Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PASS THE DREAM ACT & COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM NOW!
Facebook Badge: Immigration Talk with a Mexican American
(click on picture to link to Facebook Page)
Immigration Talk with a Mexican American
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
The Message
About Me
- Dee
- Hello. My name is Dee. I live in Texas. I am an American. My ethnicity is Hispanic. Many would call me Mexican or Mexican American. Some call me a female, PRO-Immigration Reform - Ann Coulter. My parents, their parents and theirs were all born in the USA. My husband and I have been happily married for over 20 years. My husband is a big, Irish-American. We have two grown sons. We are happy and my family is doing well. I have been employed as a mid level manager at a very large, well known corporation for over 25 years, now recently retired. In May, 2006, after the Immigration Marches, I started seeing the cable news channels talking very negatively about illegal immigration. I found many internet sites were talking negatively about legal and illegal immigration issues as well. Since I do research on the job, I started conducting Immigration research on the web. I joined several Immigration websites and I researched others. I´ve learned so much about Immigration issues over the last year. What you don´t see on the internet is the Mexican American perspective. I am here to share my views with you.
89 comments:
Dee,
you should do a victory dance.
with this announcement, it is now clear that both the republican nominee and the democratic nominee will, if elected, push for citizenship for the 20 million undocumented now in the USA.
They will also push for an increase in chain migration and open the doors to increased legal immigration in the future.
While the surveys of public opinion showed that the majority of the citizens of the USA were against the two above outcomes, the "pros" were able to outflank the "antis" at the ballot box and win a resounding victory
Books will be written about this
Surveys? I have seen no viable, unbiased surveys to the general public with your questions.
The questions are always swayed or biased.
Americans want:
1. Secure Borders
2. Employer Sanctions
Show me ONE survey that says the majority of Americans want Mass Deportation of the 12M?
Regarding your statements:
. Chain Migration:Define it, then ask the question. then put it on a survey. then show me the results.
. Open the Doors to Increased Legal Immigration in the future: Define it, then ask the question. then put it on a survey. then show me the results.
Why do people on the "anti" side always say that the majority of the U.S. agrees with them? That's never been true, even when they were crying to everyone within ear-or fax/e-mail-shot there was never a majority, much less a strong one.
The public opinion polls never show ed a majority. Most of them were and continue to be close. If anything they show that Americans are somewhat apathetic about immigration issues because there is never a true consensus. Sometimes they are slightly "anti" sometimes they are slightly "pro", but there is usually just a slight difference either way.
The fact that the immigration stances of the presidential candidates were almost meaningless when compared to Iraq, health care, the economy, etc. should tell you something.
Or you can believe that they were important, in that case the majority are in favor of "pros".
No matter who wins the election MCain or Obama/Clinton, they still will not get the kind of CIR that the pro's want. For one thing it is congress who makes those decisions, not the president. Bush wanted amnesty too but did he get it?
It would be political suicide for any of the three above to try and shove it down our throats again and defy the will of the majority of Americans and they know it. They would end up being a one term president. Dream on!
Just saw the most amazing thing on Lou Dobbs which was part of a meeting at a town in Connecticut where they were voting on a law to deputize their police to check immigration status of persons arrested for CRIMINAL activities, not for jaywalking or driving down the street. One illegal stood before the council and said the only reason we're illegal is YOU MADE US ILLEGAL !
So, that's the way illegals think. We made them illegal. It's OUR fault. Some gratitude we get for paying for their health care, their kid's education, etc. etc. Well, the council passed the law and if it's the last breath I take, I'll fight against people who haev this attitude and want to become citizens of this country.
dianne, the really sad part are the ethnocentric citizens that support and agree with those views of the illegals. God help this country!
God help us is right
But dee will have the last laugh with an amnesty happy president in power
look for hundreds of millions to come streaming in
You guys are a bunch of unreasonable, drama queen, hyperbole spewing cry babies, "that's the way [all] illegals think," "God help this country," "hundreds of millions." HAHA!
While you guys cry about "amnesty happy" candidates the status-quo remains the same; de-facto open labor markets remain, and, basically, de-facto amnesty continues all throughout the U.S. Why? Because you guys are dead set on blaming "illegals" while the real culprits are counting their profits and getting elected into office every two years. It proves what a friend of mine told me, "Americans are quick to forgive greed."
Also, I can't believe that's the same anon who seemed so logical and thoughtful in the prior comments section. Now he's just like all the rest of them.
mirror,
as always you are perceptive. You are also coldly rational about things, and not emotional
i respect that very much
look, i don't think that there is an inch of disagreement between you and me on the issue of unskilled illegal immigrants
we both believe in the law of supply and demand.
we both believe that if a city like phoenix sees a massive influx of illegal unskilled workers, the market clearing wage of unskilled citizens in phoenix goes down
we both believe that the unskilled us citizens suffer a great deal when unskilled illegals come in
we both believe that when the unskilled illegals are persuaded to leave and do in fact leave that the unskilled us citizens benefit massively
we both believe that the main reason why unskilled us citizens get the shaft is because of the rich and politically powerful
pls be blunt and tell me if i am misinterpreting you in any way whatsoever when i make the above statements.
I guess the emotional side of me is deeply frustrated with the unskilled us citizens for being so politically passive. Unskilled us citizens rallied for their rights in an earlier age, rallied around Chavez and Gompers and so many others that said that US citizens who were unskilled deserved a fair shake from society.
I just see so much passivity among the unskilled us citizens today, they are as a group allowing themselves to be victimized. That is where my emotional side comes in.
How do you stand up for a group that refuses to stand up for itself
No, you are not misrepresenting me in those statements, the only difference between us is that I can't stand those who hold animosity towards those who are taken advantage of. Whether they hold said animosity because of ignorance or racism, I still can't stand them, because whether they're from the U.S. or any Latin-American country, the abused have no control over U.S. policies that rob their countries of their sovereignty and cultures, nor do they control the quislings in their countries that help grease the wheels of this machine.
The only thing that will bring about real change - since America refuses to endorse real change politicians like, IMO, Kucinich or maybe even the despicable Paul - is collapse of the current system. All these disorganized loonies talking about taking up arms against the government and civil war are signing their own death warrants.
You should include most of the U.S. in with those un-skilled Americans; McCain, Clinton, and Obama all want to continue current U.S. policy, sure they'll tinker with it here and there, but in the end there won't be change. All of them are corporate puppets who believe the U.S. is the saviour of the world, that's why they all want to continue the war - or in Obama's case be very open to the option of war - and continue policies that will keep us in other countries' business forcing them to get into our business or, worst yet, to hold a justified animosity towards us.
In the end, you can't have your own national sovereignty without respecting other's sovereignty.. Everyone around the world knows that.. So since this is an inescapable worldwide problem, maybe, to keep from going insane, we should all look at the world like George Carlin does; a form of entertainment.
chain migration? 20 million legalized, then their immediate relatives, parents, siblings, etc
allowed to migrate to the US legally. Understand?
Mirror
I hear you and i am with you.
I feel that the 20 million undocumented now in the the USA are victims and i want them treated with respect and dignity as they are genty and politely escorted out of the USA.
The employers who employed them are the guilty ones. I think you could easily collect millions in fines from the employers and use some of those fines to help the undocumented re settle in their home countries.
Symapthy for the undocumented is NOT inconsistent with an insistance that each and every one of them exit the USA.
Mirror, are you personally in favor of immediate friendly, polite, compassionate deportation of the 20 million, or are you in favor of some outcome that doesn't result in all 20 million leaving?
Be precise
Obvioulsy Anon, You describe your own skewed views and biases.
Read what I said:
. Chain Migration:Define it, then ask the question. then put it on a survey. then show me the results.
Well,
Mirror, can you let me know
(1) where do you stand on the issue of deportation, ie what % of the 20 million do you want deported this year and do you want the deportation done in a polite, friendly, way even if it costs much much more than a cold hearted rapid "operation wetback" type deportation
(2) where do you think the other pro deportation folks are on this issue ?
thanks
anon, first I apologize, there's clearly another doppleganger anon that I confused you with.
Mirror, are you personally in favor of immediate friendly, polite, compassionate deportation of the 20 million, or are you in favor of some outcome that doesn't result in all 20 million leaving?
It's not that simple. Send them home to countries that can't support them and they'll come back tenfold, not as undocumented-immigrants, but as refugees or asylum seekers.
To improve the conditions in their home countries the U.S. would have to stop subsidizing agriculture, stop supporting U.S. favoring governments, stop demonizing those against U.S. policies, etc. etc.
(1) where do you stand on the issue of deportation, ie what % of the 20 million do you want deported this year and do you want the deportation done in a polite, friendly, way even if it costs much much more than a cold hearted rapid "operation wetback" type deportation
Thinking about the issue in these terms - ignoring why they're here -, I would be against deportation and for pro style immigration reform over the status-quo or mass deportations which would be disastrous to most of the sending countries and later the U.S.
If you ignore the cause you'll never solve the immigration issue; you'll just hamper it or cause different more troublesome problems.
(2) where do you think the other pro deportation folks are on this issue ?
They think deportation solves everything, except agriculture it seems, most agree that that's a job Americans won't do.
Mirror,
i am with ya.
I guess i should sign my posts "compassionate deportation"
i have never heard anyone else call for compassionate deportation - all i read about are antis that are full of hate and venom that want a repeat of operation wetback or pros that want to let the 20 million stay.
I don't mind being different.
I hate the current us foreign policy and want to see positive social changes throughout the world. There are succes stories out there - south koreans went from being among the poorest in the world to being among the richest, even bangladesh has improved due to micro lending and other fine social programs. I will support anything that makes life more humane in mexico or anywehre else.
I understand your point of view, but i guess i will stand all alone in being in favor of immediate compassionate deportation.
I feel a special kinship with american citizens who are uneducated and unskilled. I feel that immediate deportation of the 20 million would create such a huge labor shortage that wages for the uneducated and unskilled us citizens that it is worth doing despite all the legitimate objections.
i have sometimes heard my point of view as being one that puts the interests of poor uneducated unskilled american citizens ahead of the interests of poor people who are not citizens, and i have to say that is indeed my point of view.
I have no malice towards those with other views, but there is mine
Well, I agree with the majority of your view, but I think you're sugarcoating mass deportation - it is still mass deportation whether it's done politely or with sticks.
mirror, it is unreasonable to expect our immigration laws enforced?
Illegal immigration is a three-fold blame, our government, the employers AND the illegal aliens themselves. Why is it that you pro-illegals never want to put any blame on the illegals, only the first two?
We are doing our best to throw the bums out of office and elect a president who has our best interests at heart and the rule of law. Unfortunately, there are still far too many Americans asleep at the wheel and that is why we are stuck with McCain/Obama/Hillary as choices. But fortunately, we had a congress last year that listened to the majority of Americans and didn't pass that crappy CIR bill inspite of Bush.
m irror, another thing we are in favor of is the SAVE ACT. That will take care of the greedy employers. Anymore questions?
anon, I have no idea what you mean by "immediate and compassionate deportation". Deportation is deportation. What do you think that ICE and those who share my views want? We don't wish to beat them before they leave.
I am in favor of them leaving via the SAVE ACT. You know the part where it will be mandatory for employers to check the validity of the employees. That way the illegals will self-deport over a period of 4 years. Sounds pretty humane to me. They will have 4 years to save their money and go back with a tidy sum.
Pat, why should I blame someone who seeks to improve their lives and takes the legitimized opportunity to do so in the U.S.? They don't have a say in which laws the U.S. chooses to enforce, they do what they can.
Who cares that the bill didn't get passed? Why give rights to people who don't have any if they're going to use them to make it difficult to abuse them? Not getting anything done still maintains the status-quo - which is the most desirable outcome - and, in addition, it gives bigots an avenue to spread their hate through fear mongering.
Who have you thrown out of office? McCain was one of the driving forces and he has the REPUBLICAN! presidential nomination in the bag.
So get your faxes and mass e-mails ready... We need your help in maintaining this wonderful status-quo!
patriot
i am for compassionate deportation
from a purely politial standpoint i think it is easier to build a coalition in the usa for "compassionate deportation" rather than vindictive or angry deportation.
Also i think it is important to not praise "operation wetback"
remember that operation wetback booted many AMERICAN CITIZENS of mexican ancestry out of the usa. How the HECK can antis win the hearts and minds of the undecided voter when that is held up as an example?
Bottom line, i personally believe in a compassionate deportation even if compassionate deportation is much more expensive than a vindictive one.
america has a long history of racist actions and crimes against people of different races.
i humbly suggest that antis are more likely to win with a kind approach.
Let me push it a step further - i think the VERY SMALL but well publicized number of violent racist venemous anti immigration folks are the best friends that Dee has. They allow her to make her position look good in comparison.
Anon,
Most people on my PRO side believe in Truth, Logic and the American Way!
But you are right that people like Arpaio and the other extremists make themselves look very bad.
dee-google chain migration. I cannot believe you do not know what that is. I guess you are not as smart as you pretend to be. By the time you do a survey of the results, you will have to use a spanish dictionary.
In truth, if the U.S. begins to enforce immigration laws and guard its borders I would accept that, obviously, I would prefer that they reasonably change those laws, but in the meantime I'm not going to blame those who have no say in the matter. On the contrary, I'm going to absolve them and place all the blame on U.S. domestic and foreign policies and big business. If you want to continue this perpetual and viscous cycle of blaming and demonizing the helpless be my guest, but all you're doing is passing it on to future generations - like so many before you have done - because you prefer to absolve the greedy and blame the needy. :D
Pro illegal immigration advocates believe in the American way? What
American way do you mean? The one where English is the official language, the one where you follow US law which says to enter this country legally or is there another set of laws you favor?
I blame greedy big business and I blame the needy illegal aliens. Fine employers heavily and deport illegal aliens.
I am for compassionate deportation.
I am in favor of a national ID card that can not be faked.
I am in favor of making all employers check the id card before hiring someone
I am in favor of not just big fines, but hard time, in a very unpleasant prison, for those that employ the undocumented
I am in favor of BOTH punishment for the employers and for deportation of the undocumented
However I will support those positions in isolation.
So if some politician is in favor of jailing the employers but not deporting the undocumented, i will vote for him or her
if some politician is in favor of deporting the undocumented but not jailing the employers, i will vote for him or her
i can't demand that everyone agree with me -
prison for employers is very important to me and deportation of the undocumented is too.
mirror, so if a homeowner fails to or forgets to lock their doors and someone enters uninvited, it is ONLY the homeowner who is at fault? Most sane people know you are not allowed to enter someone's home without an invite. You agrument is moot.
What about the illegals improving their lives in their own countries like seeking change in their own countries? They had the nerve to march and protest in OUR streets but lack the balls to do it in their own countries?
The CIR bill that didn't pass last year was a bad bill. And no, we aren't still at status quo. Illegal entry into this country is down because of the raids and deportations and making our border more secure. They are also leaving because of the state enacted laws against them now. We still need to totally secure our borders and to initiate the SAVE ACT but a lot of what is beginning to happen is directly due to illegal immigration being brought to the attention of congress. That isn't "status quo" even though we have a long ways to go yet.
There may be some bigots involved in this issue (and on both sides, I might add) but they are not among the majority of Americans who want our immigration laws enforce.
It doesn't matter who is president. Congress is the one who votes on these vital issues. Bush wanted amnesty too but he didn't get it, did he?
I noticed you said "we" as in including yourself as a pro-illegal, race card pulling, demonizer of law abiding Americans kind of person. Are you also an ethnocentric Hispanic?
dee, "Truth"? What truth is that? "Justice"? When one breaks laws you don't want justice to be served if is for someone illegally in our country. "Logic"? What logic? "The American Way"? The American way is the rule of law and for immigrants to come here legally. Nope, the pro's stand for none of the above!
anon, again I ask you what is "immediate and compassionate deportation"? I think my idea is compassionate. All you do is ramble on without answering the particulars.
I don't care what the radicals say, they are among the minority of anti's. It appears that you and dee think you can argue your points of view from that perspective though rather than with the majority of non-racist Americans who just want our immigration laws enforced. But then that is what weak arguments bring.
We are winning where it counts. I couldn't care less what the ethnocentric, racists want or to try and win them over. They have an agenda of taking over this country politically and numerically via illegal immigration and nothing you or I will say will change their minds. I don't bargain with un-American commies. Their position will never look good to anyone but themselves.
mirror, do you have a reading comprehension problem? I SAID I BLAME... OUR GOVERNMENT, THE EMPLOYERS AND THE ILLEGALS THEMSELVES. Yet you continue to claim that I am only blaming the illegals.
So in the case of a bank robbery you would blame the bank for not being secured enough, the guy driving the get-a-way car but not the bank robber himself because "he needed the money"? See how ridiculous that is?
mirror, so if a homeowner fails to or forgets to lock their doors and someone enters uninvited, it is ONLY the homeowner who is at fault?
This comparison is invalid because the U.S. does not simply leave the border unprotected. It would be valid if you said you gave those intruders a job, a room, medical care, etc.
They had the nerve to march and protest in OUR streets but lack the balls to do it in their own countries?
How do you know that they don't? In fact, they do, but it won't make a difference because most of their politicians are heavily influence if not controlled by U.S. policy.
Illegal entry into this country is down because of the raids and deportations and making our border more secure.
Maybe the U.S.'s economy isn't as attractive as it used to be? Hmm... Either way, funding for that silly fence has been cut, what does that tell you?
They are also leaving because of the state enacted laws against them now.
And moving to other states that are more hospitable while those states that enacted those laws want them back.
I noticed you said "we"...
I was being sarcastic.
...as in including yourself as a pro-illegal, race card pulling, demonizer of law abiding Americans kind of person. Are you also an ethnocentric Hispanic?
I am beginning to become pro-action, as in, do something, anything, about immigration. Like I said, if the U.S. begins to enforce immigration laws and guard its borders, fine.
Yet you continue to claim that I am only blaming the illegals.
I never said that, all I did was state why I don't think they should be blamed at all.
So in the case of a bank robbery you would blame the bank for not being secured enough, the guy driving the get-a-way car but not the bank robber himself because "he needed the money"? See how ridiculous that is?
It's ridiculous that you even bring up that comparison.
WE -as in the U.S.- roll out the red carpet, OUR policies push immigrants out of their countries and pull them into OURS, WE need to start taking responsibility for those actions, and WE need to stop making scapegoats of unfortunates because we refuse to look in the mirror.
Anon, I am not letting you off that easy and I will not do your work for you.
YOU made the claim about the surveys. Now PROVE IT!!
:-)
mirror, oh I see our government gives them freebies because we aren't allowe to ask for their citizenship status and that gives our government and the illegals justification for giving and taking American taxpayer dollars. Just as long as our corrupt government and the illegals are in cohoots that takes the moral responsibiblity to the American people out of it?
Good, if they are marching in their own countries, that is where they should be marching, not here!
If the funding for the fence has been cut, then that means we need to address it with our government. Our president promised it would be built. Yes, it tells me that we still have corruption to deal with at the national level and we will.
Some are actually leaving and yes some are moving to states that haven't enacted these laws yet but it is only a matter of time before they do.
No, my bank robbery analogy was not ridiculous. All parties are guilty, you just want to give the illegals a pass.
The "WE" you speak of is not your everyday working slob American who is footing the bill for these illeglas and putting up with all the other negatives that surround it. Plese don't include our corrupt government and the greedy employers in with us in the same sentence. None of this was with our blessing. Politicans get into office and then stab us in the back. You are on their side on this by making us pay for their sins.
Time to do some overdue housecleaning in congress.
Anon 2,
Of course PROs are proud, loyal Americans. We are for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. We believe in the American Dream. We look for Peaceful Resolution to issues. We proudly serve in the Military and support our country. I, for one, have several nephews in Iraq, right now. Hispanic Americans lead the rate of front liners in Iraq.
What DON´T you understand Anon 2?
PS: You are clearly a different poster than the other Anon. Will you give yourself a Nickname please? Don´t be afraid. We like you!
There is no loyalty to this country in rewarding illegal behavior, especially not for foreign invaders.
Pat,
You are waaaay off target.
Hispanic Americans, Latinos, are the loyal, dedicated, hard working Americans who serve proudly in the military, on the front lines and who love America.
Your side, particularly many of the ANTI groups like FAIR, NumbersUSA, Alipac, were formed by nativists and restrictionists who promote racial profiling and other extreme measures. They use terms like Mexifornia, Mexus, Miami is a 3rd World Country, they promote restrictionist laws, as in the Oklamaha restrictionist laws that result in Racial Profiling and loss of business and tax revenues.
dee,
I'm curious-How do you define the "American Dream"?
You have no idea what loyalty to one's country is, dee. I served in the military too but I am not advocating an illegal invasion of my country. That would be hypocritical of me.
As I said before and you can't get it through your thick skull, I don't care about radical groups and neither should you. Although, I don't agree with you that ALL of those groups are radical. Talk about radical groups. There sure are enough of them on your side. Pot, kettle, black!
Why can't you just take the rule of law argument at face value? All laws are restrictionist, thats what makes them laws, duh! Nativist? Every country and it's citizen are nativist. So what is your point? It is about preserving their country's culture, language and heritage. Mexico is most adamant about that but you beat up on U.S. citizens for wanting the same thing? What a hypocrite!
OH God, here she goes again with the Mexifornia terminology again. Don't you get tired of repeating the same old sh@t over and over? It has all been explained to you before!
Same thing about your so-called racial profiling, that has been explained to you before too but you keep repeating that over and over again.
If taxes are gained by illegality, we don't need it or want it. This is the USA, loyal Americans don't want corruption just to gain money. Guess you do though?
Dee,
the fact that your family members are in the military says a great deal to me about your family's loyalty to the usa.
you probably have a different conception of what loyalty means but the loyalty of some sort is there
anon, joining the military is not necessarily and indication of loyalty to one's country. Many join because it is a job to them and they can learn a trade. It has nothing to do with devotion to one's country in "some" cases.
Pat and Anon,
I find it odd you both are so restrictive in your beliefs and try to impose your beliefs on others.
The facts are PRO CIR advocates are very loyal Americans. We understand the complexity of the Immigration issues, we understand the history that brought us to where we are today and we seek comprehensive immigration reform. Obviously we believe in the 1st Ammendment. You are here and you speak your opinions freely. I wonder how open to discussion your blogs would be if commentors disagreed with your perspective and began name calling.
In America, we have the opportunity and the freedom to speak our ideas and achieve our goals in life and it is not based on class structure or mandates.
The problem with what many ANTIs advocate is the denial of freedom to disagree and voice our opinions. We should rejoice in the fact that we can speak here, openly and freely and have our own opinions. I have always believed in the importance of seeking first to understand then to be understood, allowing others to voice their opinions and for me to share mine. It is only when we openly discuss issues that together we can find resolutions.
dee, I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone any more than you are. The pro's are just as guilty of this.
Name calling? There is a lot more name calling that goes on by the pro's than the anti's would ever dream of. The pro's start right out with the race card when they find out you are opposed to illegal immigration. Don't deny it dee, you know it's true.
The anti's are denying freedom of speech? lol. Does the name Janet Muguria ring a bell? You did see her on Dobbs didn't you, trying to deny him the right to have certain guests on his show and trying to stop him from expressing his views on his show?
You need to pass your little speech in here about freedom of speech on to her, not us. The pro's are always trying to squelch freedom of speech. I can give you many more examples of it.
Nope, most pro's are not loyal Americans. They have no respect for our immigration laws. And worse yet they hate those of us that do.
Dee,
I am for compassionate deportation
and i agree with patriot all the way on this one single point
Pro amnesty people like you have much more freedom of speech than people who are against amnesty.
If you associate with liberal / progressive people, in places like University campuses and liberal coastal cities, you have very little freedom to express an opinion against amnesty
Do the math - the liberal elite at our universities and in our media are overwhelmingly pro amnesty. There is no freedom to express dissent.
Heck, if you give a calm reasonable speech in favor of deportation of the 20 million you can be charged with hate speech!
Dee, you are probably making an honest mistake here. You live in Texas, which has a history of straight talking people.
But if you were swimming in a liberal university community, you would discover that being pro amnesty is the party line, and expressing an opinion that deviates from it has dire consequences.
When good loyal americans of mexican ancestry speak the truth about immigration, La Raza calls them "judas" and threatens to send death squads to murder them
_____________________
Read about the courageous Mexican American man below who has devoted his life to helping the poor in America.
The Advocate
A Liberal's Contrarian Views
Kevin Moloney for The New York Times
Waldo Benavidez, a food bank manager and advocate for the poor. "This is not a civil rights issue. These people are not citizens demanding their rights -- that's different," he said.
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Save
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: April 16, 2006
DENVER, April 15 — Sitting at the Auraria Community Center here on a recent morning with his cat, Tails, perched before him on the desk, Waldo Benavidez gestured to a large portrait of Emiliano Zapata, the leader of the 1910 Mexican revolution — and Mr. Benavidez's personal hero.
Skip to next paragraph
Perspectives on Immigration
Three voices. Three people, each with a small piece of the swirling story of illegal immigration in the United States, cannot answer the tangled questions that have washed over politics recently with a sudden, jolting wave.
Mexicans here illegally, Mr. Benavidez said, should take a lesson from those days and return home to fight for change in their own country.
"If you're tough enough to cross the desert, you're tough to take on your own government and change it," he said.
Mr. Benavidez has spent most of his adult life working on behalf of the poor. For the last 25 years he has managed the community center and a food bank here on Denver's west side, where low-income families can get groceries. He marched for civil rights in the 1960's and relishes the memory of his first vote for president, for John F. Kennedy, in 1960.
But immigration's tangled implications have pushed him out of his comfortable old political box with its predictably liberal labels and causes. Supporting the poor in America, he said, now means shutting down the system that has created a flood of even poorer immigrants from Mexico.
"It has nothing to do with whether I like Mexicans, or whether I've got one foot in Mexico myself because of my ancestry — I'm an American first," said Mr. Benavidez, 67. "I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, but on this one I've taken a stand because of the impact it has on the working people of this country."
Published on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Today's Immigration Battle
Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
by Thom Hartmann
The corporatist Republicans ("amnesty!") are fighting with the racist Republicans ("fence!"), and it provides an opportunity for progressives to step forward with a clear solution to the immigration problem facing America.
Both the corporatists and the racists are fond of the mantra, "There are some jobs Americans won't do." It's a lie.
Americans will do virtually any job if they're paid a decent wage. This isn't about immigration - it's about economics. Industry and agriculture won't collapse without illegal labor, but the middle class is being crushed by it.
The reason why thirty years ago United Farm Workers' Union (UFW) founder César Chávez fought against illegal immigration, and the UFW turned in illegals during his tenure as president, was because Chávez, like progressives since the 1870s, understood the simple reality that labor rises and falls in price as a function of availability.
Everything I have read about AZ and OK about their laws and the "NEED" for more workers, labor shortages, is coming from only a few businesses (those catering to the 'Illegal Aliens') and the chamber of commerce. Only a few State Senate or House members are agreeing with them. The laws are having the desired effects and most citizens in those states are very happy as wages are increasing and jobs have become more obtainable.
Still, the Governments of these foreign aliens are also to blame. Mexico, as an example, has done nothing to improve its infrastructure to accommodate for its people, all of its people. There Government is just as corrupt as ours, they use the 'Illegal Aliens' as a source of income for their economy.
Business owners should be held accountable for the influx of the 'Illegal Aliens', the farmers have an unmonitored amount of H-2A visas, yet only 75,000 were applied for last year. Only 2% of Americas farmers used the H-2A visa program. I say we bring out all the 'Illegal Aliens' and give them the H-2A visa, force the farmers to hire them in accordance to the H-2A requirements, and then at the end of the time of the visa the farmers send them home and get the next bunch when needed.
As for the shortage of labor in certain industries such as the IT world, there are numerous out of work American citizens with these credentials, its just that the businesses are in only a few areas of the country while the people live throughout. The other problem is look at Microsoft now buying up Yahoo. You can bet there are going to be more layoffs at Yahoo due to this, placing more IT workers in the unemployment lines. I don't see where we need more immigrants coming in to our country, I can see where we could use less of certain types and more of other types of visa immigrants. Then again, too, not all want residency or citizenship from us, only work to build what they need in there countries of origin to better there future life there.
Illegals Begin Leaving Arizona as New Law Approaches
Who says the laws are having an undesired effect? Isn't this also going to be considered 'compassionate deportation'?
Just as long as our corrupt government and the illegals are in cohoots that takes the moral responsibiblity to the American people out of it?
Since when do undocumented-immigrants decide U.S. policy? Cohoots? You act as if they go to Washington and meet with Congress.
Good, if they are marching in their own countries, that is where they should be marching, not here!
They weren't the only ones participating, in fact, IIRC, they weren't even close to the majority, and they definitely didn't organize the marches.
Some are actually leaving and yes some are moving to states that haven't enacted these laws yet but it is only a matter of time before they do.
And then have to rescind them later?
No, my bank robbery analogy was not ridiculous. All parties are guilty, you just want to give the illegals a pass.
And you want to give yourself a pass.
Plese don't include our corrupt government and the greedy employers in with us in the same sentence.
Why not? U.S. foreign policy favors US over everyone else - and we keep voting like-minded politicians over and over again. Increased profits benefit us because they lower prices - and we keep forgiving greed over and over again. So don't try to absolve yourself because you falsely believe that you haven't benefited from U.S. policy or greedy businesses.
The Oklahoma and Arizona laws are working exactly as intended.
schools are less crowded so citizens get better education
severe shortage of unskilled labor so unskilled citizens seeing wage increases
Yes there are some businesses that are complaining. They should be complaining - profits are down since they have to pay a living wage to unskilled citizens now.
Who the heck cares about businesses complaining?
When child labor was made illegal in this country, you can bet the same businesses screamed bloody murder that they were cut off from their cheapest labor source.
Businesses will complain any time you do something that enhances the public well being. Get used to it.
The laws are overwhelmingly popular in Arizona and Oklahoma among the unskilled us citizens who are seeing higher wages
___
Americans will do virtually any job if they're paid a decent wage.
____
What part of the above statement, from common dreams, don't you understand? Read it a few times and figure it out
In tems of chain migration,
it is very simple.
Go do an honest one on one discussion with a few of the fine undocumented folks that we have living in America. Ask them if they were made in to citizens whether they would vote for a candidate that promised to allow them to bring their entire extended family to the USA legally.
Then ask them how many people are in their extended family back in the home country.
Pull out your calculator.
it comes out to at least 100 million people, 100 million people on the "wish list" of the undocumented folks now in the usa.
They are especially interested in getting the little kids (nieces and nephews etc) in to the usa to take advantage of the fine free public education here
Again, if amnesty for the fine upstanding good undocumented people in the usa today leads to politicians that pledge to bring in more than 100 million family members.
That's why even if you think America can absorb these undocumented folks now in the USA, even if you are sure that they in and of themselves don't reduce the quality of life here, you STILL should be in favor of them leaving the USA.
You can't sign up to just accept these 12 million (or is it 20 million) That's not a deal that it is possible to have. It is a package deal. If you accept these 12 (20?) you get 100 million more as part of the package
Don't take my word for it, go interview a bunch of these fine undocumented folks, interview the social workers that work with them, interview the teachers that teach their kids, interview their pastors. No one hides the fact that citizenship for the undocumented now in the USA means an immediate push for them to bring extended families in to the USA.
Wake up and smell the coffee
Well, aside from the completely false 100 million claim, the other major problem with your argument is that you automatically assume that that type of chain migration would be approved in a "pro" style immigration reform bill.
A couple things on the 100 million claim; (1) Latin-Americas countries are not so bad, and more importantly, the U.S. is not so great that EVERYONE WANTS to leave and come over here; (2) most close family members of undocumented-immigrants are already here, for example, most of their children are U.S. born citizens; (3) 100 million is about 20% of the entire population of the Western Hemisphere minus the U.S. and Canada, that's including high-population countries like Brazil (190 million), Columbia (44 million), Argentina (40 million), and Venezuela and Peru (26+ million) that make up a small percentage of the immigrant population in the U.S., most is from Mexico (108 million), and the next biggest group, IIRC, is from Central America (40 million), so, if you believe that 100 million would follow through chain migration you would have to believe that the majority of people from Mexico and Central-America would basically empty their countries and emigrate to the U.S. That's not going to happen.
Mirror,
I think you are too focused on our fine friends from Mexico.
The population of undocumented folks here in the USA includes plenty of people from China, just to name an example.
Shift your attention to the two billion people living in poverty all over the world, and it is not hard to understand what is in store for the USA
No one will claim 100 million new immigrants from Mexico will show up here, but when you add up all the poor countries that have sent some undocumented folks to the USA, 100 million is certainly in the cards
Again, that's only assuming that that type of chain migration would be approved, it might be pushed for in pro-style immigration reform, but it doesn't meant that it would be in the final passed legislation.
Everyone thinks it's going to be like the 86 bill, I really doubt that, I think it's going to be much more conservative.
Anyway, yes, China's population is huge, but how many have relatives in the U.S.? How many of those would want to come over here? Keep in mind that China has a HUGE middle-class population that is growing at never before seen paces. Yeah, the world's population living in poverty is also huge, but, again, how many have relatives in the U.S.?
I'm focused on the countries' of the majority of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., because they would be the ones who could take advantage of chain migration policies.
mirror, the last CIR bill they tried to shove down our throats was worded so that massive chain immigration could occur. You are not dealing in reality if you don't think that if that bill had passed that our population wouldn't have increase immensely from chain migration.
I wasn't implying that the illegals have a voice in our government by saying that they are in cohoots with our corrupt govennment. What I meant is that our government hasn't secured our borders and the illegals are taking advantage of that. As I asked, where is the moral obligation to the American citizen by either of them and for that matter where is the morality on the part of the employer?
I never said that it was only the illegals that were marching either. I know there were Americans of like ethnicity marching too. I never said that the illegals organized the marches either. But the fact remains that the illegals that were marching in our streets should have been marching in their own countries, not here!
Rescind laws that will give America back to Americans? I don't think so, at least not on a grand scale anyway. Why would you want that anyway?
How am I giving myself a pass on my bank robber analogy? I am neither the bank robber, the banker or driving the getaway car.
As I said, most Americans do not want this chaos of illegal immigration. It was forced upon us by our government not securing our borders and not enforcing our immigration laws. Don't tell me how we keep voting some idiot politicians into office. You know damn well that are choices are limited (as in McCain now) or the liberals such as Hillary and Obama who all want to give these illegals amnesty and keep the borders open. Most all politiicans make empty promises and then we vote for them and they stab us in the back. Schwartznegger made many promises he didn't keep either. He is just one example. I don't think most who voted for Bush would have thought he would turn out to be a loser, back-stabbing president either but he did.
I don't know of any law abiding American with morals who wants cheap prices thru illegality or places greed in high esteem. You are off your rocker if you think that much of the profit from cheap illegal labor is passed on to the consumer. The employers are just pocketing the profit. Stop trying to blame Americans for this mess. The blame belongs on our government, the employers AND THE ILLEGALS!
I have a suggestion for all the people talking about how much they love the cheap prices caused by the undocumented -
if you want access to a cheap workforce, why bring them to the usa. instead why dont you just move to a country where labor is cheap
i mean there are plenty of places in the world where you can hire a maid for a dollar a day and a butler for two bucks a day and probably get fresh fruit cheap as all heck . pls go to those places
pls can we have a usa with middle class wages, middle class prices.
if you need access to cheap labor to make you happy pls go elsewhere
Anon,
I have no complaint with what Waldo Benadvidez said in 2006. He has a right to his opinions.
He is saying what many of us are saying. The root cause for the Immigration issues are economic. Those responsible are Big Business and the Administration.
Where I disagree with him, even though I support his right to say this, where I disagree is his demonization of those who marched. At the time, I did not understand the motivation of the marchers or those angry at the marchers. Their motivation was their opposition to the Sensenbrenner Bill which imposed restrictionist laws similar to what we are seeing in OK and penalities for anyone who gives a ride or allows one of the 12M in their proximity (eg. church, car, house, etc.) Where I also disagree with him is his saying the marchers were all illegal immigrants. Studies have proven that the majority were citizens.
It does not good to demonize the alternate view. Marchers had a right to march and voice their opinions.
BTW, Waldo looks a little like my Dad did when my Dad was in this 60´s.
Mirror, Thank you for your help with the Chain Migration question. It is nice to hear another logical voice when these issues are raised. I totally agree with your response to the inflated 100million question.
Also, I think it is interesting that Anon and Pat continually talk about Latin countries then when asked for stats then they say, well that includes the rest of the world too.
Liquid,
Thanks for the AZ article. I am going to use it for a new blog.
"Where I also disagree with him is his saying the marchers were all illegal immigrants. Studies have proven that the majority were citizens.
It does not good to demonize the alternate view. Marchers had a right to march and voice their opinions.
Of course, to some this is even worse -- American citizens agitating for foreigners not for their fellow citizens and America.
So if we can settle on definitions of chain immigrations etc. how many would be willing pony up the money for an unbiased poll or survey? How much would it cost to make thousands of telephone calls or hire Rasmussen or other pollsters to do it?
"The questions are always swayed or biased."
I agree that they either are biased or totally inadequate in the choices given. What unbiased questions would you specifically ask to elicit a reliable and adequate response?
On chain immigrations how would you like the following question and multiple choice answers?
Chain immigration is generally understood to be a procedure by which immigrants can by-pass the usual immigration rules to bring in a host of immediate relative once they themselves have secure legal status.
Which one of the following would you favor?
1. End all chain immigrations.
2. Allow chain immigrations to continue under the present rules regardless of the numbers involved.
3. Require immigrant applicants to specify in advance the family members they wish to have considered for chain immigration.
4. Require families to apply as a unit or group so the total number can be considered against the overall quota.
On increased legal immigration:
The U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants each year. As a consequence of those legal immigrants, the illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates the U.S. population will double again by the end of this century. One obvious result of this will be a decline in the amount finite natural resources that will be available to everyone on a per capita basis. Based on this which of the following choices would you favor:
1. Stabilize our population by reducing legal immigration to no more than 200,000 per year.
2. Study how to bring our economy into a soft landing with a stable population.
3. Secure the borders.
4. Identify, apprehend, detain and deport on a gradual systematic basis illegal aliens in our midst.
5. Grant amnesty, defined as mass legalization of all illegal aliens in this country.
6. Reduce the number of different kinds of visas and develop a system for tracking and deporting visa overstays.
7. Deny admission to the U.S. of any foreign women who are pregnant.
8. Require for birthright citizenship that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen.
9. Delay the award of birthright citizenship until the child reaches his or her majority.
10. Establish a string of obstetrical and triage hospitals on the other side of the borders and transport any patients who arrive at the border to one of these hospital with joint construction funding by the U.S. and its neighbors and staffing by the country involved.
11. Rapid improvements in border infrastructure and roads to facilitate apprehension of border violators.
12. Jail time for employers who hire knowingly or unknowingly illegal aliens.
13. Re-advertise all jobs held by illegal aliens to determine which can be filled with citizen labor if offered a living wage as determined by local unions and the Dept. of Labor.
14. Grant a temporary work permit to illegals who survive the re-advertising process and who can pass a medical exam and background check.
15. Require a biometric ID card from everyone who enters the U.S. and anyone who seeks employment.
16. Provide for temporary migrant farm workers.
Did I cover the waterfront?
Ulty,
your effort is noble
you have the best wishes of every honest person in your efforts to seek the truth.
By the way, the issue of unskilled immigration is *not* only about latin americans. Anyone, pro, anti or in between that makes it out to be all about latin america is a little misguided.
There are actually plenty of groups of immigrants to the USA that do worse - much worse - in the USA than folks from latin america.
For example, the hmong have been in america for 30 years and on all measures of social problems are doing worse than folks from latin america.
This isn't a latin american issue. It is an issue that applies more broadly
I have a question for the pros on this board.
If you, the pros, carefully surveyed the 12 million undocumented that are in the USA today, and asked them the following question:
"Assume there is CIR and you eventually become a US citizen. Assume that you are given the opportunity to vote for a candidate that will change the law to allow you to bring every single one of your relatives in to the USA. Will you vote for that candidate?"
I will stick my neck out and predict that almost all the people who are undocumented and are in the USA will vote for such a candidate
I guess i would ask all the folks on this board - am i accurate in my prediction here ?
Patriot, just because they had chain migration on the proposed bill doesn't mean it would be on the passed bill. The Senate and the House negotiate, give and take, they could have taken that out - we'll never know.
Some of those laws have already been rescinded, mostly because of financial reasons.
McCain wasn't the only choice, there was Romney, Paul, Thompson, etc. that didn't agree with McCain on immigration. But what happened? McCain won state after state against those guys.
Ultima, why do you say choose one? A lot of those choices can be combined...
1.) 200,000 is not a realistic number - I think it's even less than the current number.
2.) That's a good idea... It'll probably mean scrap the current system.
3.) Good idea.
4.) It's within our laws if we really want to.
5.) NOBODY wants this.
6.) This isn't realistic.
7.) Wouldn't customs agents need to be equipped with pregnancy testss? LOL, right beside their guns. Besides, this is inhumane and violates a women's right to privacy.
8.) This is an option I guess... Could get messy if no other country wishes to claim the child.
9.) I don't understand this one. Majority?
10.) Mexico would appreciate this..
11.) Good idea.
12.) There would probably have to be limits for this... Wouldn't want John Doe arrested because he hired someone from Home Depot to mow his lawn. But those at Tyson Farms and the like? Yes.
13.) Isn't that what they define minimum wage as?
14.) This is much better than #5.
15.) A little too Big Brother for me, but it seems to be on its way for everyone.
16.) Where we can all agree on; we don't want to pick our own fruits and vegetables.
Who says they'll become U.S. citizens with voting rights if they're legalized? They could have just been given the right to live and work here with freedom to go back and forth between their countries coupled with an option of becoming a U.S. citizen if certain criteria are met.
Just an FYI: A significant number of immigrants have been forced to bring in their families, illegally, because the option to keep them over there -sending them money and visiting whenever possible-, is too expensive, risky or impossible.
Another: A significant amount of legal immigrants when given the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen do not take it; believe it or not, some do not want to die here.
What pushes the "amnesty = liberals forever" thought is the belief that their children would vote democrat, not the immigrants themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if a higher percentage of naturalized (?) U.S. citizens vote republican than Hispanic-Americans. I know Cuban-Americans vote mostly republican.
In the end most people vote for those who promise to fulfill their wishes, no matter what those wishes are.
mirror, well that is one of the biggest reasons why Americans didn't want that bill as it was...chain migration. No one wanted to gamble on it being left in the bill.
As I said, rescinding bills to deter illegal immigration wouldn't happpen on a grand scale. One or two states doesn't prove anything.
Yes, McCain did win but there were numerous reasons why he did and those who were tougher on immigration didn't lose because of that.
Getting on to Ultima's post.
1. Agreed. We need to reduce the 1,000,000 currently allowed in legally every year. I think you and I agree on the reasons why.
2.I think with the SAVE ACT put into place over a 4 year period it will give our economy a soft landing.
3.Absolutely secure our borders by any means possible.
4.After the 4 year period of the implementation of the SAVE ACT, absolutely detain and deport those who refuse to leave as detected.
5.Mass amnesty? Not on your life!
6.Depends on what the visas are for and if the worker is needed. Yes, we should track visa holders and make sure they leave when they are supposed to.
7.Not necessary if we reinterpret the 14th Amendment as it should be. A child born on this soil cannot be an instant citizen unless one parent is a citizen. Costs of the birth will be passed on to the citizen parent.
8. See above.
9. Hmm, not sure about this one. If the law says the child is a citizen if one parent is a citizen then I see no reason to delay his/her citizenship.
10. Sounds like a possible plan. At any rate, the costs of the birth should be passed on to the mother's homeland.
11. Yes! Secure the borders by any means necessary including a physcial barrier such as the double fence.
12. Yes! jail/prison time for employers who hire illegals with any second violations they lose their license to do business anywhere.
13. Yup, advertise these vacated jobs to Americans at a fair wage. It is the only way we can realistically know what our foreign labor needs actually are but we still need to keep population stabilization in mind too.
14. I am all for temporary work visas for jobs Americans won't or can't do but I still believe that the illegals already here should go home and wait their turn in line first.
15. I am good for a national I.D. card.
16. Yes. We know we need legal foreign agricultural workers but also more automation should be a viable option.
I only have one thing to add to the list and that is:
17. Make English our official language as part of any immigration bill. This will encourage immigrants to learn English and assimilate and will give Americans a piece of their heritage as "official" and we won't have to print government documents in any other language than English.
I think the comments above are perceptive.
May i ask the pros on this board for a direct blunt answer -
If you, the pros, carefully surveyed the 12 million undocumented that are in the USA today, and asked them the following question:
"Assume there is CIR and you eventually become a US citizen. Assume that you are given the opportunity to vote for a candidate that will change the law to allow you to bring every single one of your relatives in to the USA. Will you vote for that candidate?"
I really want to know, if you survey the undocumented TODAY, how you the pros think they will answer this question.
Of course, you are welcome to argue that this question doesn't matter since they undocumented could be legalized but somehow not become citizens, or that they could be assimilated to the point that they in the future stop wanting to bring their relatives over. But pls answer the question as i asked it
Ultima,
Not agitating. They were expressing their views. Freedom of Speech, remember!
They were marching to voice their disagreement with the Sensennbrenner Bill.
I hope you are not advocating a military state and stopping Freedom of Speech.
Ulty,
I would ask the question straight out:
1. Do you advocate Mass Deportation of 12M illegal immigrants?
2. Do you support the racial profiling which occurs when restrictionist immigration laws are imposed such as in Oklahoma and Arizona?
I wonder what approval rating you would get on the real questions.
Ulty,
Here are my responses to your questions:
1. No. Legal Immigration should stay at current rate.
2.Yes to the first half. We need to bring our greatest minds together to solve the Economic crisis we are facing.
3.Yes. Secure the border with trained BP Agents.
4.No. I do not support Detention Centers and I believe we should bring the 12M out of the shadows. Those felonious criminals should be immediately deported.
5.Not amnesty. Bring the 12M out of the shadows and those felony free be registered in a Guest Worker program and be allowed, if they choose, to go to the back of the line and start the citizenship process.
6.I agree to an Immigration Visa overhaul and an improved Tracking system.
7.Deny admission of any pregnant visitors? Very odd. I suppose when Prince Harry gets married and his wife pregnant, you will deny her entry. I guess you do not believe in tourism. Or, is that only pregnant tourists from Latin countries that you oppose.
8.Jus Soli – I don´t agree to a change, however, if the Congress agrees to it at some future date, I agree to follow the law.
9.Delay the award? No. If Congress passes a bill, then we would abide by the law. This delay makes no sense.
10.I think we should have Universal Healthcare here and they should have it in Mexico, as they have it in Canada. Hospitals should be available on both sides of the border.
11.Yes. Trained Border Patrol agents with the associated technology should be available.
12.Yes. Employer Sanctions including jail time and putting them out of business especially when they exploit workers.
13.Yes. Readvertise jobs, etc.
14.Yes. Guest Worker programs and Work Permits should be available.
15.Yes. I agree to enhanced identification programs.
16.Yes. Guest Worker programs especially for AgJobs.
Freedom of speech, dee? Tell that to Janet Murguia. She doesn't believe in it unless it comes from some razas mouth. It is only her opinion that Lou Dobbs and his guests spew "hate speech". There is a lot of truth in what they say. Doesn't matter anyway, we are guaranteed freedom of speech in this country. Such hypocrites on the pro side of the immigration issue. I have never seen Janet try to squelch freedom of speech for those who scream "whitey go back to Europe". Now that IS hate speech.
"1. Do you advocate Mass Deportation of 12M illegal immigrants?
2. Do you support the racial profiling which occurs when restrictionist immigration laws are imposed such as in Oklahoma and Arizona?"
Dee: The questions you suggest above are exactly the kind of questions you indicated would invalidate any survey. They provide no reasonable middle ground for responses and words like "mass deportation", "racial profiling" and "restrictionist" ad hominem terms designed to excited emotions rather than reason.
Don't you think there is a better way to phrase these questions to get at the real feeling of the public? I thought my questions did that by providing more choices but I may also have used some words that suggest the desired responses. I was just trying to phrase them i such a way that there were realistic rather than unrealistic responses available.
The ideas of mass deportation and racial profiling are not reasonable ideas and would not elicit useful responses.
Dee thank you for your comments as follows: "Here are my responses to your questions:
1. No. Legal Immigration should stay at current rate.
1. Why? Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond,
2.Yes to the first half. We need to bring our greatest minds together to solve the Economic crisis we are facing.
2. I wonder what Dr. Borjas would say to the question of a stable population with a soft landing for our economy. Is it possible? What would it take? More is not always better as we all well know.
3.Yes. Secure the border with trained BP Agents.
3. Most reasonable people would be willing to admit that borders cannot be secured solely by more agents and physical improvements. We have to create a disincentive for border violation short of the draconian measures used by the East Germans trying to keep their people from escaping to the West. How would you create these disincentives? I think the only way is to have a repatriation program so that a significant percentage of the illegals are invited to leave on a regular basis. They wouldn't want to waste their time coming here and making that arduous journey only to be quickly expelled.
4.No. I do not support Detention Centers and I believe we should bring the 12M out of the shadows. Those felonious criminals should be immediately deported.
Without the facilities to handle the illegals what you propose is basically an amnesty -- they get to stay and work. I don't believe in lengthy detention of families and would give they the option of immediate involuntary return to their countries of origin. The real criminals won't be bothered by deportation; they'll be back the next day and take whatever risks are involved to continue their nefarious activities. Their expulsion, however ineffective it might be is a given, provided we can find a way to sort them out from others who deserve better treatment than common criminals.
5.Not amnesty. Bring the 12M out of the shadows and those felony free be registered in a Guest Worker program and be allowed, if they choose, to go to the back of the line and start the citizenship process."
We have to agree on a definition of amnesty. Almost everyone agrees the illegals should not be granted amnesty. Technically any penalty, even if it is a slap on the wrist, means it is not amnesty. That is not a useful or commonly understood definition. We should all agree that if they are allowed to stay and work regardless of any penalties that might be imposed, that is amnesty. Once we agree on that then we can get on with a discussion of the substance of the matter.
I am troubled by a pathway to citizenship for anyone of any ethnic origin who has entered this country illegally. I believe even if they qualify for some program that grants them a work permit they should never be allowed to become citizens. That is is a real penalty in my judgment. Moreover, many are not really interested beyond becoming free of the threat of deportation. Why deal with the hassle of citizenship if you can enjoy most of the benefits without doing that?
6.I agree to an Immigration Visa overhaul and an improved Tracking system.
7.Deny admission of any pregnant visitors? Very odd. I suppose when Prince Harry gets married and his wife pregnant, you will deny her entry. I guess you do not believe in tourism. Or, is that only pregnant tourists from Latin countries that you oppose.
I believe in tourism but not for pregnant women who seek to confer birthright citizenship on their offspring. In fact, I believe it is already against the law for tourists to come here with that purpose in mind. The only way you can stop it is by prohibiting pregnant women from visiting the U.S. or changing the 14th amendment. I make no exceptions for Prince Harry or anyone else regardless of ethnicity. Our laws have to be fair to all. Sorry Harry. Better luck next time.
8.Jus Soli – I don´t agree to a change, however, if the Congress agrees to it at some future date, I agree to follow the law.
As we all must. But I obviously seek a change whereas you do not.
9.Delay the award? No. If Congress passes a bill, then we would abide by the law. This delay makes no sense.
Actually, I thought this was a wonderful idea. What does an infant know about citizenship? Besides this would then defuse the argument about family separations based on minor children with birthright citizenship. I would even say even though you are eligible for citizenship when achieve your majority you must demonstrate the same knowledge as a newcomer applying for naturalization. I can't imagine why anyone would object to have an informed citizenry when it comes to civics and related matters concerning our country.
Mirror said, "McCain wasn't the only choice, there was Romney, Paul, Thompson, etc. that didn't agree with McCain on immigration. But what happened? McCain won state after state against those guys."
It wasn't as though immigration was the only issue or even the most important one with an economic downturn in the wind and the Iraqi war still going on. Thompson's campaign never got off the ground because he didn't seem much interested in it himself -- a little like Giuliani. Romney had a flip flop problem but, I am proud to say, won handily in my state of Colorado. You have to admire Ron Paul. I'm sure he understood that his campaign would never work either because his views were to different for people to comprehend and evaluate. Yet some of them had substantial merits. All the candidates were walking on eggs on the immigration issue because the Hispanic vote may well be the deciding factor if other voters split down the middle. I believe most of the candidates remarks about immigration were designed to obfuscate the issue rather than explain it. They wanted the American people to believe whatever they already believed -- typical politicians.
As a result, I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions from the McCain victories except that he is a legitimate American hero, is not wet behind the ears, knows something about war and foreign affairs and benefited from the negatives attached to the other candidates. There was a common understanding that none of the Republican candidates aroused much enthusiasm among the party faithful.
"1.) 200,000 is not a realistic number - I think it's even less than the current number."
Yes, it is definitely less than the current number but it is the number needed to stabilize our population and allow our natural resources to last a little longer. I believe the number we admit should be based on our needs not on the wants of the world's immigrant desires.
I don't believe we should immediately reduce the number to 200,000 but I do believe we should begin. More is not better.
"7.) Wouldn't customs agents need to be equipped with pregnancy testss? LOL, right beside their guns. Besides, this is inhumane and violates a women's right to privacy."
Yep, heck if athletes need urine tests surely foreigners can expect no less. Nothing inhumane about it. It's a simple noninvasive test utterly painless. Do athletes have a right to privacy? Druggies? Fortunately, we have a simple and accurate test available. All of this would be unnecessary with a simple change in the 14th amendment.
"8.) This is an option I guess... Could get messy if no other country wishes to claim the child.
9.) I don't understand this one. Majority?
10.) Mexico would appreciate this.."
8. We don't give them an option. We simply issue a birth certificate indicating the country of origin of the parents as the citizenship of the child.
9. Majority used to refer to that point at which a person became eligible to enter into legal contracts,etc., generally refers to the age of 21. However, I believe that anyone who enlists in the armed services for 4 years at age 18 should also be entitled. Perhaps I am wrong about the age of 21 since folks can now vote at age 18 no matter how wet behind the ears they are.
"13.) Isn't that what they define minimum wage as?
14.) This is much better than #5."
I don't think so. The minimum wage is just whatever congress says is the minimum wage. A living wage might have to be developed based on a procedure for adjusting historical wages upward for inflation from the time when the jobs were in fact held by citizens. The Labor Dept is good with statistics like this and unions should have an input too. The downside of this proposal is the possibility that more jobs will be outsourced if the wage is too high to allow American products to be competitive. This should not affect jobs in construction.
"Who says they'll become U.S. citizens with voting rights if they're legalized? They could have just been given the right to live and work here with freedom to go back and forth between their countries coupled with an option of becoming a U.S. citizen if certain criteria are met."
I think I agree with you on this one. Their main interest is in being allowed to stay and work here without the threat of deportation. I would add I do not advocate a pathway to citizenship ever for anyone who entered the country illegally. There may be exceptions that should be considered such as those who entered as children but who later served honorably in the armed forces for not less than 4 years. Those folks would deserve a pathway to citizenship facilitated by the military while they are serving.
"Not agitating. They were expressing their views. Freedom of Speech, remember!
They were marching to voice their disagreement with the Sensennbrenner Bill.
I hope you are not advocating a military state and stopping Freedom of Speech."
No, I am not for abrogating freedom of speech but it seems a little strange for American citizens to be favoring foreigners. It would be like German Americans demonstrating in favor of the Third Reich or the Nazis.
There is a fine line between freedom of speech and sedition.
You know Ulty, I agree with you and Mirror. I think there are a significant number of newer illegal immigrants who do not want citizenship and would be satisfied with Guest Worker status. They would be willing to go back home every year.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. border officers found a wire between two fences along the U.S.-Mexican border that, when stretched taut, could have seriously harmed or even decapitated Border Patrol agents, Congress was told Wednesday.
The wire was about 4 feet high when pulled tight, or about neck level for an agent on an ATV, officials say.
"It was configured in a way so that, if it was pulled, it would take off the head of a Border Patrol agent riding in an open car," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said at a House budget hearing.
The wire was discovered Saturday when authorities monitoring a surveillance camera saw two people on the north side of the border east of the San Ysidro Port of Entry, in the San Diego sector.
Border Patrol agents sent to the area found a thick metal wire tied to a secondary fence.
The wire stretched across the border road and led into Mexico through a hole in the primary fence, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
When pulled tight, the wire would be about 4 feet high -- about neck level for an agent riding on an all-terrain vehicle, CBP said.
Post a Comment