is for more fortunate nations to stop contributing to the causes and motivations for people to feel like they need or want to immigrate.

people don't unlawfully cross borders without feeling, rightly or wrongly, and most often rightly, that their opportunities are inadiquite to remain where they were.

i think it is utterly shamefull and inexcusable that people are demonized for fleeing persecution, which is what all this immegration bruhaha, is making political capital by doing.

(oh yes, and just by the way, the only 'americans' who'se ancestors aren't immegrants, are direct descendents of the indiginous western hemisphere populations that have lived here for more then ten THOUSAND years. and that is still something unfortunately rather much of a minority among today's u.s. population.)

I'm inclined top agree with your idealistic sentiments Cameroi and I have no time for many of the racists who beat the anti-immigration drum BUT it would be crazy to open your country's borders too wide and for too long.

Take Fiji for example. The population of Fiji is 48% ethnic Fijian and 52% ethnic Indian. The result was that the Indian immigrants outnumbered the locals, won a few elections and the local Fijians had coups to keep power in Fijian hands.

A nasty and complex problem has developed - indigenous rights versus majority rule.

Had the Fijians been able to prevent such massive waves of Indian immigration earlier maybe it wouldn't be such a problem now.
We need to mix idealism with practical reality.

well in america of course, that horse has been out of the barn door for a couple of centuries. pretty much goes for most of the western hemisphere.

had indiginous americans been able to prevent the long invasion that began in ernest arround 1492, many things in this world might be better now too.

That's right! I love the Idea of New York's American Indians going to the Governor and saying "Here's $40 worth of beads and trinkets - we're taking Manhattan back!"

I'm against immigration laws. I still don't understand this obsession people have with which side of an imaginary line other people are on.

*Moves into Redwulf's property*

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get him (edited for clairification; 8:29pm EST) out of here.

Illegal immigrant? Hmm...there's an interesting question. Illegal immigrants are humans. Humans have rights. Thus, illegal immigrants have rights. Humans have the right to shelter, food, water, et cetera, and so do illegal immigrants. By evicting the illegal immigrant from his/her home you are depriving him of basic human rights since he will no longer have proper shelter. Jail does not count.

Explain why. Not that I'm advocating jail for illegal immigrants (taking them back to the country of origin is more effective), but as long as you give an inmate food, shelter etc, you're not depriving of his human rights - except for personal freedom, which is forfeit if illegal immigration is a crime.


Fine him if you will,

How can you fine someone who legally doesn't exist? No ID, no passport, no fixed domicile... he simply won't pay.

but evicting him from his home? Nonsense. Let him have his home. Let him have his food, water, clothing, et cetera. Treat him like you would like to be treated.
I would like to be treated by the State according to the law. So I don't like people breaking the law.
I can understand illegal immigrants, but if it's illegal it's illegal, and social consequences must always be considered.

The main point is, make their living viable in their own countries and maybe they won't be so desperate to become illegal immigrants. If we don't help them there then they'll come here - and who can blame them?

Totally seconded.
Btw, we in the rich world shouldn't limit ourselves to "make their living viable in their own countries". We should help the poorest countries help themselves out of poverty. That is, let's stop stripping them of their resources (human and natural), and help them build serious local economies.

i believe it to be assinign and utterly gratuitous to close any border at all to any unarmed, otherwise law abiding civilian.

the only moral and rational thing to do about immigration, is legalize it. and no, it does not contribute to total human population increase.

It increases the population in the country they migrate to. That much is certain. Many first world countries only have an increasing population due to migration. How many people can the land hold?

of course there is also another moral obligation, and that is for more fortunate nations to stop contributing to the causes and motivations for people to feel like they need or want to immigrate.

Alot of the reasons are also created by individuals in the country such as corruption and gangs. Removing people who dont like corruption and gangs will not solve the problem at all.

people don't unlawfully cross borders without feeling, rightly or wrongly, and most often rightly, that their opportunities are inadiquite to remain where they were.

mostly true. Except for drug smugglers or other smugglers. They are just in it for the money. Oh and financial refuguees. They are in it for the money too. however there are some concerned about safety.

i think it is utterly shamefull and inexcusable that people are demonized for fleeing persecution, which is what all this immegration bruhaha, is making political capital by doing.

I agree. But allowing the people who flee into your country will only increase more people trying to flee. In the end it is a never ending cycle. Every nation needs to be responsible for itself and make an attempt at fixing its own problems. The richer nations should just offer a hand when asked.

(oh yes, and just by the way, the only 'americans' who'se ancestors aren't immegrants, are direct descendents of the indiginous western hemisphere populations that have lived here for more then ten THOUSAND years. and that is still something unfortunately rather much of a minority among today's u.s. population.)

So this is the logic that because someone else wrongfully migrated in the first place others should be able to as well. Does this extend to other crimes such as speeding, rape or murder or is it just migration?

oh yes, and just by the way, the only 'americans' who'se ancestors aren't immegrants, are direct descendents of the indiginous western hemisphere populations that have lived here for more then ten THOUSAND years. and that is still something unfortunately rather much of a minority among today's u.s. population.

A fun thing. In the latest elections here, the xenophobic party Lega Nord used the image of a indigenous american (an indian), with the following script:
"They welcomed immigration. Now they live in reservations." Guess what, LN gained votes.

(oh yes, and just by the way, the only 'americans' who'se ancestors aren't immegrants, are direct descendents of the indiginous western hemisphere populations that have lived here for more then ten THOUSAND years. and that is still something unfortunately rather much of a minority among today's u.s. population.)

And even they immigrated over to the Americas. Though they did do it through non illegal means.

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.
Would it not make more logical sense to direct your anger at drunk driving?

not to their laws anyway. Which makes the big difference. And the migrants are now dead so even if you did back date the laws there is no one to prosecute

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.

Is this attitude for real?

If it is, it's not really mature. It's a gross generalization, and being illegal has hardly anything to do with what happened. Grow a bias against drunk drivers, it will be more fair that way. I guess no americans or legalized inmigrants ever drive drunk?

Illegal immigrants hold up the economy, by doing low level jobs that 'natives' look down upon. I have a friend who's always waxing lyrical about the fact that he can't get a job 'because immigrants have taken them all', but he doesn't want to clean toilets etc. anyway.

Other jobs are taken as well. But on the other hand if there are no migrants accepting the lower wages a horrible thing might have to happen. The toilet cleaners may need a pay rise to convince them to start working/keep working :O

Other jobs are taken as well. But on the other hand if there are no migrants accepting the lower wages a horrible thing might have to happen. The toilet cleaners may need a pay rise to convince them to start working/keep working :O
Other jobs are rarely taken because you'd need other things not available to someone with illegal status ie bank account. At least that's the way it seems to work here.

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.

If the perp had been a white anglo saxon protestant male with a family line stretching back to the Mayflower, would you want all legal citizens of that descent out of the country?

Thats because they want to kept under the radar. They know that the overall community does not want them so they do what they can to earn moeny (as welfare isnt an option) without being spotted by the authorities

I can guarantee you that whatever job they take they wont be paying tax. In Australia for every person that wants a job they must give a Tax file number (TFN) to there employer who sends it off to the government.

If the employer dosnt recieve a TFN and send it of to authorities before work begins they can be fined/thrown in jail. It makes it much harder to work illegally.

the catch is that there is a loop hole of "past times and hobbies" where this isnt needed. one example is being an ref is a sport game.

But luckily Australia has fairly low illegal migration due to having no land borders. The new Prime minister sadly has increased legal migration which he never gave any warning about during election.

No no, it's physically impossible for them to get bank accounts etc here, due to the need for documentation which they won't have because they're illegal. Also, here they can work for cash, so no they won't be paying tax, but work paid in cash tends to be 'casual' and therefore not subject to tax. Anyone can work here for cash, it's just that jobs that ay like that ted to be fairly low paid or temporary, and therefore most LEGAL people won't bother. I live in England, to clarify.

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.

Where are you getting this information that he was an illegal immigrant? The article makes absolutely no mention of it, as far as I saw. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the fact that he was allegedly an illegal immigrant and everything to do that he was driving on a suspended license while drunk. The guy who ran your friend over could just as easily been a white US citizen. You're hating the wrong thing here.

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

I'm sure that we have people that think like that over here, I just bloody ignore them.

My stance, let people move and live and work where they will.

Well, the methods of the good old "create scare by inventing an enemy" (jews in germany, kulaki in cccp, commies in usa etc) are always the same.
The only difference is that in 1930 Europe was emigrating to the Americas, while today Europe has become a target of immigration.

Here in Italy we have some xenophobic parties like Lega Nord, or even some neofascist (La Destra) and some neonazis (Forza Nuova), who generally blame everything that's wrong on immigrates (be they legal or illegal, they don't care - "they're DIFFERENT, negro albanian gipsy slav chinese latinamerican arab, what do they do here" and things like that). It's expecially sad when you think how Italians were mistreated when they emigrated to the USA, expecially after the introduction of strict quotas.

Anyway, illegal immigration should not be allowed. This is why:
1.there is plenty of people waiting in line to immigrate lawfully, with a regular visa etc
2.legal immigrants are usually better qualified than illegal immigrants
3.illegal immigration is a tool to enact salary dumping
4.illegal immigrants often are blackmailed by organised crime (debts, threats to family in land of origin, reduction in slavery)
5.with legal immigration you can organise school for the immigrants' children, social services, healthcare etc. illegal immigrants become "invisibles", without any rights, even the most basical ones.

2 is a red herring. Unless Italy is kicking out it's own sub-par achievers, then what's the big deal about being 'qualified'? In effect, you're saying 'stupid people from here, are better than stupid people from anywhere else'.

3, 4 and 5 can all be cured by legalising illegals.

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.

Surely, being drunk is more important than where he was born?

I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants. One of them, who was illegal and drunk while driving (among multiple other charges) drove over my friend at a red light, while he was on his motorcycle (and my boyfriend's brother), dragged him 70+ feet under the car, and finally came to a stop because his car was still stuck on his body, where he then got out of the car and tried to run away. He died later that night in the hospital.

Here's a report on it: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13982222/detail.html

Get 'em out of here.

That might be a vaild reason if being an illegal immigrant made one more likely to drive drunk.

Sounds to me like your just blaming an entire group for what one person chose to do. You know, plenty of citizens are drunken scum too. Unless you mean to argue that being an illegal immigrant increases other criminal tendencies (which stinks of xenophobia and/or racism so you better be able to back it up with valid statistics), then your point makes no sense.

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

It is, sadly, something widespread. We have a problem with illegal immigrants from Africa. Every year they flock to our borders. Some of them are able to enter the country, others (the great majority) are deported back to Africa where they face famine and death.

Those who are able to enter the country often face discrimination and threats of possible deportation by cruel patrons. It's horrible. But many say it's better to face the cruelty in Spain than go back to Africa and starve to death. It's saddening and, because we have such strict policies when it comes to immigration, these people are often, if not always, sooner or later, sent back home to suffer.

NOW, there are simply too many immigrants wanting to come to developed countries. A government that doesn't have tough immigration policies is one that is comitting electoral suicide.

...

So what do we do? We can't let everyone in.

There's this imaginary concept in the US that we're "overpopulated" and somehow there just isn't physically room for more people. This comes from our collectively affluent lifestyles, sprawling urban designs, space-wasting automobile-centric transportation, and a preference for putting as much space as possible between oneself and the people who live outside of your castle. Hence the fences and sidewalks and how people don't even like to take the bus because they have to get within 5 feet of another.

Well, it's a bias, but the reality is different. The USA has a population density of just 31 per square kilometer. Medieval, rural England had a higher population density than the US! Compare it with Japan with 339 per square kilometer. We could in theory have ten times the population and we wouldn't "not have room for more." At least in the sense of not having a population density unacceptable to a modern, industrialized nation.

So I think we in the US need to be a little less selfish, this concept that we just don't have room for the unwashed, eager masses needs to go. It reminds me of that whole bit in the horrible Titanic movie (but which happened in reality) where the upper class assholes would go out luxuriously sprawled in underfilled lifeboats while those who "there's no more room for you" froze and drowned. Nice.

Yeah, I don't want to be like that. I wanna be like Molly Brown. The good-conscienced, reasonable, sane American in this little drama.


The main point is, make their living viable in their own countries and maybe they won't be so desperate to become illegal immigrants. If we don't help them there then they'll come here - and who can blame them?

In an ideal world, every nation would be economically self-sufficient, and hardly anyone would want to immigrate at all.

We don't live in an ideal world, and that's why there's immigration. Illegal immigration's prevalence only shows that you really can't try to stop immigration in a major way, and I argue that you shouldn't try either.

There's this imaginary concept in the US that we're "overpopulated" and somehow there just isn't physically room for more people.

First thing I noticed about living in America. You could take the whole of England and drop it entirely within the borders of any one of the four largest states... but it has about a fifth the population of the entire US.

Surely, being drunk is more important than where he was born?

Euroslavia didn't say this directly, but I'm guessing that mixed in with grief over the loss is a sense of injustice. "Not only should the guy not have been driving drunk, he shouldn't have even been allowed into this country -- the government isn't protecting its own citizens." Something like that. I get that.

More generally, I understand the feeling of some folks that having a whole bunch of people in their community who are undocumented and therefore not inclined to cooperate with the police or interact with the larger community is a bad thing. What bothers me is the way that this concern seems to bleed over into xenophobia and/or associating illegal status with particular ethnic groups.

Euroslavia didn't say this directly, but I'm guessing that mixed in with grief over the loss is a sense of injustice. "Not only should the guy not have been driving drunk, he shouldn't have even been allowed into this country -- the government isn't protecting its own citizens." Something like that. I get that.

More generally, I understand the feeling of some folks that having a whole bunch of people in their community who are undocumented and therefore not inclined to cooperate with the police or interact with the larger community is a bad thing. What bothers me is the way that this concern seems to bleed over into xenophobia and/or associating illegal status with particular ethnic groups.

In my experience, any group that feels excessively marginalised is less inclined to 'interact with the larger community', including things like cooperation with police. And why would they? You make them feel unwelcome or outcast, and then you say they're not fitting in because they act in isolation.

Blaming the person's immigration status is illogical. If the immigrant in the story had been legal, I'd bet the 'shouldn't have been here, anyway' feeling would still have existed. It's not a logicl extension - it's xenophobia. If the driver had been from a four-generation family, but had been black, the displacement would have been on black people.

I am against illegal immigration. Other countries also have immigration laws, it's not like the US is super fascist or something.


That said, there is no real "solution" to the 'problem' without drastically improving the standards of living in the usually impoverished areas from which immigrants come. They wouldn't be packing up their bags and leaving the land of their birth if they weren't after a significant improvement in their lives and the lives of their families. And that is why no approach based solely on US judicial action will work. As Pete Stark said, about building a big wall/fence "If that happens, it would be a good idea to buy stock in a company that makes ladders."

Because basically, such an attempt would just be a silly waste of resources that wouldn't work anyway.
I agree that you can't stop immigration entirely through border controls but I don't think it has to stop there. You have to remove the incentives for illegal immigrants to enter and to do that you have to have a crackdown on jobs. If you step up enforcement and make employers too afraid to give illegal immigrants jobs through fear of prison sentences, you'll remove the incentive for most potential illegal immigrants to enter your country.

Blaming the person's immigration status is illogical. If the immigrant in the story had been legal, I'd bet the 'shouldn't have been here, anyway' feeling would still have existed. It's not a logical extension - it's xenophobia. If the driver had been from a four-generation family, but had been black, the displacement would have been on black people.

I see your point, but I was thinking it was more along the lines of finding out that the driver had a suspended license or a previous DUI or something else that would, in a perfect world, have kept him off of the road. I should have been clearer that I wasn't defending the idea of blaming all illegal immigrants for one horrible drunk driving accident. That's not rational. Grief, also, is not rational, and I get the need to push the blame on something larger than the one person who was actually responsible. When my friend was struck and killed by a driver speeding on his way to a casino who had taken his eyes off the road to tend to an open beer, I was furious at the driver, the gambling industry, and the stupid cops who "should have done something about this menace." It took me a long time to accept that the casino wasn't responsible for my friend's death. This probably sounds like a joke, but I assure you my feelings were very serious at the time.

I'm against immigration laws. I still don't understand this obsession people have with which side of an imaginary line other people are on.

Agree

I see your point, but I was thinking it was more along the lines of finding out that the driver had a suspended license or a previous DUI or something else that would, in a perfect world, have kept him off of the road. I should have been clearer that I wasn't defending the idea of blaming all illegal immigrants for one horrible drunk driving accident. That's not rational. Grief, also, is not rational, and I get the need to push the blame on something larger than the one person who was actually responsible. When my friend was struck and killed by a driver speeding on his way to a casino who had taken his eyes off the road to tend to an open beer, I was furious at the driver, the gambling industry, and the stupid cops who "should have done something about this menace." It took me a long time to accept that the casino wasn't responsible for my friend's death. This probably sounds like a joke, but I assure you my feelings were very serious at the time.

I realise that a big event seems to call for 'big' blame - but drunk drivers killing people are not doing it because of where they are going, where they were born, what colour their skin is, the state of their license... any of that. They are killing people because they are not in a fit position to be driving - and that's pretty much the end of it.

Given the way that being drunk is almost considered an EXCUSE, it is easy to see why people feel that justuce isn't being done.

If I were in a position to enforce those laws, I'd press attempted murder charges on anyone driving drunk - regardless of whether or not they get into an accident - because they are choosing to impair their driving, and then they are chosing to drive without being able to be safe. Because THAT'S the problem - lax response to the drink-drive phenomenon. NOT race, religion, hair colour, or any of those other factors.

Where are you getting this information that he was an illegal immigrant? The article makes absolutely no mention of it, as far as I saw. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the fact that he was allegedly an illegal immigrant and everything to do that he was driving on a suspended license while drunk. The guy who ran your friend over could just as easily been a white US citizen. You're hating the wrong thing here.

Because I went to his trial. I can provide sources, if needed.

Just for clarification, when I said "Get 'em out of here", I was talking about the offender in the article I linked, not all 'illegal immigrants'.

Is this attitude for real?

If it is, it's not really mature. It's a gross generalization, and being illegal has hardly anything to do with what happened. Grow a bias against drunk drivers, it will be more fair that way. I guess no americans or legalized inmigrants ever drive drunk?

Please read the post above this. It seems everybody misunderstood my post, that I seem to want all illegal immigrants out of here.

Euroslavia didn't say this directly, but I'm guessing that mixed in with grief over the loss is a sense of injustice. "Not only should the guy not have been driving drunk, he shouldn't have even been allowed into this country -- the government isn't protecting its own citizens." Something like that. I get that.

More generally, I understand the feeling of some folks that having a whole bunch of people in their community who are undocumented and therefore not inclined to cooperate with the police or interact with the larger community is a bad thing. What bothers me is the way that this concern seems to bleed over into xenophobia and/or associating illegal status with particular ethnic groups.

The accident happened a year and a few months ago, and it still hits home for me, very hard. When I see my boyfriend, I see it in his eyes every day. I see the anger that he feels towards the fact that his brother was killed by someone who shouldn't have been in this country in the first place. Does that make me bias towards illegal immigration in general? Probably. Does that mean I'm against all illegal immigrants in the country? No. I understand that plenty are making a great living in this country and escaping from previously harsh lives.

Because I went to his trial. I can provide sources, if needed.

Just for clarification, when I said "Get 'em out of here", I was talking about the offender in the article I linked, not all 'illegal immigrants'.


That is certainly not the impression you have given...

"I will fully admit that I am biased against illegal immigrants... Get 'em out of here."

Would it not make more logical sense to direct your anger at drunk driving?

Not really. It was the drunk driving that got him caught in the first place, as an illegal immigrant. The fact that he was drunk doesn't change the fact that he was an illegal immigrant, drunk or sober.

That is certainly not the impression you have given...



The fact that you're putting two sentences together that weren't together in my original post is pushing me towards a meaning that I didn't mean in the first place. As I've stated recently, I am bias towards them. I won't lie. Does that mean I want them all to 'get out of here'? No. That's not what I said. After that, I went into a story about why I am bias, towards one individual being, linked to an article, and said 'get 'em out of here', as in the offender.

You're welcome to take what I've said differently, but I know what I meant from it, and I've clarified it for you.

I don't get why we have "legal" and "illegal" statuses for immigrants anyway. It used to be that if you could afford to come here, you were allowed to come here, period. And I wonder why nobody objects to, say, "illegal" British immigrants or "illegal" Irish immigrants or "illegal" Japanese immigrants--I promise you there are some of each in this country.

The other angle on it is the debate about English, that "if you come here you should learn the language." Excuse me. I'm Cajun. My family's been here on Dad's side since the early 1800s but it wasn't until the early 20th century that people began learning English first at home. My grandparents spoke Cajun fluently--they were American, too. You don't have to be an English-speaker to be an American, or to be speaking a language that originates here. I mean, what about Native Americans? They shouldn't have to speak English either. And what about the First Amendment? Doesn't freedom of speech include freedom to choose what language you speak in?

Anyway, I love having ethnic diversity here. I can't afford to travel abroad, so I get to see people from many different areas of the world right here at home and it doesn't bother me one bit.

Here's a few sources, for whomever asked about whether he was illegal or not: http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/newsnow/2007/08/man_arraigned_in_officers_traf.html
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/08/ramon_pineda_wh.html (granted, it's a blog)
http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/10/22/Vincent_D_Anna_(26)_died_after_being_hit_by_a_car_driven_by_a_drunk_illegal_alien

The accident happened a year and a few months ago, and it still hits home for me, very hard. When I see my boyfriend, I see it in his eyes every day. I see the anger that he feels towards the fact that his brother was killed by someone who shouldn't have been in this country in the first place. Does that make me bias towards illegal immigration in general? Probably. Does that mean I'm against all illegal immigrants in the country? No. I understand that plenty are making a great living in this country and escaping from previously harsh lives.

So what do we do with American citizens who kill people? Deport them?

Forgive me, but that kind of rationalization... I understand he's going through the grief process. But it's still a stupid thing to get angry about. People who immigrate here illegally aren't saints or demons. They're human, like us. That poem about the Statue of Liberty doesn't say "give me your rich, your morally superior, your crime-free Boy and Girl Scouts, your good Christians..."

The two main complaints I have with illegal immigration:

Health care. How can these illegals be billed for the health care they receive when they have no address or identity? I'm not saying to deny them care, but that really puts a burden on insurance/taxes/legal immigrants (public backlash towards legal browns).

Secondly is any government benefits, whether it be food stamps, social security, medicare or what have you. If you don't pay taxes, you don't get it. That simple.

Personally I think every illegal should be given 3 months to file for citizenship, and if their papers aren't filed by the last day, then gtfo. At least then they'll be documented and required to pay taxes like the rest of us. To hell with the businesses that rely on them, just pay em minimum wage and quit bitching.

So what do we do with American citizens who kill people? Deport them?

Forgive me, but that kind of rationalization... I understand he's going through the grief process. But it's still a stupid thing to get angry about. People who immigrate here illegally aren't saints or demons. They're human, like us. That poem about the Statue of Liberty doesn't say "give me your rich, your morally superior, your crime-free Boy and Girl Scouts, your good Christians..."

Apparently you didn't real the articles. He wasn't an American citizen. He used his brother's license, of whom was back in Mexico.

The two main complaints I have with illegal immigration:

Health care. How can these illegals be billed for the health care they receive when they have no address or identity? I'm not saying to deny them care, but that really puts a burden on insurance/taxes/legal immigrants (public backlash towards legal browns).

Secondly is any government benefits, whether it be food stamps, social security, medicare or what have you. If you don't pay taxes, you don't get it. That simple.

Personally I think every illegal should be given 3 months to file for citizenship, and if their papers aren't filed by the last day, then gtfo. At least then they'll be documented and required to pay taxes like the rest of us. To hell with the businesses that rely on them, just pay em minimum wage and quit bitching.

Without a SSN, they cannot collect government benefits, as any attempt to file for them would cause them to be discovered. However, when they are paid by their employer, if the employer is not paying them under the table, they will have payroll taxes (Medicare and Social Security) taken from them. So, it's quite the opposite of your fear. They pay into the system, but as long as they remain an "illegal", they can never draw from it.

Without a SSN, they cannot collect government benefits, as any attempt to file for them would cause them to be discovered. However, when they are paid by their employer, if the employer is not paying them under the table, they will have payroll taxes (Medicare and Social Security) taken from them. So, it's quite the opposite of your fear. They pay into the system, but as long as they remain an "illegal", they can never draw from it.

That I did not know, so thank you for the information. I don't understand how an employer COULD have them on a payroll though, because of the fact that they have no SSN.

I still think they should get SSN and be a citizen like everyone else.

OH! Here's a fun question.

Do you think if we deported all the illegals in say.... a month, that it would worsen the economy even more or better it?

Apparently you didn't real the articles. He wasn't an American citizen. He used his brother's license, of whom was back in Mexico.

That's not the point. The point is he could have just as easily have been killed by a US citizen driving on a suspended (or borrowed or stolen) license while drunk. The fact that he was here illegally has literally no bearing on the situation at all. Your rationalization for hating illegal immigrants is that one had killed a friend of yours. What would you think if an American had killed your friend? Would you want them kicked out of the country?

A friend's mom was hit by a drunk driver and had to have her leg amputated. Another friend was killed when a drunk driver rear ended him into an intersection, where he was hit by oncoming traffic. I've actually been hit by a drunk driver myself. In none of those cases were the drivers illegal immigrants.

That I did not know, so thank you for the information. I don't understand how an employer COULD have them on a payroll though, because of the fact that they have no SSN.

I still think they should get SSN and be a citizen like everyone else.

Well, we hire a lot of foreign nationals here, and we just assign them dummy socials while they go through the process of getting naturalized. The process can take months depending on what country you come from, and we don't want to prevent our new employee from getting paid or getting insurance; things like that. We follow up with our employees in this situation, though, and if they run into visa issues, we have to terminate them. Theoretically, if we were a less scrupulous company, we could just never bother to follow through.

OH! Here's a fun question.

Do you think if we deported all the illegals in say.... a month, that it would worsen the economy even more or better it?

Some of the farm work jobs might go back to legal workers, and prices on produce would go up. Anything that didn't have to be done here would probably move overseas.

That's not the point. The point is he could have just as easily have been killed by a US citizen driving on a suspended (or borrowed or stolen) license while drunk. The fact that he was here illegally has literally no bearing on the situation at all. Your rationalization for hating illegal immigrants is that one had killed a friend of yours. What would you think if an American had killed your friend? Would you want them kicked out of the country?

A friend's mom was hit by a drunk driver and had to have her leg amputated. Another friend was killed when a drunk driver rear ended him into an intersection, where he was hit by oncoming traffic. I've actually been hit by a drunk driver myself. In none of those cases were the drivers illegal immigrants.

Yeah but if he wasn't in the country, the event wouldn't have even taken place.

OH! Here's a fun question.

Do you think if we deported all the illegals in say.... a month, that it would worsen the economy even more or better it?

Are we discussing the impact to employment as thousands of jobs were suddenly unfilled? Or are we discussing the impact to the economy as it shouldered the costs associated with deporting an estimated 5 million people in just 30 days?

That's not the point. The point is he could have just as easily have been killed by a US citizen driving on a suspended (or borrowed or stolen) license while drunk. The fact that he was here illegally has literally no bearing on the situation at all. Your rationalization for hating illegal immigrants is that one had killed a friend of yours. What would you think if an American had killed your friend? Would you want them kicked out of the country?

A friend's mom was hit by a drunk driver and had to have her leg amputated. Another friend was killed when a drunk driver rear ended him into an intersection, where he was hit by oncoming traffic. I've actually been hit by a drunk driver myself. In none of those cases were the drivers illegal immigrants.

The fact that he was here illegally has a complete bearing on the situation. How could he have committed an act if he had not been in the country in the first place?

The existence of illegal immigrants does NOT mean all immigration is illegal. When considering the fact that someone is an illegal immigrant, focus on the illegal part. There is a reason why that person is not allowed by law to be in that country.

Point is: respect the law.

A bit of humour:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_j-0na_A-0ig/RluVjeEi0DI/AAAAAAAAABc/voOf1sJqzrU/s1600-h/limits.jpg

Yeah but if he wasn't in the country, the event wouldn't have even taken place.

And if his friend had driven his car that night, he might not have been hurt so badly. Or, if he had taken a left on State Street, he wouldn't have been at the same intersection as the drunk. Or, if the drunk had lost control of his car earlier, perhaps only he would have been injured. They're all irrelevant. Illegal immigration didn't kill his friend. Drunk driving did. The thing to be mad about, and to rally against, is not illegal immigration. It's drunk driving. Plenty of Americans kill other Americans in drunk driving accidents every day. It's not something exclusive to illegal Mexicans.

Are we discussing the impact to employment as thousands of jobs were suddenly unfilled? Or are we discussing the impact to the economy as it shouldered the costs associated with deporting an estimated 5 million people in just 30 days?

Theoretically just the thousands of jobs unfilled, like Deus said. The farmers, janitors, whatever would have to be replaced and paid more, and probably receive benefits as well.

I didn't think about the costs associated with it honestly, lol.

Also, I thought it was somewhere around 11 million illegals in the US... I'm gonna look that up quick...

The fact that he was here illegally has a complete bearing on the situation. How could he have committed an act if he had not been in the country in the first place?

Again, you're purposely ignoring my point. Illegal immigration did not kill your friend. Drunk driving did. An American could have just as easily killed your friend. I've had friends killed by natural born US citizens who were driving drunk. I don't call for all US citizens to be deported. You're attempting to ascribe this trait of drunk driving onto all illegal immigrants, when in fact it was just one illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and killed your friend that night. He could have been from anywhere.

Theoretically just the thousands of jobs unfilled, like Deus said. The farmers, janitors, whatever would have to be replaced and paid more, and probably receive benefits as well.

I didn't think about the costs associated with it honestly, lol.

Also, I thought it was somewhere around 11 million illegals in the US... I'm gonna look that up quick...

Don't worry about it. I pulled 5 million directly from my ass.

And if his friend had driven his car that night, he might not have been hurt so badly. Or, if he had taken a left on State Street, he wouldn't have been at the same intersection as the drunk. Or, if the drunk had lost control of his car earlier, perhaps only he would have been injured. They're all irrelevant. Illegal immigration didn't kill his friend. Drunk driving did. The thing to be mad about, and to rally against, is not illegal immigration. It's drunk driving. Plenty of Americans kill other Americans in drunk driving accidents every day. It's not something exclusive to illegal Mexicans.

Yeah I see where you're coming from with that, but still... If our country had secured borders, that guy wouldn't be here. I know it's not exclusive, but the same goes with other acts of crime whether it be robbery or murder. If the illegal immigrant couldn't get into the country, the illegal immigrant couldn't commit the crime.

Did we get into this like 2 months ago? I believe so...

Don't worry about it. I pulled 5 million directly from my ass.

...that had to hurt.

I don't quite follow that, as many citizens on SSI or receiving food stamps don't pay income taxes as they don't make enough money (which is why they're getting government assistance,) and obviously everybody pays sales taxes regardless of citizenship status. Sure, there are illegal immigrants who don't pay income taxes when they should because they're getting paid under the table, but it's not like there's a clear line where citizens & legal immigrants pay taxes and illegal immigrants don't.

What I mean is if they aren't a legal citizen, they shouldn't be eligible for government benefits. That's why I went into saying that illegals should be given the opportunity to file for citizenship, and if they don't take the time to file it, then get em out. That move alone would put an end to this hate towards illegals and legals alike, IMO.

And if his friend had driven his car that night, he might not have been hurt so badly. Or, if he had taken a left on State Street, he wouldn't have been at the same intersection as the drunk. Or, if the drunk had lost control of his car earlier, perhaps only he would have been injured. They're all irrelevant. Illegal immigration didn't kill his friend. Drunk driving did. The thing to be mad about, and to rally against, is not illegal immigration. It's drunk driving. Plenty of Americans kill other Americans in drunk driving accidents every day. It's not something exclusive to illegal Mexicans.

That makes no sense. Discussing circumstances such as that can't compare to the fact that this person should not have been in the country to even take a left on State Street.

Also, a bit more about the story. I can't give sources because these are things that were stated in the trial. The whole accident occurred at a stop light. Pineda (the illegal immigrant) tapped Vincent's bike. Literally just tapped it. He was drunk, and he knew that if Vincent had called the police, he would've been deported. So what did he do? He tried to get away from the scene. Vince was blocking his way from that, so he hit him and tried to get him out of his way. What he didn't realize is that when he hit Vince, he actually took him with the car (his bike got knocked to the left side of the car, after they crossed the intersection).

Again, I can't give sources, so stating this may be going out on a limb; however, this is exactly what was stated by both the defendant's lawyer and the prosecutor. The only difference between the arguments is his intention.

On a side note, for the trial, the jury wasn't given the information that the defendant was an illegal immigrant and the victim was a police officer, because that would immediately give them a bias towards the defendant.

Again, you're purposely ignoring my point. Illegal immigration did not kill your friend. Drunk driving did. An American could have just as easily killed your friend. I've had friends killed by natural born US citizens who were driving drunk. I don't call for all US citizens to be deported. You're attempting to ascribe this trait of drunk driving onto all illegal immigrants, when in fact it was just one illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and killed your friend that night. He could have been from anywhere.

If it had been an American who killed my friend, I would want him to be punished to the full extent of the law. Assuming that I would want anyone who commits murder to be deported is a pretty silly claim, considering that I've never said anything of the sort. He was an illegal immigrant, he committed a crime here (turns out he actually has an extensive record of breaking the law), so he should be punished and deported (which I believe is actually what is going to be done, when he gets out of jail).

That makes no sense. Discussing circumstances such as that can't compare to the fact that this person should not have been in the country to even take a left on State Street.

It makes perfect sense. Answer me this. You have an understandable hatred towards this one illegal immigrant, Pineda. It's totally rational. But why do you have this bias against every other illegal immigrant based on the things one single illegal immigrant did to you? This is the point I'm trying to get at. Your hatred and bias should be directed against drunk drivers, not illegal immigrants.

If it had been an American who killed my friend, I would want him to be punished to the full extent of the law. Assuming that I would want anyone who commits murder to be deported is a pretty silly claim, considering that I've never said anything of the sort. He was an illegal immigrant, he committed a crime here (turns out he actually has an extensive record of breaking the law), so he should be punished and deported (which I believe is actually what is going to be done, when he gets out of jail).

That's great. I would want him to go to prison too. I wouldn't develop a bias against all white males because of the things one white male did to me, though.

yeah it really is a pain in the ass to give the poorest workers a pay rise

It makes perfect sense. Answer me this. You have an understandable hatred towards this one illegal immigrant, Pineda. It's totally rational. But why do you have this bias against every other illegal immigrant based on the things one single illegal immigrant did to you? This is the point I'm trying to get at. Your hatred and bias should be directed against drunk drivers, not illegal immigrants.

You know, you're absolutely right. I do have a bias against illegal immigrants within the USA. It's probably not warranted, but that's just how I've felt. I should direct my anger towards drunk drivers. You're right. To be honest, I can't really state why or really answer your question.

Said illegal immigrant kills friend. You start to wish that the illegal immigrant would've never been here in the first place, so that stated friend would be alive and okay presently. Conclusion? Fix the law so that illegal immigrants can't do such a thing and are not allowed to be in here.

Who can honestly say that they wouldn't feel this way at least at one point after such an accident occurs? I suppose it's just my way of dealing with it. I'm quite an open-minded person, and the accident is still fresh in my mind. I guess time is just going to have to change how I feel about the situation.

The fact that he was drunk should have more of a bearing on the situation. I'll fully admit that. That was probably the deciding factor on him deciding that he would try to get away from the scene, rather than stopping to think, apologizing to Vince that he slightly bumped his motorcycle, and moved on like normal.

This situation was a first impression on me, with dealing with the issue of illegal immigrants. I wish all of you would've been able to be at the trial, or listen to everything that was put out there, information-wise. First impressions last quite a long time. He was someone who had committed many illegal actions, under his brothers name, among so many other things that it really pushes you towards a bias. Not saying that it's an excuse for me to "be bias", because I'm certainly not claiming that my feelings are how everyone else should feel. What can I say really? I'm holding on to the fact that I wish he were never here.

That's great. I would want him to go to prison too. I wouldn't develop a bias against all white males because of the things one white male did to me, though.

To be fair, that's not quite the same situation. Being a while male is a hereditary thing. Being an illegal immigrant isn't. But I understand the point you're trying to make.

Not really. It was the drunk driving that got him caught in the first place, as an illegal immigrant. The fact that he was drunk doesn't change the fact that he was an illegal immigrant, drunk or sober.

The fact that he was illegal doesn't change the fact that he was driving drunk, illegal or legal.

Being biased against the person for their legal residency of lack thereof is illogical. You wouldn't be mad at a 'real' American for being a 'real' American, in the same situation.

The fact that you're putting two sentences together that weren't together in my original post is pushing me towards a meaning that I didn't mean in the first place. As I've stated recently, I am bias towards them. I won't lie. Does that mean I want them all to 'get out of here'? No. That's not what I said. After that, I went into a story about why I am bias, towards one individual being, linked to an article, and said 'get 'em out of here', as in the offender.

You're welcome to take what I've said differently, but I know what I meant from it, and I've clarified it for you.

You've 'clarified', but it doesn't help.

"get 'em out..." is plural.

And you admit you are biased against illegal immigrants, before you tell your story - also plural.

I'm afraid what it LOOKS like... is trying to rationalise after the fact. You say that's not the case, but, as I said, that's certainly not the impression you've given.

OH! Here's a fun question.

Do you think if we deported all the illegals in say.... a month, that it would worsen the economy even more or better it?

Worsen.

They did a whole series of articles on NPR last year, about the overall effects of illegal immigration, and the upshot is that - even after you factor out all the additional costs, 'illegal' immigration is a net gain for the economy. A tiny gain... but still a gain.

You've 'clarified', but it doesn't help.

"get 'em out..." is plural.

And you admit you are biased against illegal immigrants, before you tell your story - also plural.

I'm afraid what it LOOKS like... is trying to rationalise after the fact. You say that's not the case, but, as I said, that's certainly not the impression you've given.

Since when does anyone say 'im? Really now, are you trying to tell me how I feel on a topic?

Edit: I really have no desire to 'debate' this with you. You're welcome to continue responding, but I've stated my feelings, I've clarified it, and I've backed it up. If you continue to take it the wrong way ....well, that's not my problem.

The fact that he was illegal doesn't change the fact that he was driving drunk, illegal or legal.

Being biased against the person for their legal residency of lack thereof is illogical. You wouldn't be mad at a 'real' American for being a 'real' American, in the same situation.

How does that make any sense? Read my previous post, where I stated that if a 'real' American were to commit the crime, I would want them to feel the full extent of the law. Plain and simple. Saying that you can't compare someone who legally is allowed to live here to someone who legally isn't allowed to live here is illogical.

The fact that he was here illegally has a complete bearing on the situation. How could he have committed an act if he had not been in the country in the first place?

But the act would have occured regardless of his status. If he'd been a legal immigrant, driving drunk, the accident still takes place. If he's a natural born citizen, driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

If he's here visiting (for which, one doesn't need to be a migrant, legal or otherwise), driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

Being 'here' wasn't the problem. Being drunk was.

Yeah I see where you're coming from with that, but still... If our country had secured borders, that guy wouldn't be here. I know it's not exclusive, but the same goes with other acts of crime whether it be robbery or murder. If the illegal immigrant couldn't get into the country, the illegal immigrant couldn't commit the crime.

Did we get into this like 2 months ago? I believe so...

Yeah, and it was an illogical argument then, too. Illegal immigrants come here from somewhere else... but crime isn't the sole reserve of illegal immigrants.

Who can honestly say that they wouldn't feel this way at least at one point after such an accident occurs? I suppose it's just my way of dealing with it. I'm quite an open-minded person, and the accident is still fresh in my mind. I guess time is just going to have to change how I feel about the situation.

The fact that he was drunk should have more of a bearing on the situation. I'll fully admit that. That was probably the deciding factor on him deciding that he would try to get away from the scene, rather than stopping to think, apologizing to Vince that he slightly bumped his motorcycle, and moved on like normal.

This situation was a first impression on me, with dealing with the issue of illegal immigrants. I wish all of you would've been able to be at the trial, or listen to everything that was put out there, information-wise. First impressions last quite a long time. He was someone who had committed many illegal actions, under his brothers name, among so many other things that it really pushes you towards a bias. Not saying that it's an excuse for me to "be bias", because I'm certainly not claiming that my feelings are how everyone else should feel. What can I say really? I'm holding on to the fact that I wish he were never here.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda's are a poor basis for a bias against a group of people. My father's death was directly due to the actions (Or lack thereof) of the United States Government and US Army. As a child, once I found out what happened, I hated both, but I quickly realized that doing so was both wrong and illogical. The whole of the government and Army were not responsible for what happened and the men who WERE have long since gone. I am still angry at those men, whomever they were, and I wish that they hadn't made those decisions, but if I were to blame the whole of the Army or government... Well, it won't bring my father back and I think would make me a worse person for doing so.

But the act would have occured regardless of his status. If he'd been a legal immigrant, driving drunk, the accident still takes place. If he's a natural born citizen, driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

If he's here visiting (for which, one doesn't need to be a migrant, legal or otherwise), driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

Being 'here' wasn't the problem. Being drunk was.

You're right. As I stated to Sdaeriji, I should concentrate more on the fact that he was drunk. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that he was illegal.

"If he was here visiting" is a topic that shouldn't even be brought up, because he wasn't here visiting. He was purposely living in the US under his brother's identity, as stated in the trial. Again, I do understand your point though. What I'm saying, is that myself and Vince (the victim)'s family are still going through a rough period, when it comes to this whole situation. When something happens to you, you can't tell me that you've never felt "well is this wasn't a factor, then this wouldn't have occurred" before. It's something that any human being at least glances at for a second.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda's are a poor basis for a bias against a group of people. My father's death was directly due to the actions (Or lack thereof) of the United States Government and US Army. As a child, once I found out what happened, I hated both, but I quickly realized that doing so was both wrong and illogical. The whole of the government and Army were not responsible for what happened and the men who WERE have long since gone. I am still angry at those men, whomever they were, and I wish that they hadn't made those decisions, but if I were to blame the whole of the Army or government... Well, it won't bring my father back and I think would make me a worse person for doing so.

The difference between you and I is that you've been given plenty of time to think and rationalize it. I'm not saying that the way I feel isn't wrong, but it is how I feel, whether it's right or wrong. Everything is still fresh to me.

"Time heals all wounds". Not sure whether I believe that, but only time will tell, I suppose.

Since when does anyone say 'im? Really now, are you trying to tell me how I feel on a topic?

Edit: I really have no desire to 'debate' this with you. You're welcome to continue responding, but I've stated my feelings, I've clarified it, and I've backed it up. If you continue to take it the wrong way ....well, that's not my problem.

How can you say I'm taking it the wrong way?

You presented an opinion in the first post, you've 'clarified'... and yet you just re-iterated that first position in a post just a few before this one?

If I'm 'taking it the wrong way'... it's because that's what you keep saying.

The difference between you and I is that you've been given plenty of time to think and rationalize it. I'm not saying that the way I feel isn't wrong, but it is how I feel, whether it's right or wrong. Everything is still fresh to me.

"Time heals all wounds". Not sure whether I believe that, but only time will tell, I suppose.
Time does. It might take a while, but it will do so.

How can you say I'm taking it the wrong way?

You presented an opinion in the first post, you've 'clarified'... and yet you just re-iterated that first position in a post just a few before this one?

If I'm 'taking it the wrong way'... it's because that's what you keep saying.

Being bias towards illegal immigrants doesn't automatically mean that I want all of them deported. You seem to be taking it a step further than what I had intended it to be. I say that I'm bias against them? Yea. Does that mean I hate them all? No. Does that mean I want them all removed from the country, regardless of where they came from and their intentions? No. Do I wish that everyone who decides to come here go through the process of becoming a US citizen? Yes.

For the record, 'em is a contraction of "them", while 'im is a contraction of "him".

For the record, 'em is a contraction of "them", while 'im is a contraction of "him".

Oh, I know. I've simply never seen 'im used before, at least in typing. If I posted more often in NSG, you would be able to see that I use 'em quite often. :tongue:

Hello.

I would like to just mention briefly that there are some very serious "pros and cons" which come with being an illegal alien. My peeve on this issue is that I am an "Identity Theft" victim who was almost put in my grave because of the desparation of (an) "illegal alien(s)."

I was virtually followed by some "illegals" for several years because they knew that if they were to possess any one (or all) of my "American paperwork" (e.g., birth certificate, driver's license, working papers, hospital records and/or insurance card, voter's registration card, credit card[s], high school diploma, etc.), they would be able to get into other factions of American government and thus, secure their citizenship. Just recently, I was victimized twice for my birth certificate, as well as my marriage certificate and college transcripts/high school diploma.

This type of "paperwork" is very profitable for an illegal to obtain, however, they have a tendancy to get very desparate sometimes and obtaining someone else's paperwork can become "life threatening." Life-treatening is how I term it because they will threaten your life if you manage to undo their efforts at stealing this type of information. The reasons mentioned below frighten me but it is a fact that they come into the United States with incurable diseases that are diseased past a cure. I mean that those diseases are incurable or the United States has paid billions of dollars curring these diseases and they bring into the country an epidemic. We cannot afford to waste money treating these diseases -- AGAIN! We spent decades on curring these types of diseases and their problems. We also have spent millions on spreading our cures for these types of diseases and to the very countries which some of these illegals come from. Why should we have to go through this experience again???

I have witnessed the desparation in some of the people who are trying to escape from other nations and it is frightening. Some of these people are actually being assisted/aided by Americans who do not have their countryman's best interests at heart. Or, for an even more descriptive mention, my enemies are actually trying to secure these papers for their friends, family and even themselves. This brings to mind the fact that once they become citizens of any penal instituti0n, they become dangerous.

I used to date a "male form" that worked for a penal institution and would conspire with the inmates that they worked around. He used some of my paperwork by selling them to certain inmates and they kept up the practice. Whenever they would go to jail or get arrested, they would use my name instead of theirs. To secure jobs, after being incarcerated, they would use information about me to get jobs that they would normally not be hired for by law. Some even moved into other states and did this very same thing and when they got into trouble, wouldn't fess up to not being the person they used as an alias. I moved into four states behind activity like this and in two of these states was "blacklisted" as a result of someone else's folly. They spread the word around that if they see these papers on the "black market," that they are worth money and illegals try to use them -- following the advice of some former corrupt American prison reformer. It's made my life one vicioius mess. I now live below the "poverty level" as a result of my joblessness and they are mostly responsible for this dilemma.

The pros about all of this is only that if they manage to secure "my name" somewhere that I won't go, they might end up on the "lucky" end of things but if they don't pay taxes, they usually end up right back behind the eight ball. And guess who ends up paying for all of those back taxes??? Me. I was charged $706.00 for an illegal's mess by the IRS in 2001 because they juggled those books of theirs and aided someone in not paying their taxes after they used my name to secure a job, worked for the company and refused to pay the income tax for that year. So instead of being due a refund for a salary that was below the income bracket I was under, I had to pay. I made only $10,000 that year and they charged me $212.00. Almost every person that makes $10,000 or less is entitled to a refund. That is a fact. Do you know why this ungrateful illegal alien did this to me??? Because they didn't want to pay a property tax that year. How do you like that!

So with the above-mentioned pro and cons (galore), you can see the dangers of illegals coming into the country without the funding or necessary paperwork that they need to start a new life here in America. It isn't a joke. And the situation, now a serious crisis, is getting out of control.

I sympathize with these individuals, but when I think how some undeserving American, who has every intention of messing up my life by stealing these types of papers, comes alongs and helps just anybody get into America, then I get angry. I have that right.

Take up some Forensic courses. Some of them will actually help you find the right avenues to pursue, in order to keep identity theft from victimizing you and will help you keep a constant watch on how your life can be illegal free of identity theft.

You're right. As I stated to Sdaeriji, I should concentrate more on the fact that he was drunk. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that he was illegal.


It doesn't change that fact, no - but that's okay, because that fact doesn't matter. Immigration status doesn't affect reflex speed, or ability to judge distances, and process risks, etc. Being drunk does.


"If he was here visiting" is a topic that shouldn't even be brought up, because he wasn't here visiting. He was purposely living in the US under his brother's identity,


Which is illegal, but also irrelevent.


When something happens to you, you can't tell me that you've never felt "well is this wasn't a factor, then this wouldn't have occurred" before. It's something that any human being at least glances at for a second.

In my life, I have been actually shot at twice - one time by a member of the family (nice, right?), and one time by a total stranger, in Brixton. The stranger in Brixton took out the window of the car, but failed to actually hit me - and the fact that he was black is entirely irrelevent to any of the other factors. I am not prejudiced against black people, just because ONE black person once took a shot at me.

I can't see the sense in what you are saying, I'm afraid.

It doesn't change that fact, no - but that's okay, because that fact doesn't matter. Immigration status doesn't affect reflex speed, or ability to judge distances, and process risks, etc. Being drunk does.
Im not debating that him being an illegal immigrant affected any of that. I'm arguing that him being here as an illegal immigrant could've prevented the accident. But nonetheless, nothing can change what happened. We're discussing two seperate things.


In my life, I have been actually shot at twice - one time by a member of the family (nice, right?), and one time by a total stranger, in Brixton. The stranger in Brixton took out the window of the car, but failed to actually hit me - and the fact that he was black is entirely irrelevent to any of the other factors. I am not prejudiced against black people, just because ONE black person once took a shot at me.

I can't see the sense in what you are saying, I'm afraid.

You're debating personal opinions and feelings, something that not everyone is going to agree on. You're also debating on something that cannot change, one's race. Once again, the comparison is invalid.

Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about the shootings. That's definitely got to be rough to deal with, especially with the fact that one was by a member of the family.

Being bias towards illegal immigrants doesn't automatically mean that I want all of them deported. You seem to be taking it a step further than what I had intended it to be. I say that I'm bias against them? Yea. Does that mean I hate them all? No. Does that mean I want them all removed from the country, regardless of where they came from and their intentions? No.


Then what, exactly, DO you mean by 'bias'?


Do I wish that everyone who decides to come here go through the process of becoming a US citizen? Yes.

Why?

You think that would make the bad people into good people? The careless more careful?

Im not debating that him being an illegal immigrant affected any of that. I'm arguing that him being here as an illegal immigrant could've prevented the accident. But nonetheless, nothing can change what happened. We're discussing two seperate things.


Think about that, though... what if he had been an illegal immigrant until THAT very day? And somehow, that morning, had been given some kind of amnesty, or refugee status.

Would that fact affect the events of the day, at all, in any way?

If not - then the immigrant status really is irrelevent.


You're debating personal opinions and feelings, something that not everyone is going to agree on.


No - I'm debating the logic. Perhaps, I am more logical and less prone to emotional responses, than other people? It's been said before.


You're also debating on something that cannot change, one's race. Once again, the comparison is invalid.

One cannot change one's immigration status, either.

Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about the shootings. That's definitely got to be rough to deal with, especially with the fact that one was by a member of the family.

It's not something that bothers me. Neither of them were recent events, and neither of them affected me in anything more than a 'shock' fashion.

The only real significance they have in my everyday life, if any, is that I have something few people actually have - a knowledge of how I react under fire. It's helpful, in a coldly logical way - if I tell you 'this is what I would do, if my life depended on it'... you can take that to the bank. Would you take a bullet for someone? If I tell you I would, it's not just blowing smoke.

Then what, exactly, DO you mean by 'bias'?
The sort of bias I have is wishing that the US stance towards immigration was much much more tough. I can't say specifically what I would do to change it, because honestly, I'm not very familiar with the process of becoming an American citizen.




You think that would make the bad people into good people? The careless more careful?
Of course not. That was never what I thought in the first place. Pineda (the defendant)'s thought process might have changed though, when he made the initial contact with Vince's bike.

I would wish that if someone truly wants to live in the United States, that they would go through the process of becoming a citizen. I understand that it is time consuming, but skipping that and living here as an illegal for the rest of your life seems like it would be more complicated than that.

It's not something that bothers me. Neither of them were recent events, and neither of them affected me in anything more than a 'shock' fashion.

The only real significance they have in my everyday life, if any, is that I have something few people actually have - a knowledge of how I react under fire. It's helpful, in a coldly logical way - if I tell you 'this is what I would do, if my life depended on it'... you can take that to the bank. Would you take a bullet for someone? If I tell you I would, it's not just blowing smoke.

I can't say I've been in that same situation, but living in Detroit while growing up is definitely one of those things that changes how you react to certain things. My brother and I were riding bikes around State Fair (7.5 mile) and Gratiot, and we stopped at the end of a street for a van that was passing by. It stopped and the man pointed a gun right at my head. The fact that he could've shot scared the hell out of me. It was at that point that I just stood there on my bike, completely blank and helpless. It's not nearly as much of a 'shock' as what you've been through, but it really puts things into perspective as to what you're able/not able to do.

Think about that, though... what if he had been an illegal immigrant until THAT very day? And somehow, that morning, had been given some kind of amnesty, or refugee status.

Would that fact affect the events of the day, at all, in any way?

If not - then the immigrant status really is irrelevent.
The timing of him actually getting amnesty or refugee status is key. If it had happened earlier that day, it *might* have changed something. Perhaps it might not have though. If he had been granted either of those months or years earlier, I can guarantee that his life would've been changed to the point of his life being different.

In any case, debating on what 'could' have happened isn't really logical. It happened. I have the right to hold on to that though.



No - I'm debating the logic. Perhaps, I am more logical and less prone to emotional responses, than other people? It's been said before.
I'm definitely more prone to emotional responses, which is why for the most part, I avoid getting deep into debates here. I have a habit of getting upset very easily. I'm working on that though, by starting to get more involved in these things. :p


One cannot change one's immigration status, either.
But one can apply for citizenship, rather than going through what he did, with using the identity of his brother for everything and committing crimes in the way that he did. (On a side note, I'll try and look up his public criminal record, I've seen it before, but can't remember where it was).

The sort of bias I have is wishing that the US stance towards immigration was much much more tough.

...I would wish that if someone truly wants to live in the United States, that they would go through the process of becoming a citizen. I understand that it is time consuming, but skipping that and living here as an illegal for the rest of your life seems like it would be more complicated than that.

The problem might well be that - especially in light of it's origins - the US approach to immigration is TOO tough. I'm married to a native born American, and this has still been a half a decade process, and way too much money.

And - that's why your immigration system is set up as it is - it's lucrative. Bear that in mind next time you hear politicians talking about the issue. When they oppose amnesty - it's because it doesn't make a shitload of money, whereas keeping the people who want to be legal about it waiting for YEARS to get even residency, while making them pay for authorisation to work, etc... is a cashcow.

It's not just that it's time consuming. It's hard. Even honest immigrants can't always get in. The information is deliberately hard to come by. The services are deliberately unhelpful. On TOP of that, it's hard. And expensive.

Think about it...

How much did it cost you to become a citizen?

Not really. It was the drunk driving that got him caught in the first place, as an illegal immigrant. The fact that he was drunk doesn't change the fact that he was an illegal immigrant, drunk or sober.

But the fact that he was an illegal immigrant is irrelevant to what happened.

But the fact that he was an illegal immigrant is irrelevant to what happened.

Read all of my posts before you respond. I've stated that already.

No, youre not just being paranoid. This is a legit concern, and its common to scapegoat the immigrants.

As for Lou "Mr. Independent" Dobbs, hes a moron, and anyone who takes him seriously is too.Which was mocked even in the Simpsons once.

But the act would have occured regardless of his status. If he'd been a legal immigrant, driving drunk, the accident still takes place. If he's a natural born citizen, driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

If he's here visiting (for which, one doesn't need to be a migrant, legal or otherwise), driving drunk, the accident still takes place.

Being 'here' wasn't the problem. Being drunk was.

See I don't get this. How can you say that regardless of status, this would happen? I mean, I realize the crime would have happened as long as that guy was there at that place in time (because he was drunk), but you can't tell me that if that guy had not come here illegally, he would be in the same situation. For one, I would think the process to gain a visa would take months, and then he would have to find legal work and such, I would think that would change the course of a life drastically.

The fact that he was there at that place in time because he hopped the border, as opposed to going through the proper channels and more than likely end up living somewhere else, is enough to say that if he had been kept out this wouldn't have happened.

Or are you suggesting that no matter what, he was destined to harm someone?

I'm not touching that with a 10 ft. clown pole BTW...

Somebody has to clean my house and do my landscaping.

Any of you bastards wanna do it?

Somebody has to clean my house and do my landscaping.

Any of you bastards wanna do it?
Clip your own damn hedges, you elitist hippie. :p

Euroslavia, this post is directed to the forum in general. Of course you may reply if you wish.

I quote your post because I think everyone who might be inclined to leap in based on your FIRST post should read at least this one of your many:


Also, a bit more about the story. I can't give sources because these are things that were stated in the trial. The whole accident occurred at a stop light. Pineda (the illegal immigrant) tapped Vincent's bike. Literally just tapped it. He was drunk, and he knew that if Vincent had called the police, he would've been deported. So what did he do? He tried to get away from the scene. Vince was blocking his way from that, so he hit him and tried to get him out of his way. What he didn't realize is that when he hit Vince, he actually took him with the car (his bike got knocked to the left side of the car, after they crossed the intersection).

Again, I can't give sources, so stating this may be going out on a limb; however, this is exactly what was stated by both the defendant's lawyer and the prosecutor. The only difference between the arguments is his intention.

On a side note, for the trial, the jury wasn't given the information that the defendant was an illegal immigrant and the victim was a police officer, because that would immediately give them a bias towards the defendant.

The bolded section has implications which others have alluded to.

The illegal immigrant has a lot to lose if they are caught for any crime. This could be good or bad (in this case, very very bad since the act of trying to avoid contact with the police for a misdemeanor escalated to a serious crime.)

There is another way in which being already an outlaw has bad consequences, since the illegal immigrant has reason to do business with other criminals (forgers, gangsters who might offer the protection they cannot get from police, employers who don't pay tax, car thieves, gun thieves, and probably other criminals I haven't considered.)

But it could also be good, in that the threshold of what an illegal immigrant might consider "no big deal" in legal terms -- speeding say, or getting into a shouting match with a shopkeeper -- is raised dramatically.

This would create a polarizing effect, of some illegal immigrants being less law-abiding than the average legal resident but some illegals being MORE law-abiding. This certainly fits with my impression of newly arrived immigrants* in Australia, and I'm curious if people in the US have the same impression.


*I would never even ask them if they were legal or not, since they would have no reason to tell me the truth, and if they answered 'not' I'd be in the awkward position of being aware of a "crime" I would not report anyway.

As I have posted before, I have mixed feelings on the subject. As a Cuban American I support the Cuban Adjustment Act because it helps my people. But I must admit it is unfair to other immigrant groups no matter what the reasons and it should be abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Refugee_Adjustment_Act

Legal Immigrants: Legal immigration is legal immigration with all thier rights respected. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. As President I would do everything in my power to deport all illegal immigrants. In all my NS Nations their are no illegal immigrants. Strict laws against hiring illegal immigrants and verification of legal status of all workers through a government 1-800 number with follow up checks by the government.

Yet I support the more reasonable immigration policy other then deporting an estimated 12 million people. Which both Sen John McCain and President Obama support: Secure the border, A path to eventual citizenship, an english class and wait your turn behind legal immigrants.

In the Hispanic Republic of Miami Shores thier are only citizens, legal residents on the way to citizenship with a Spanish class and legal foreign guests workers of foreign businesses and diplomats of nations. All Hispanic immigrants recieve immediate Miamishorerian citizenship upon setting foot on Miami Shores soil like the Jews in Israel.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Elian Gonzalez
President Lincoln Diaz-Balart
Vice President Ileana Ros-lehtinen
National Council of Ministers
Hispanic Republic of Miami Shores.

See I don't get this. How can you say that regardless of status, this would happen? I mean, I realize the crime would have happened as long as that guy was there at that place in time (because he was drunk), but you can't tell me that if that guy had not come here illegally, he would be in the same situation. For one, I would think the process to gain a visa would take months, and then he would have to find legal work and such, I would think that would change the course of a life drastically.

The fact that he was there at that place in time because he hopped the border, as opposed to going through the proper channels and more than likely end up living somewhere else, is enough to say that if he had been kept out this wouldn't have happened.

Or are you suggesting that no matter what, he was destined to harm someone?

I'm not touching that with a 10 ft. clown pole BTW...

I'm not aware of how visitor visas work with the South Americas. I know that flying in from Europe, all I needed was... well, to be flying in (apparently, being on a cruiser or something is about the same). They gave me a form to fill in with like 20 questions. I filled it in. Pow. Instant visa.

Obviously - if he hadn't been in that place, at that time, and drunk... the same thing (probably) wouldn't have happened. But that is just as true if he took a wrong turning, as if he never crossed the border. His legal status is entirely irrelevant to the accident

As I have posted before, I have mixed feelings on the subject. As a Cuban American I support the Cuban Adjustment Act because it helps my people. But I must admit it is unfair to other immigrant groups no matter what the reasons and it should be abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Refugee_Adjustment_Act

That's not "mixed feelings." That's a contradiction. You support x and want x abolished.

Do you mind if I ask: were you born in Cuba, and if so, under which program did you emigrate?

That's not "mixed feelings." That's a contradiction. You support x and want x abolished.

Do you mind if I ask: were you born in Cuba, and if so, under which program did you emigrate?

I am a native born Cuban, now Cuban American citizen just like Irish Americans, Italian Americans. I waited my turn legally.

It is mixed feeligns because it helps my people but I must admit the Cuban Adjustment Act is not fair to other immigrant groups no matter what the reasons and should be abolished.

Hispanic Republic of Miami Shores.

Who the hell lent Pineda a car? Perhaps they should face charges too.

I am a native born Cuban, now Cuban American citizen just like Irish Americans, Italian Americans. I waited my turn legally.

OK. What I'm getting at is this: why do you advocate "securing the border" when surely you admit that the "Cuban-American Community" would be a lot smaller if the Miami Straits were secured and always had been?

The Dangerously Pointy Ears of BunnySaurus Bugsii :tongue:

OK. What I'm getting at is this: why do you advocate "securing the border" when surely you admit that the "Cuban-American Community" would be a lot smaller if the Miami Straits were secured and always had been?

The Dangerously Pointy Ears of BunnySaurus Bugsii :tongue:

Every nation has a right and duty to secure its borders, to allow legal immigrants not illegal immigrants, even Mexico does it, deports illegals many of which cross Mexico to get to the USA.

The government of Mexico just signed an imigration agreement to return Cuban illegal immigrants to Cuba most of which then cross the Mexican border into the USA and get accepted by the Cuban Adjustment Act.

My mixed feelings tell me I am against the Mexico Cuba immigration agreement because it dosent help my fellow Cubans escaping that socialist paradise island dictatorship for life most of my fellow NS nations seem to love and support.

Yet easy answer, because legal immigration is legal immigration and illegal immigration is illegal immigration.

Legal immigration is allowed in the Hispanic Republic of Miami Shores, Illegal immigration is not allowed, unless you are of Cuban descent, upon which they become legal immigrants, lol. All legal Hispanic immigrants become Miami Shorerian citizens upon setting foot on Miami Shores soil.

What I find odd about the Cuban situation is the self-righteous attitude on the part of many Americans that they can determine Cuba's fate while imposing an economic blockade. And what's that "leasing" Guantanamo Bay crap. Bush has his own Devil's Island courtesy of the spoils of the Spanish-American War (started by America).

I hope that Obama rectifies the injustices piled on injustices.

What I find odd about the Cuban situation is the self-righteous attitude on the part of many Americans that they can determine Cuba's fate while imposing an economic blockade. And what's that "leasing" Guantanamo Bay crap. Bush has his own Devil's Island courtesy of the spoils of the Spanish-American War (started by America).

I hope that Obama rectifies the injustices piled on injustices.

What I find odd about the Cuban government its is intrasigent hardline line policy of a one political party state dictatorship for life government for the governing elite and most of my fellow NS Nations support for that dictatorship governmet. They would not wish for thier own native nations from which they are posting from. Over 2, 000, 000 exiles including balseros and deserters who keep coming legally and on anything that floats, boats, rafts, inne tubes, floating cars, trucks and taxi cabs across 90 miles of shark infested waters. Despite the fact the Cuban government trades with most nations of the world even buys agricultural products from the USA on a cash basis.

Castro is a dying man and when he goes, his party control will go too. Look what happened in East Germany and Yugoslavia.
If Obama plays his cards right Cuba will be one of the USA's closest allies.

And what's that "leasing" Guantanamo Bay crap.

That's the big bad commies ... honouring one of the tenets of capitalism, a financial contract.

Oh my, and what's that across the water? It's the shining beacon of capitalism, blatantly restricting the market to make a political point.

You just gotta laugh sometimes.

*gives up on debating, pours first drink and logs out*

Castro is a dying man and when he goes, his party control will go too. Look what happened in East Germany and Yugoslavia.
If Obama plays his cards right Cuba will be one of the USA's closest allies.
Obama claims to support full economic, poltical relations between the governments of the USA and Cuba. Based on full democratic reforms only. I wonder what President Obama will do and say when Fidel or Raul tell Obama NO. What will the Leftist Liberals in the USA congress who want those relations at any cost say or do?

This is not the proper thread for this so I will keep it to this post for now.

Back to Immigration, I've been watching "The Morning After" about global warning that precipitates a huge Ice Age that kills millions of Americans .The irony of the film is that the Americans illegally immigrate to Mexico en masse.

I happened across this article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-a-house-divided,0,3560080.story) about an illegal immigrant who is now facing deportation after a woman trying to buy his house reported him to the authorities. (More specifically, any authority she could find, as well as his neighbors.) As I often do, I made the mistake of reading the comments page. Bad habit, I know. As I often see on comment boards about illegal immigration, there were the usual rants about:


Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked


...and so on. The more I read stuff like this, the more I'm struck by the dehumanizing language used. Someone in this country without papers isn't a person, they're an "illegal" and you should be afraid to live next to them. Some "anti-illegal" sentiment really seems to be more "anti-Mexican" -- complaints about illegal immigrants smelling funny, not speaking English, eating strange food, etc.

I know people spew a lot of poisonous crap on the internet, but I don't just hear it on the intertubes. Lou Dobbs on CNN is telling people that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into the country. When the supporters' association of the Chicago Fire was having a dispute with the club, letters to the editor suggested that a way to end the dispute was to check everybody's birth certificate at the stadium gate and round up those who couldn't prove citizenship. All this bile is starting to really scare me. With the downturn in the economy I think people are looking for someone to blame and I don't know where they'll stop.

Am I just being paranoid when I hear parallels between this stuff and what European Fascists were saying in the 1930s? If I am, what are the differences I'm not seeing? For those of you who are non-US residents, do you hear the same sentiments in your own country?

So as long as you watch your language and stick to factual arguments and rational political thoughts, will it be OK to believe that illegal immigrants should be expelled? Or would that still scare you?

You should be against legal immigration too - wouldn't you rather people worked to improve their own countries instead of going to some other place?

As for reaping benefits and not sowing seeds... I hope that's a joke. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, have to work generally harder than anyone else, for less money, and with all the troubles of living in a new country with a potentially bigoted and xenophobic population. That to me counts as "sewing seeds," and it's a hell of a lot more than citizens have to do. All I had to do was be born. How in the fuck is that me sewing seeds? And reaping benefits, what, like social security and welfare and other things that illegal immigrants can't get? Or did you mean they are cruelly making use of our emergency services when emergencies happen? They shouldn't call the police, the police shouldn't respond? Their houses should burn down because otherwise it's a benefit that they didn't earn?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

One of the main problems with illegal immigration (in the US) is the fact that since they don't have health insurance, they will go to the Emergency Room for non-urgent care, thus tying up resources that could be used to treat actual emergencies (for citizens, legals and illegals alike).

One of the main problems with illegal immigration (in the US) is the fact that since they don't have health insurance, they will go to the Emergency Room for non-urgent care, thus tying up resources that could be used to treat actual emergencies (for citizens, legals and illegals alike).

I've seen no studies on this at all and am quite skeptical about any desperate zero-sum game fear - that they're going to get all X and thus leave nothing for anyone else, because there isn't enough X to go around. Jobs, land, women (!), welfare, health care.

Here's the thing though, your argument can be made equally against poor people without health insurance, and isn't any more persuasive that we should do something about the poor people.

:rolleyes: OK. OK. Ill admit it. We are taking all the women. ;)

One of the main problems with illegal immigration (in the US) is the fact that since they don't have health insurance, they will go to the Emergency Room for non-urgent care, thus tying up resources that could be used to treat actual emergencies (for citizens, legals and illegals alike).

You taking into account the almost 50 million Americans without health insurance too?

:rolleyes: OK. OK. Ill admit it. We are taking all the women. ;)

Whatever for?

:tongue:

Whatever for?

:tongue:

if you have to ask.....

Look what happened in East Germany where both the left-wing alliance and the neonazi party are on the rise...
and Yugoslavia. with an UCK-led state, serb and croatian ultra right-wingers, serb hating the West for bombing them... yeah, nice picture.

If Obama plays his right cards Cuba will be one of the USA's closest (allies) colonies.
Fixed. Let's try with the left cards... ;)

where both the left-wing alliance and the neonazi party are on the rise...
with an UCK-led state, serb and croatian ultra right-wingers, serb hating the West for bombing them... yeah, nice picture.

Fixed. Let's try with the left cards... ;)

Yes companero! All the political subcultures that were quietly doing there thing underground come out into the full lightr of day.
Sometimes they are not pretty and the wounds take a long time to heal. But it's still generally better than being ruled by a dictator.
Germany is thriving and Former Yugoslavia has now divided up into separate nations. Ask the Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, Bosnians etc if they are happier now rather than under Tito. Most will say now - an dformer Yugoslavia really went through horrors which are probably not over yet.

I have this theory that national independence is like adolescence. It's ugly and painful often but its a rite of passage that everyone should go through in order to develop.

Immigration policy is the root problem - that, and economic destitution in the lands that these people came from.

I believe that in the case of the US, all that should be required to come here is:

1. You must become a US Citizen - don't worry, we'll make that easier.
2. If you have no criminal record, and are not associated with known terrorists, and you have an employer here who can vouch for employing you for the next 12 months, you and your immediate family can come here.
3. You and your immediate family will permanently renounce your previous citizenship, and become probationary US citizens - all I require is the standard oath as is sworn now.
4. The next 12 months is probation - as long as you stay out of trouble with the law, you will be a permanent US citizen at the end of the year.

As for those who are here now, I would give them 30 days to apply as above.

After that, since I've made it so easy, anyone here without papers would be immediately deported on the basis that they're too fucking stupid to be here.

Immigration policy is the root problem - that, and economic destitution in the lands that these people came from.

I believe that in the case of the US, all that should be required to come here is:

1. You must become a US Citizen - don't worry, we'll make that easier.
2. If you have no criminal record, and are not associated with known terrorists, and you have an employer here who can vouch for employing you for the next 12 months, you and your immediate family can come here.
3. You and your immediate family will permanently renounce your previous citizenship, and become probationary US citizens - all I require is the standard oath as is sworn now.
4. The next 12 months is probation - as long as you stay out of trouble with the law, you will be a permanent US citizen at the end of the year.

As for those who are here now, I would give them 30 days to apply as above.

After that, since I've made it so easy, anyone here without papers would be immediately deported on the basis that they're too fucking stupid to be here.

Interesting.

Why the requirement to become a citizen? That isn't required now. You'd do away with 'residency' completely?

There are other problems - why should that fight you got in thirty years ago stop you being a citizen now; why should you have to secure work before you enter the country when pre-existing citizens don't have to secure work to remain; why should you have to renounce prior citizenship before you are certified as a citizen here (that one just seems designed to stop people trying); why should you have to swear alleigance to a country that isn't actually accepting you for another year...

Plenty of questions - but the big one (for me) is the point of doing away with residency.

Interesting.

Why the requirement to become a citizen? That isn't required now. You'd do away with 'residency' completely?

There are other problems - why should that fight you got in thirty years ago stop you being a citizen now; why should you have to secure work before you enter the country when pre-existing citizens don't have to secure work to remain; why should you have to renounce prior citizenship before you are certified as a citizen here (that one just seems designed to stop people trying); why should you have to swear alleigance to a country that isn't actually accepting you for another year...

Plenty of questions - but the big one (for me) is the point of doing away with residency.

I would worry only about felonies in your criminal record.

If we're adding you to the mix, we would like you to be less of a burden, at least for the first year, hence the work requirement.

Work, student, and tourist visas would be time limited and enforced.

I could see the swearing in at the end of the 1 year period if that bothers you.

I would worry only about felonies in your criminal record.


Ah. Like carrying a legal gun, into a government building? Which then makes it a felony, yes?

That's one of those situations that makes me uncomfortable - why should someone be barred entry because they have a historic felony... when native-born felons are allowed to remain?


If we're adding you to the mix, we would like you to be less of a burden, at least for the first year, hence the work requirement.


But you don't hold native-born to the same requirement?


Work, student, and tourist visas would be time limited and enforced.


Okay.

They are.

What about residency?


I could see the swearing in at the end of the 1 year period if that bothers you.

It makes more sense than swearing you in BEFORE you're accepted.

I think you're perceiving residency as some sort of commitment. Or can you clarify what you mean?

1 year of probation is all the residency I think we need.

As for felony restrictions - well we have enough felons here, and we can't deport them, eh? Better to keep troublemakers on the other side of the border.

And as for the jobless - well, we have those too - and we can't deport them. Better to keep the jobless on the other side of the border.

What I'm really wanting to stop is the abuse of workers by employers who entice them here by paying wages that are above what they can get in their native country, but are below what the minimum wage is. Employers who do that also don't pay payroll taxes, don't adhere to safety standards, etc - there has to be a major penalty to employing someone who isn't here on proper paperwork.

So I'll add something to my system - you came here illegally? Well, we'll put you in the pipeline to become a citizen if that's what you want. We can even help you find a job.

As for the employer who employed you without papers - that's a life sentence for the CEO of the company, a life sentence for the VP of the HR department, and if it's a small single owner business (as many construction businesses are) the owner gets the sentence.

I would spend more money on that end of enforcement.

I think you're perceiving residency as some sort of commitment. Or can you clarify what you mean?

1 year of probation is all the residency I think we need.

As for felony restrictions - well we have enough felons here, and we can't deport them, eh? Better to keep troublemakers on the other side of the border.

And as for the jobless - well, we have those too - and we can't deport them. Better to keep the jobless on the other side of the border.

What I'm really wanting to stop is the abuse of workers by employers who entice them here by paying wages that are above what they can get in their native country, but are below what the minimum wage is. Employers who do that also don't pay payroll taxes, don't adhere to safety standards, etc - there has to be a major penalty to employing someone who isn't here on proper paperwork.

So I'll add something to my system - you came here illegally? Well, we'll put you in the pipeline to become a citizen if that's what you want. We can even help you find a job.

As for the employer who employed you without papers - that's a life sentence for the CEO of the company, a life sentence for the VP of the HR department, and if it's a small single owner business (as many construction businesses are) the owner gets the sentence.

I would spend more money on that end of enforcement.

Residency is a legal status. It means you're legal, paying taxes, paying social security, etc... but you're not a citizen. It can either be temporary or permanent. It lacks the rights of citizenship, but there are no 'tests' or 'oaths'.

I don't see how 'keeping out felons' or 'keeping out the jobless' is justified. I mean, sure - you like to think of your society without the criminals or people being unemployed - but that's not the reality already.

I guess - the question is - why does a foreigner have to be SO much better than a native to be allowed in? Clean record, no 'dubious' associations, provide your own job, take a test that most 'Americans' can't pass, make an oath Americans aren't required to make...

if you have to ask.....

...you need to show me?

Against it. I'm not against the concept of immigration, but illegal immigration and non-assimilation (it's obviously impossible to traget illegal immigrants for assimilation so you don't know who they are and have no way of testing them on their assimilation / language skills and understanding of our country) the likes of which we are witnissing today is nothing short of socio-political-ethnic demographic bomb on regions of our nation, and it's criminal that our leaders aren't doing anything about it.

Immigration policy is the root problem - that, and economic destitution in the lands that these people came from.

I believe that in the case of the US, all that should be required to come here is:

1. You must become a US Citizen - don't worry, we'll make that easier.
2. If you have no criminal record, and are not associated with known terrorists, and you have an employer here who can vouch for employing you for the next 12 months, you and your immediate family can come here.
3. You and your immediate family will permanently renounce your previous citizenship, and become probationary US citizens - all I require is the standard oath as is sworn now.
4. The next 12 months is probation - as long as you stay out of trouble with the law, you will be a permanent US citizen at the end of the year.

Um, and what happens to non-citizens who fail this "probation" period, say by committing a criminal offense?

As long as they were foreign nationals, their country was required to take them back when they're expelled. But you had them "permanently renounce" their previous citizenship ...?

After reading many threads on the US ‘immigration problem’, I have come up with something that could be an approach to a solution. But first, I want to clarify what exactly the problems with the current system are. As I see it, these are the main ones:

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.

The last two are not a direct cause of illegal immigration. They are problems caused by, or are aided by, the established smuggling network.

Yet with all these problems, politicians have not stepped up to resolve these problems. Why not? Well there are several reasons. Some benefits to the community include:

-illegal immigrants make money to help themselves and their families out.
-companies have access to an inexpensive and skilled manual labour force

Other obstacles to change are of a more selfish nature. Many people are currently profiting from the situation. One can assume that certain business owners who employ illegal immigrants make a substantial profit. To protect their investment, they use some of their wealth to influence local politicians and government officials. Legislators are paid to pass laws that make it easier to maintain the status quo or block laws that could possibly change it. Border officials and immigration agents are sometimes paid to look the other way.

Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.

After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.

So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.

Since there would be much less demand for the coyote’s smuggling services, we could assume that the service would be much more limited. This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big. Also, since the business owners who are employing the immigrants no longer need a porous border, legislators and other government officials can crack down on illegal border crossing without hurting the local economy. These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.

As for the social services, I get the feeling that many of laws currently allow access to social services regardless of citizenship. In fact, I think it is even illegal to ask in certain situations. I am going to assume that this situation is also a product of rich business owners lobbying for laws that enable the existence of an illegal underclass. By creating a legal underclass, we do away with the need for laws that enable the continued existence of this illegal underclass. Hopefully, this would create a space for more stringent laws concerning accessibility to social services.

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone.

I copy and pasted this from a thread I started many moons ago.

Against it.

Hardly surprising.

I'm not against the concept of immigration, but illegal immigration and non-assimilation (it's obviously impossible to traget illegal immigrants for assimilation so you don't know who they are and have no way of testing them on their assimilation / language skills and understanding of our country)

How does a test of general knowledge ensure "assimilation"?

I mean, are you assuming that because a legal immigrant knows what the 4th of July is about, or digs Nascar or whatever ... that they will therefore "assimilate"? Won't they just bone up for the test, pass it, then do whatever they were going to do anyway?

the likes of which we are witnissing today is nothing short of socio-political-ethnic demographic bomb on regions of our nation, and it's criminal that our leaders aren't doing anything about it.

What do you propose?

Against it. I'm not against the concept of immigration, but illegal immigration and non-assimilation (it's obviously impossible to traget illegal immigrants for assimilation so you don't know who they are and have no way of testing them on their assimilation / language skills and understanding of our country) the likes of which we are witnissing today is nothing short of socio-political-ethnic demographic bomb on regions of our nation, and it's criminal that our leaders aren't doing anything about it.

Where are you even from?


They might be your leaders, they're just my representatives.

Assimilation is bullshit. Assimilation isn't the problem. It's kind of ridiculous that a nation that makes so much fuss about the state level of government can't seem to get it's head around the fact that states don't have to... speak the same language, have the same religion, eat the same food, even have the same kind of government, to be 'united'.

All you're pushing is more of the same tyranny of the majority. More of us speak English, so anyone that doesn't - isn't assimilating. More of us go to Christian denomination churches, so anyone that doesn't - isn't assimilating.

Also - the Citizenship test that foreigners have to take - is evidence that legal immigrants to this country have to be far BETTER versed on American social science and history, than the majority, so that whole 'understanding of our country' line is pure horsepuckey.

I didn't read the thread, so if this was posted already, my apologies:

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12674895&source=features_box_main
http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w48/ImmigrantsB.jpg

My next-door neighbor is of Puerto Rican descent. Nice folks. I worked with some migrant Mexican laborers last year. Nice folks, even though they didn't speak English and understood it but little. I don't hate anyone due to race. I think we need to dramatically streamline the immigration process so it's far easier to enter the US for immigration and migrant labor.

That said, I do object to illegal immigration. There are problems with drug smuggling, the border pollution and litter from the illegal immigration, and reported increases of diseases like leprosy, etc. from those who come here sick. Shamnesty is a punishment for those who work to follow our cumbersome legal process, so it's not a good solution. You don't reward criminal activity.

I think it's illegal, so it's wrong.

That said, I do object to illegal immigration. There are problems with drug smuggling, the border pollution and litter from the illegal immigration, and reported increases of diseases like leprosy, etc. from those who come here sick. Shamnesty is a punishment for those who work to follow our cumbersome legal process, so it's not a good solution. You don't reward criminal activity.

Drug smuggling: gonna happen anyway.
Border pollution: huh? Is that a huge issue?
Diseases: most of the "old" diseases are cheaply cured (patents expired on drugs) or shouldn't be a threat to properly vaccinated citizens. (Parents refusing to vaccinate their children is another question.)

I do take disease seriously -- my country has universal health care, and I recognize that the quality of coverage would be damaged progressively by unlimited immigration. But surely you'd be more worried by "new" diseases like HIV or ebola?

It's also odd that you don't mention criminals or terrorists ... since you seem to be making a case for "the Wall."

Against it. I'm not against the concept of immigration, but illegal immigration and non-assimilation (it's obviously impossible to traget illegal immigrants for assimilation so you don't know who they are and have no way of testing them on their assimilation / language skills and understanding of our country) the likes of which we are witnissing today is nothing short of socio-political-ethnic demographic bomb on regions of our nation, and it's criminal that our leaders aren't doing anything about it.

This seems like a good time to show this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiphLMJKHCI)

Where are you even from?
Here and there, can't you read? <------------

They might be your leaders, they're just my representatives.
Every society on earth has people above that lead and people below that are led.

Assimilation is bullshit.
Yes, how awful that people who wish to come to a country should become a part of that country instead of further dividing a land that preaches "united we stand, divided we fall."

(and, in not assimilating, inflicting upon themselves all the woes that come from not being assimilated. Woes that whether rightly or wrongly are inflicted upon them, are still indeed inflicted upon them)

Assimilation isn't the problem.
Sure it is...one of the reasons why America, for example, worked so well as a melting pot for immigrants was because it was exactly that, a melting pot. That word alone implies assimilating. Now certain Americans want to claim their nation is a "salad-bowl", rejecting the idea of a melting pot. Well, nobody should stop them from preaching the decay of the social-fabrics that held the nation together for so long, I suppose.

It's kind of ridiculous that a nation that makes so much fuss about the state level of government can't seem to get it's head around the fact that states don't have to... speak the same language, have the same religion, eat the same food, even have the same kind of government, to be 'united'.
The bolded two are the ones that do indeed matter for unity. The other two you just threw in there to try to make all 4 of those things seem ridiculous by comparison, when dealing with the question of unity.

All you're pushing is more of the same tyranny of the majority. More of us speak English, so anyone that doesn't - isn't assimilating. More of us go to Christian denomination churches, so anyone that doesn't - isn't assimilating.
Again, common language is the important one, not religion. Even more so in a day an age where religion, atleast publicy, is becoming less and less important, but division by language is becoming more and more publicly pressing. A society that opens itself to immigration must have a steady foundation that immigrants can come to so that they can quickly and efficiently transition themselves into productive members of a society. Demanding language assimilation is helpful to immigrants. It betters their chances to find a good paying job, helps them understand their new government and new society, will help them make friends and brings less hostility upon them.
Also - the Citizenship test that foreigners have to take - is evidence that legal immigrants to this country have to be far BETTER versed on American social science and history, than the majority, so that whole 'understanding of our country' line is pure horsepuckey.
I'm afraid your reading comprehension is what is pure horsepuckey. I clearly stated that part of the problem with illegal immigrants is that they don't have to take these tests.....
Hardly surprising.
Well I couldn't imagine saying I support illegal immigration, so I'd hope it's not suprising.


How does a test of general knowledge ensure "assimilation"?
Well you can't ensure it, naturally. We aren't discussing immigration to totalitarian police states. But you can promote assimilation. You can promote it by doing things that push an immigrant to become assimilated, should he choose to become a member of the society he is immigrating to. (And I'd have no idea why he wouldn't choose to, as doing so yields a better life for himself and his children, a better job, more friends and acceptance of him in the community).

A few things come to mind, like not offering governmental forms in any language other than english, or not offering schooling (and obviously not in the subject of foreign languages, that's different) in any language other than english.

I mean, are you assuming that because a legal immigrant knows what the 4th of July is about, or digs Nascar or whatever ... that they will therefore "assimilate"? Won't they just bone up for the test, pass it, then do whatever they were going to do anyway?
Even if so, that is still a hell of alot better than those who come as illegals, isn't it?



What do you propose?
Well contrary to what many people here may think, I do think immigration is a good thing, is natural and will only increase with further globalizaton. Having said that, it is important to realize that one must still regulate immigration for the time being and secure nations against illegal immigration to keep their societies intact and stable. Not only does this help the host society stay cohesive, but it eventually helps the immigrant become a part of the great society he is moving to, which in turn yields a better life for himself, his family and his children.


For illegal immigrants, I'd say deport the ones who are not vital to the U.S. agricultural business, and those should be put on a reformed guest-worker program. They won't be illegal, they'll be registered with the U.S. government (and state governments, I suppose) as critical guest workers, but will not be allowed free-entry into the U.S., away from the area they are working in. You'd be able to tell if they left if they failed to show up for work, in which case you could track them and deport them since you'd have their information....but it would be unlikely that they'd leave given that they'd be making alot more money as a guest worker than they would int he country they're coming from, hence them being guest workers in the first place. They are not slaves and there against their will. They can always leave.

So to be honest, I think as long as assimilation procedures are in place and immigrants are integrating well, there is no reason that legal immigration shouldn't be made a bit easier and we let in more people....but until that happens and as long as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, are not integrating well enough, immigration should be restricted until control can be regained.

I'm pro immigration. I think it should be made easier for people to immigrate. White English speaking people have no real claim to USA and have no right to bar others from living there and bringing their culture with them so long as that culture doesnot disagree with US laws.

This seems like a good time to show this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiphLMJKHCI)
The concept of illegal immigrant cannot be given to European settlers.

It just doesn't apply. You may call them invaders/conqueres if you'd like, but illegal immigrants is just incorrect.

The concept of illegal immigrant cannot be given to European settlers.

It just doesn't apply. You may call them invaders/conqueres if you'd like, but illegal immigrants is just incorrect.

Why not? They didn't start off as invaders, but they did move into lands not theirs, took resources not theirs, and eventually got into fights with the locals over who got to use the resources. I'll grant that there wasn't an American nation per se, but there were definitely lands of the native tribes, which the colonists did seem to make themselves perfectly at home with.

The concept of illegal immigrant cannot be given to European settlers.

It just doesn't apply. You may call them invaders/conqueres if you'd like, but illegal immigrants is just incorrect.

You're right. Entering into the country without legal right, into territory already claimed by another group... how could that even compare with illegal immigration. Er, I mean, European settlers.

I'm not bothered by the Average Armandos; I'm worried about the narcoguerrillas and coyotes possibly coming in with them.

Here and there, can't you read? <------------


I don't see how that connects with the immigration problems. Relevance, dear boy.


Every society on earth has people above that lead and people below that are led.


No it doesn't.


Yes, how awful that people who wish to come to a country should become a part of that country instead of further dividing a land that preaches "united we stand, divided we fall."


I thought the land in question preached 'from many, one'?

Are you sure you're not confusing 'America' - the nation, with the badnd of the same name? It sounds more like a bad rock lyric...


(and, in not assimilating, inflicting upon themselves all the woes that come from not being assimilated. Woes that whether rightly or wrongly are inflicted upon them, are still indeed inflicted upon them)


Imaginary woes don't rank high on my list.


Sure it is...one of the reasons why America, for example, worked so well as a melting pot for immigrants was because it was exactly that, a melting pot. That word alone implies assimilating. Now certain Americans want to claim their nation is a "salad-bowl", rejecting the idea of a melting pot. Well, nobody should stop them from preaching the decay of the social-fabrics that held the nation together for so long, I suppose.


Wow. You do talk crap.


The bolded two are the ones that do indeed matter for unity. The other two you just threw in there to try to make all 4 of those things seem ridiculous by comparison, when dealing with the question of unity.


No, all the things I mentioned are about equally important.

Americans should be forced to spend a few years living somewhere else before they're allowed to post this kind of crap.


Again, common language is the important one, not religion. Even more so in a day an age where religion, atleast publicy, is becoming less and less important, but division by language is becoming more and more publicly pressing. A society that opens itself to immigration must have a steady foundation that immigrants can come to so that they can quickly and efficiently transition themselves into productive members of a society. Demanding language assimilation is helpful to immigrants. It betters their chances to find a good paying job, helps them understand their new government and new society, will help them make friends and brings less hostility upon them.


Horseshit. Spanish-speakers in Spanish areas will have no problems making friends and finding work.

The problem is - you seem to assume that every community should speak the same language... like things would fall down, otherwise.

Again - clearly you've never been to Europe.


I'm afraid your reading comprehension is what is pure horsepuckey. I clearly stated that part of the problem with illegal immigrants is that they don't have to take these tests.....


And I clearly mentioned that the LEGAL ones are expected to know MORE than people whose entire contribution has been finding the right end of their mother's vagina at least once.

Well I couldn't imagine saying I support illegal immigration, so I'd hope it's not suprising.


The US situation is very different really. Of course, most of us say "it's illegal so it's wrong" but the US seems to be in a situation where this "illegal" act has become an essential part of the economy. Either expelling the illegal immigrants, or giving them citizenship, would create unemployment and send some businesses to the wall.

I mean, you're trying to build an immigration policy after the fact. The immigrants are there already!

Well you can't ensure it, naturally. We aren't discussing immigration to totalitarian police states. But you can promote assimilation. You can promote it by doing things that push an immigrant to become assimilated, should he choose to become a member of the society he is immigrating to. (And I'd have no idea why he wouldn't choose to, as doing so yields a better life for himself and his children, a better job, more friends and acceptance of him in the community).

I think the key to that is work. Getting a better job than the underpaid illegal work should be enough in itself to motivate an immigrant to learn either English or Spanish (that horse has bolted already, you aren't going to enforce English as a national language.)

The workplace (and the job market) is where people have to learn new skills, where they have to get along with people of a different cultural background. Work is what makes people a part of an economy -- and there is no more general definition of "being a member of society" than that one works.

I mean, does "assimilation" apply to recreations? To be a citizen, do you have to have an interest in football AND basketball AND baseball? That's ridiculous. That kind of social homogeneity is oppressive, and neither of us would want to live in a "monoculture" where being accepted requires that we have no minority interests (hiking or porno or star trek) and is required to be a fan of the same sport as the majority. Dull, to death.

You say it's language, and I see some sense in that. Adult education has to be funded, and well-funded, available in many different forms to fit an immigrant's workday. But ultimately, learning a language can't be forced on anyone. Their kids should have extra literacy teaching in school, to make up for it being a second language or at least, not having fluent English or Spanish speakers for parents.

But I can't endorse a single national language. Quite simply, it's a benefit to anyone to learn a second language, and there's no incentive to do it if the one "national language" is expected and enforced.

A few things come to mind, like not offering governmental forms in any language other than english, or not offering schooling (and obviously not in the subject of foreign languages, that's different) in any language other than english.

I'm guessing you speak only this one language, then.

Even if so, that is still a hell of alot better than those who come as illegals, isn't it?

Yes. You have a problem, though, and it's this: increasing legal immigration puts immigrants in direct competition for jobs with full citizens (they have legal rights and can't be exploited as easily, though there might still be a "probationary" period where their citizenship is more vulnerable than a born citizen.) There will be a backlash against that.

I find it hard to imagine the US increasing legal immigration to the level necessary to displace all illegal immigrants, and remove the incentive for them to come illegally. You'd be talking a million a year, something like that.

Increasing legal immigration and decreasing the paperwork barriers and cash costs of applying for citizenship, while we agree it's a good idea, isn't going to solve the illegal immigration problem completely.

Well contrary to what many people here may think, I do think immigration is a good thing, is natural and will only increase with further globalizaton. Having said that, it is important to realize that one must still regulate immigration for the time being and secure nations against illegal immigration to keep their societies intact and stable.

"Society" isn't intact. It isn't stable. You need to define the problems caused by immigration more precisely ... and identify the benefits more precisely ... before setting an "acceptable" level of problems for the benefits gained.

Economic growth, for instance, is a benefit. Very low wages (a 'working poor' who are more tempted by the wages of crime) are a problem.

Not only does this help the host society stay cohesive, but it eventually helps the immigrant become a part of the great society he is moving to, which in turn yields a better life for himself, his family and his children.

Frankly, neither of our societies is so "great" that I can accept that how they are now is the best they can be. At it's most extreme (beyond what you would consider "cohesive" society, but still) a society where everyone speaks the same one language, eats the same kind of food, likes the same movies, dresses the same, votes the same ... is a nightmare to me. It's oppressive.

So I find myself suspicious of your "cohesive" society. I'm willing to accept that "my" country has suburbs I won't go after dark. I'm willing to accept, even, that some people have temporarily limited rights as they "work for their citizenship." Because the benefits for me are more acceptance of my own differences from the norm, they're restaurants where the chef doesn't speak much English but cooks authentic Punjabi, they're colour and life and pretty Sudanese girls with weird dress-sense. I LIKE being part of diversity.

For this next section, I asked for your opinion, and won't criticize it. Thanks for the exposition.

For illegal immigrants, I'd say deport the ones who are not vital to the U.S. agricultural business, and those should be put on a reformed guest-worker program. They won't be illegal, they'll be registered with the U.S. government (and state governments, I suppose) as critical guest workers, but will not be allowed free-entry into the U.S., away from the area they are working in. You'd be able to tell if they left if they failed to show up for work, in which case you could track them and deport them since you'd have their information....but it would be unlikely that they'd leave given that they'd be making alot more money as a guest worker than they would int he country they're coming from, hence them being guest workers in the first place. They are not slaves and there against their will. They can always leave.

That's pretty radical. Over what kind of time-period?

So to be honest, I think as long as assimilation procedures are in place and immigrants are integrating well, there is no reason that legal immigration shouldn't be made a bit easier and we let in more people....but until that happens and as long as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, are not integrating well enough, immigration should be restricted until control can be regained.

I would say that extending legal rights by degrees to existing illegal immigrants is the only "assimilation procedure" necessary. As I said above, the workplace is the true melting pot.

But I agree that one-step Amnesty is a reward for being already illegal, and the whole process will simply start over with new illegal immigrants taking the work that amnestied immigrants are priced out of.

Really a bit creeped-out by "integration" and "regaining control." Whose control? The governments?

I don't see how that connects with the immigration problems. Relevance, dear boy.

Well, TAI clearly thinks English should be the national language. So that narrows it down.

Your own "location" isn't very specific either. :tongue:

I thought the land in question preached 'from many, one'?

I'm not sure which land it's set in, but I offer Aesop's fable:



A Lion used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Now I'm wondering who the lion is ...

You're right. Entering into the country without legal right, into territory already claimed by another group... how could that even compare with illegal immigration. Er, I mean, European settlers.

While I disagree with TAI on pretty much any economic, social, political, ethical, moral or philosophical point, I have to disagree with you here. Calling the European rape and conquest of the New World "illegal immigration" is offensive and insulting... to illegal immigrants, that is. It's euphemistic in the extreme.

Some difference.

* Illegal immigrants today seek to enter into the country. On the other hand, the European colonists did not seek to enter into Native American societies at all. In that sense the colonists weren't "immigrants" at all.
* European colonists waged war on their victims and stole the land through a combination of trade, trickery, and outright conquest. On the other hand, illegal immigrants aren't making war on anyone, they aren't stealing or conquering territory.

I was gonna go on, but you get the picture. European colonists weren't "illegal immigrants," and illegal immigrants aren't genocidal conquerors.

The Law's an ass! Things are illegal because a group of people in power make them illegal.
It is the role of "illegals" to push the boundaries in the hope of breaking them down.
It is the role of Immigration authorities to stop that happening.
Why is it that I hope the wetbacks get away with it, yet I know that border security is important?

Illegal immigrants being the root cause of the collapse of US housing prices
Illegal immigrants being responsible for economic downturns generally
Illegal immigrants being criminals and therefore deserving of whatever happens to them
Illegal immigrants exploiting their US-born children (the popular term is "anchor babies")
"Anchor babies" having only "sham citizenship" which should be revoked




It's good to be paranoid about this stuff. The article was retarded. However people going against illegal immigrants, do sometimes have legitimate concerns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

No it doesn't.
Indeed it does.

I thought the land in question preached 'from many, one'?
Both, and just the same, it still makes my point. "From Many, one" implies assimilation and integration. It states that there is nothing problem (and indeed it is what made America great) with immigration and people from all over coming to the the U.S., but they must come together as one.


Imaginary woes don't rank high on my list.
You don't think there are any woes that come from being an unassimilated outsider in a society? Hah, you must not get out much.

Wow. You do talk crap.
Insulting me doesn't take away anything from what I just said. Americans used to consider the U.S. a melting pot...for as long as mass-immigration was coming to the U.S. However, recently there has been a growing trend pushed by Leftist to adopt a salad-bowl style society, that does not push for assimilation and integration but rather multi-cultural style 'side by side' communities.


No, all the things I mentioned are about equally important.
You are being ridiculous and backing yourself into a corner. Eating the same food is not anywhere near as important as speaking the same language, for a socity to stay cohesive and united..... Stop ridiculing yourself.

Americans should be forced to spend a few years living somewhere else before they're allowed to post this kind of crap.
Yes what a highly authoritarian thing to force upon people. I'm sure that would be totally inexpensive to do so. I'd don't know why I bother saying it because you'll probably ignore it, but I spend alot of time in foreign countries, between different nations.


Horseshit. Spanish-speakers in Spanish areas will have no problems making friends and finding work.
Spanish 'areas' (where are those, by the way?) still have to interract with the rest of society that speaks English, and unless you are saying they should only find work in those areas (which would be proposing the balkanization and regionalization of the U.S.) they will have to speak English to work outside their neighborhoods.
The problem is - you seem to assume that every community should speak the same language... like things would fall down, otherwise.
It is only positive and not negative, if a nation is united by a common language. It is only a negative, not a positive, if a nation is divided by multiple languages that prevent unity.
Again - clearly you've never been to Europe.
Hah, right. I've never been to Europe. :p Because you know my life....

And, though I of course have, what does that even have to do with the topic at hand?


And I clearly mentioned that the LEGAL ones are expected to know MORE than people whose entire contribution has been finding the right end of their mother's vagina at least once.
I stated that the tests given to legal immigrants help them assimilate and integrate more than illegal immigrants because they are alteast forced to understand some concepts of the country.

You counter with something about people born in the U.S. that is totally off-topic. Try to stay with me, please.

It's good to be paranoid about this stuff. The article was retarded. However people going against illegal immigrants, do sometimes have legitimate concerns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
I've posted that before and people ignored it. It's not just aimed at illegal immigrants, but at a reduction in the numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal.

I'm going to repost something I posted earlier, as it seems relevant:

It's the new brand of racism. It's not about skin color any more. It's not about genetics, or eugenics, or belief that someone is inferior based on the appearance of their parents.

No, this new bigotry isn't about color, it's about "culture". No, they don't look you in the face and tell you how much blacks are inferior anymore. Now they take the softer approach, they speak not of people, but of nations. They use words that are hard to object to, like "community", "togetherness", "common bonds". But in the end the new dance is the same as the old dance. Not inferior races anymore, just inferior cultures. But just as it used to be "we don't want the mud people here anymore" it's become "we don't want their culture infecting our culture". the "we don't think you're bad PEOPLE, we just think your BELIEFS are bad, and your PRACTICES are bad, and your FAITH is bad, but we're not racist, we don't discriminate, just as long as you abandon every element that makes you you"

And in the end, just as the old racists believed that some races were superior, and it just happened to be theirs, the new bigots talk about superior and inferior cultures, and the superior ones are, of course, the ones they belong to.

All the while refusing to acknowledge that culture, just like race, is nothing more than a mish mash of other things, all rolled together to create what it is today, malleable, changeable, and, fundamentally, arbitrary.

of course, the new bigots like to disguise it one step further sometimes. They might not even take the superior/inferior dichotomy. They might try to pretend that it's now how they think. They might talk in lofty terms and high goals, they might say to you "you like to be proud of your culture right? Well, I like to be proud of mine, don't you think I should be proud of mine, just like you're proud of yours? No, your culture isn't BAD, and you should KEEP your culture, so why don't you go over there, with other people like you, and I'll stay over here, with people like me, and that way MY culture doesn't get infec...I mean, changed by yours, and YOUR culture, which I totally respect, by the way, can also remain pure, just the way it is...over there, in your own country. Away from me"

Well, TAI clearly thinks English should be the national language. So that narrows it down.

Your own "location" isn't very specific either. :tongue:

This I know, which is why I usually identify with the nation I'm discussing, or base my terminology around the discussion. If we're talking about America (and I think TAI was, but I want to make sure before I make certain arguments) then I can stay within the 'this country...' terminology.

While I disagree with TAI on pretty much any economic, social, political, ethical, moral or philosophical point, I have to disagree with you here. Calling the European rape and conquest of the New World "illegal immigration" is offensive and insulting... to illegal immigrants, that is. It's euphemistic in the extreme.

Some difference.

* Illegal immigrants today seek to enter into the country. On the other hand, the European colonists did not seek to enter into Native American societies at all. In that sense the colonists weren't "immigrants" at all.
* European colonists waged war on their victims and stole the land through a combination of trade, trickery, and outright conquest. On the other hand, illegal immigrants aren't making war on anyone, they aren't stealing or conquering territory.

I was gonna go on, but you get the picture. European colonists weren't "illegal immigrants," and illegal immigrants aren't genocidal conquerors.

The difference is in degree and approach. The 'immigration' in both cases is 'illegal', but in one case, it involves hopping across the border and trying to find work, and in the other case, it involves butchering as many of the natives as you can.

The difference is in degree and approach. The 'immigration' in both cases is 'illegal', but in one case, it involves hopping across the border and trying to find work, and in the other case, it involves butchering as many of the natives as you can.

It's a rather significant difference. Again I don't think it's accurate to use the term 'immigration' to describe the European conquest. Immigration means you are moving into another nation and society - not exterminating and replacing it.

I mean yeah, you can say that both involved 'border hopping' that was 'illegal,' but then so did the Blitzkrieg and no one says that Poland was just a victim of illegal immigration. ;)

Indeed it does.


No, it doesn't. This is the part where, called on your universalist bullshit, you have to actually provide evidence of your claim, or it's laughed out of the debate.


Both, and just the same, it still makes my point. "From Many, one" implies assimilation and integration. It states that there is nothing problem (and indeed it is what made America great) with immigration and people from all over coming to the the U.S., but they must come together as one.


It doesn't state that, at all. It states that those 'many' become 'one'. It doesn't say they must assume representation of one another.


You don't think there are any woes that come from being an unassimilated outsider in a society? Hah, you must not get out much.


On the contrary, I am an unassimilated outsider, and your argument doesn't match the reality.


Insulting me doesn't take away anything from what I just said. Americans used to consider the U.S. a melting pot...for as long as mass-immigration was coming to the U.S. However, recently there has been a growing trend pushed by Leftist to adopt a salad-bowl style society, that does not push for assimilation and integration but rather multi-cultural style 'side by side' communities.


'Insulting you' by telling you that your hyperbolic rhetoric is hyperbolic rhetoric?

You claim a 'Leftist' trend, but what you are talking about, is conservation of culture. Is that a 'leftist' or a 'rightist' angle? Which would you argue is usually the more 'conservative' margin?

In truth, it's neither leftist nor rightist - it's realist. You can't FORCE people to be like one another, and the harder you push, the deeper they bury their differences, and the more extreme those differences become. That's a lesson we've been learning the hard way.


You are being ridiculous and backing yourself into a corner. Eating the same food is not anywhere near as important as speaking the same language, for a socity to stay cohesive and united..... Stop ridiculing yourself.


That's your argument? 'nuh uh'?


Yes what a highly authoritarian thing to force upon people. I'm sure that would be totally inexpensive to do so. I'd don't know why I bother saying it because you'll probably ignore it, but I spend alot of time in foreign countries, between different nations.


Authoritarian or inexpensive are irrelevent. The insular idea that relaity can be defined by the borders of the United States is what I'm talking about.


Spanish 'areas' (where are those, by the way?) still have to interract with the rest of society that speaks English, and unless you are saying they should only find work in those areas (which would be proposing the balkanization and regionalization of the U.S.) they will have to speak English to work outside their neighborhoods.


The USA is 'balkanised'. You've made a specific point of it, maintaining it, protecting it, striving for it, over centuries.

You seem to be incapable of applying pretty obvious concepts. This IS a balkanised nation, and - if it were an older nation (we're talking about this 'artifact' nation built on the bones of the native ones) - you WOULD speak different languages.


It is only positive and not negative, if a nation is united by a common language. It is only a negative, not a positive, if a nation is divided by multiple languages that prevent unity.


Bluster. Rhetoric. Meaningless. Signifying nothing. You make big assertions, but you never seem to feel compelled to back any of it up... as, of course, you wouldn't. Because, of course, you couldn't.

What you call a 'nation' is a collection of states, united. Cast your mind around, and see if you can think of any other 'collections of states, united', and analyse their linguistic component.


Hah, right. I've never been to Europe. :p Because you know my life....

And, though I of course have, what does that even have to do with the topic at hand?


The fact that Europe makes a lie of your arguments... just by existing.


I stated that the tests given to legal immigrants help them assimilate and integrate more than illegal immigrants because they are alteast forced to understand some concepts of the country.


Which is obviously bullshit, because demanding that immigrants know far MORE of the 'concepts' than the 'natives' is actually a handicap to integration.


You counter with something about people born in the U.S. that is totally off-topic. Try to stay with me, please.

You don't think that 'people born in the US' are 'on topic' in discussion about 'integrating immigrants with people born in the US?'

It's a rather significant difference. Again I don't think it's accurate to use the term 'immigration' to describe the European conquest. Immigration means you are moving into another nation and society - not exterminating and replacing it.

I mean yeah, you can say that both involved 'border hopping' that was 'illegal,' but then so did the Blitzkrieg and no one says that Poland was just a victim of illegal immigration. ;)

If I kill one person, they are dead. If I kill a million, each one is just as dead.

The European settlers were immigrants in the Americas. Their particular brand of immigration was low on assimilation, and big on extermination, but it was still immigration.

If I kill one person, they are dead. If I kill a million, each one is just as dead.


Yet the first case is murder at best, and perhaps not even that depending on the circumstances of killing. Could be self-defense.

The second case is genocide, and generally a crime against humanity.

To equate the two simply because they both involve the killing of a person is an innacurate generalization.

The European settlers were immigrants in the Americas.

Only if you consider something like "the Americas" to be a place you can immigrate to, or that for every emigration there is necessarily an immigration.

Their particular brand of immigration was low on assimilation, and big on extermination, but it was still immigration.

Conquest is not immigration. The European conquest of the Americas was not illegal immigration. It's not a "brand" of immigration anymore than genocide is a "brand" of killing in self defense. Yes, both involve migration, and in the latter analogy both involve killing. It's not the same though. Stop trying to make them the same.

Or is demonizing immigrants actually the point you're trying to make?

Both, and just the same, it still makes my point. "From Many, one" implies assimilation and integration. It states that there is nothing problem (and indeed it is what made America great) with immigration and people from all over coming to the the U.S., but they must come together as one.

You know, I thought it referred to the States uniting.

Looking at the seal -- an olive branch with 13 leaves in one of the eagle's pinions, thirteen arrows in the other pinion, thirteen stars in that cloud thing above the eagle's head, the shield with thirteen stripes and the same blue background as is behind the stars. "E pluribus unum" appears on a banner [/i]between them[/i]. Put together, those stars and stripes form the flag.

Apart from the eagle itself, there is almost no symbolism other than the unifying of thirteen things -- the original states.

To be really pedantic, the official motto of the US is "in God we trust." Perhaps you should be petitioning to have it changed to "E pluribus unum."

Except ... that's not in English is it?

(I don't really expect an answer to my other post, it was kinda long. Since you chose to answer GnI's far more hostile post I'm happy to just watch that debate.)

Yet the first case is murder at best, and perhaps not even that depending on the circumstances of killing. Could be self-defense.


The victim would still be dead, though, right?


The second case is genocide, and generally a crime against humanity.


The victims would still be dead, though, right?


To equate the two simply because they both involve the killing of a person is an innacurate generalization.


No - they're exactly the same. The only difference is scope.


Only if you consider something like "the Americas" to be a place you can immigrate to, or that for every emigration there is necessarily an immigration.


Why wouldn't you?


Conquest is not immigration. The European conquest of the Americas was not illegal immigration. It's not a "brand" of immigration anymore than genocide is a "brand" of killing in self defense. Yes, both involve migration, and in the latter analogy both involve killing. It's not the same though. Stop trying to make them the same.


No - the European conquest of the Americas absolutely WAS immigration. They came here to settle. They didn't come to occupy, to enslave, or to defeat an enemy. There was no situation where a 'peace' was going to be reached, and the invaders were going to go home.

It was definitely conquest. Certainly genocide, but it was still immigration.


Or is demonizing immigrants actually the point you're trying to make?

No. Exactly the opposite.

The 'problem' were having with immigrants today, is that they are escaping harsh conditions, coming to a place where they can survive and maybe prosper, and (for the most part) dwelling in that society pretty much without incident.

Contrast it against how 'we' got here. Our 'cultural' immigration wasn't through visas or checkpoints. It was through blood and murder. For 'us' to turn around and bitch about a peaceful desire to feed your family? Hypocrisy, at best.