News Should Mexicans Focus on Improving Mexico Instead of Immigrating Illegally?

[Ivan Seeking]

I completely support criminalizing illegals. The first job of any government is to secure the borders. Our government betrays us in the interest of cheap labor for profit.

I have an idea, how about if Mexicans try to fix Mexico instead of coming here illegally and demanding rights.

By the way, illegals don't have any rights.

 

[tuco]

I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners. - http://www.nationalvanguard.org/index.php

We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race. - http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3765
--

everyone has right to have opinion.

personally, i find it amusing that descendants of immigrants want to criminalize immigrants, who are now called illegal but xyz years ago there was no such a thing, but .. to each his own.

btw illegals have human rights as every other human being.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was talking about constitutional rights and the right to a voice in the US system. And we have never allowed unchecked immigration. My ancestors came here legally.

You are confusing legal immigration with an illegal free-for-all.

 

[tuco]

oh did they? i thought Euros came, killed some natives, fooled others with "firewater", move the rest to reservation and then invented constitutional rights and illegals. but don't mind me, I am never to be taken seriously.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was before the US even existed as a nation with a Constitution. As for the plight of native Americans, I am the first to agree that they were treated horribly and unjustly. But that doesn't change a thing.

 

[Moonbear]

personally, i find it amusing that descendants of immigrants want to criminalize immigrants, who are now called illegal but xyz years ago there was no such a thing, but .. to each his own.

The issue is not about criminalizing immigrants, it is about criminalizing illegal immigrants, those who snuck across the border without any of the usual process and checks that legal immigrants need to adhere to. Nobody is saying to kick out those who are coming into the country on temporary work visas, or student visas (both of which are non-immigrant visas, because they are temporary), or with an immigrant visa that permits them to establish permanent residency.

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html

If you are here illegally, you aren't going to have a social security number (unless you've committed identity theft and are using someone else's social security number, which is yet another crime...sure, you may be paying your taxes with it, but what other debts and obligations are you accruing in someone else's name?), which means you aren't paying taxes, even if you've found work.

Unfortunately, it seems all too common, even in the media reports of this issue, that the distinction between a legal immigrant or even a legal non-immigrant on temporary visa status is confused for that of illegal immigrants.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, in my particular case, my great-grandfather immigrated here legally from Finland. I am not aware of any Finnish invaders claiming the Americas.

You should see what the illegals have done to my original home in LA. It is like day and night. They have turned the place into a ghetto.

I once has a serious relationship with a Mexican girl who immigrated here legally. She also had a real problem with illegals.

And what of the many criminals who flee Mexico and come here to escape prosecution. Should they also have rights?

 

[tuco]

:)

im stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

"while there is a soul in prison I am not free" kinda thing you know ..

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

i won't argue silly here but i do know the difference between illegal alien, immigrant, nonimmigrant, resident and citizen, quite well.

 

[SOS2008]

Now you know not to get me started on this. Not long ago a program aired, I think on PBS about the history of migrant workers (now referred to as illegal aliens). In those days the borders were controlled with ease. The hiring laws were enforced. The migrant workers were monitored and limited--primarily to agriculture, which is seasonal. During the depression, the flow was shut off, and those who were here illegally were made to leave. Many Americans took agricultural work to get through the hard times. One of my professors said he picked and processed olives as a boy.

Things went from bad to worse when the Smirking Chimp broadcasted the word "amnesty" and millions began to flood across the border beyond control. The religious-right among Hispanics helped him to get reelected. It helped his Big Business buddies too.

With the recession that began in 2001, and the unemployment so high, how can anyone claim Americans don't want to work? I predict that if the minimum wage (which is now equivalent to the minimum wage in 1966 in real dollars) was raised to proper levels, and businesses were forced to pay fair wages (and taxes, benefits, etc.), Americans would be taking these jobs left and right. Construction, hospitality, restaurants--certainly college students or spouses seeking supplemental income. And of course many illegals learn English and move on to even better jobs.

This winter season was the worse for the flu that I've seen in my life time. Most people were sick multiple times. It is believed that it is due to new strains being brought over the border. The gang violence in border states has escalated as well, and some members who have been deported several times (at the tax payer expense) simply return time and again. People say making illegal entry a felony would only increase our prison populations--look at the percentages and see how many illegals are already there.

The protests this last weekend were despicable--many were illegal, some were draped in the Mexican flag. These protests were backed by foreign government, most notably Mexico, which ran adds in U.S. newspapers advocating guest worker programs. You don't really think something like this could be organized among poor uneducated people without powerful backing--maybe certain businesses, maybe even certain Republicans who hope to make this a wedge issue in 2006 the same way as terrorism and same sex marriage has been used in elections before?

I agree that racial conflict needs to be avoided, but Bush is full of s**t stating that millions of unchecked illegals are contributing positively to our economy, and that their insistence on speaking Spanish is not undermining our national identity. Those of us in border states have seen this the longest and the hardest. I know some people who have moved to other states in part to escape the assault. Shrub better tell Fox to get his own house in order, or he's not welcome back either.

We need a wall constructed (adding more border control officers will nickel and dime the system with no real effectiveness). We need to require employers to not only collect ID for the I-9 form, but verify the ID, and then report when the ID is fake--this definitely should be a felony. With a wall we can just buss them to the other side and save on plane tickets or prison.

Look at how many liberals feel as I do. It tells you something. And perhaps it could be an issue to reunite America--Republican and Democratic voters unite! Where are the organizations and backing for us to take the streets? Where?

 

[SOS2008]

:)im stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

"while there is a soul in prison I am not free" kinda thing you know ..

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

i won't argue silly here but i do know the difference between illegal alien, immigrant, nonimmigrant, resident and citizen, quite well.

Riiight. There should be no borders, no walls or fences around yards, no locks on doors, no personal possessions, because it is my 'right' to take what I feel is my share however I choose.

We are not talking about human rights here. In fact, if you want to harp on that you should be against big business and corrupt elites in countries like Mexico who exploit these people for their own gain. It is not the American tax payers who are responsible to rectify the matter by having their standard of living pulled down to the same level as exists in Mexico.

As for my ancestors, they immigrated legally. Look at the old photos from Ellis Island. These people were proud to become American, to learn the language (English), and built this country to the greatness it is today. And don't start up with the Native American Indian spiel either. They along with all the other legal citizens (including Mexicans who lived here and were given automatic citizenship) and naturalized citizens are welcome, and free to pursue the American Dream.

And don't start up with the racism and bigotry, and why we don't have the same concern about our border with Canada. Millions of illegals are flooding across our southern borders, bringing disease, increasing crime, and bankrupting public services, that's why. This is NOT immigration. It is an invasion.

 

[loseyourname]

as i said everyone is free to have her/his own opinon so i don't get why you seem to have the need to defend your opinion against mine. do you have the need?

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position.

 

[Art]

I'd have thought mexicans flooding into California and Texas would be more accurately described as a homecoming rather than an invasion.

 

[BobG]

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html

If you are here illegally, you aren't going to have a social security number (unless you've committed identity theft and are using someone else's social security number, which is yet another crime...sure, you may be paying your taxes with it, but what other debts and obligations are you accruing in someone else's name?), which means you aren't paying taxes, even if you've found work.

Unfortunately, it seems all too common, even in the media reports of this issue, that the distinction between a legal immigrant or even a legal non-immigrant on temporary visa status is confused for that of illegal immigrants.

It is common for a social security number to be used by quite a few people, which can occasionally be a problem for the real person the social security number is issued to. Social Security isn't too aggressive in verifying identities for incoming tax revenues, but the illegal using a purloined social security number is guaranteed to receive nothing in return for the social security taxes subtracted from his/her paycheck (in a way, they're fined right off the bat). The Social Security Administration is also less than helpful in resolving stolen social security numbers.

The real problem is illegal immigration (by the way, most illegal immigrants are those that entered legally, but chose not to leave when their visas expired - illegal border crossings are just a small subclass of illegal immigration). Our country should be able to control its borders (and obviously could to a much larger extent since it has immigration records for most illegal immigrants).

The fact that we've chosen to be pretty lackadaisical in controlling illegal immigration presents a different problem. We can't very well afford to deport them when they're filling an economic niche in the economy. If we do control illegal immigration, then we'll also have to increase legal immigration to compensate for the loss of illegal immigrants.

Here's an interesting article on immigration, over all, even if it is over 10 years old. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html#contents

People's opinions on immigration have remained the same regardless of the century or how many immigrants are actually entering the country: "The people who came here in earlier times were good folks, but the people who are coming now are purely scum"

In general, immigrants contribute slightly more economically than they drain via social services. They contribute significantly more if you exclude refugees. People who immigrated at a late age also cost more in welfare, etc - but that's because they didn't have time to accrue any Social Security benefits.

 

[SOS2008]

I'd have thought Mexicans flooding into California and Texas would be more accurately described as a homecoming rather than an invasion.

The Mexicans who were living here at the time of acquisition were allowed to keep their land and were automatically given citizenship. In California, the Mexican population held huge fiesta celebrations. Who's land was taken that needs to be given back? Actually there were Americans who lost land to Mexico, such as my great grandfather. And that goes for Native American Indians too, who likewise enjoy citizenship, and tax exemption for their casinos, ski resorts, etc. as well as subsidies. Everyone needs to join the 21st century and move on.

It is common for a social security number to be used by quite a few people, which can occasionally be a problem for the real person the social security number is issued to. Social Security isn't too aggressive in verifying identities for incoming tax revenues, but the illegal using a purloined social security number is guaranteed to receive nothing in return for the social security taxes subtracted from his/her paycheck (in a way, they're fined right off the bat). The Social Security Administration is also less than helpful in resolving stolen social security numbers.

The real problem is illegal immigration (by the way, most illegal immigrants are those that entered legally, but chose not to leave when their visas expired - illegal border crossings are just a small subclass of illegal immigration). Our country should be able to control its borders (and obviously could to a much larger extent since it has immigration records for most illegal immigrants).

The fact that we've chosen to be pretty lackadaisical in controlling illegal immigration presents a different problem. We can't very well afford to deport them when they're filling an economic niche in the economy. If we do control illegal immigration, then we'll also have to increase legal immigration to compensate for the loss of illegal immigrants.

Here's an interesting article on immigration, over all, even if it is over 10 years old. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html#contents

People's opinions on immigration have remained the same regardless of the century or how many immigrants are actually entering the country: "The people who came here in earlier times were good folks, but the people who are coming now are purely scum"

In general, immigrants contribute slightly more economically than they drain via social services. They contribute significantly more if you exclude refugees. People who immigrated at a late age also cost more in welfare, etc - but that's because they didn't have time to accrue any Social Security benefits.

Do any of us know if we'll receive Social Security benefits? In the meantime, the problem is the immense numbers entering in a compressed time frame (millions a year), and the strain it has therefore placed on tax supported services. We can't sustain that kind of volume. You can look at the numbers various ways, but most agree that when it is all tallied up, we are running a deficit.

One area that will likely begin lay-offs is the housing industry (construction). And if we continue buying more and more goods from overseas, including produce (as Bush said while in India, Americans want to eat your mangos), then what niche will be left for these people? Come on, we know Americans would be happy to take many jobs if they are paid fair wages.

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all.

 

[moose]

Illegals are quite a problem over here :/ Most people in Airzona agree that it's one of the weakest points of this administration/government...

One thing I hate more than the illegals is that people who do not understand nor speak english get a job before me because of AA. That is a different matter entirely though...

 

[tuco]

This post contained a lewd remark that has been edited out by Tom Mattson.

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position. - loseyourname

dont you say? :)

so what is your point? that i should defend my opinion with arguments? or you were merely answering my rethorical question?

if its the later one, then thank you for explaining it to me the idiot, and if its the former one i will say this. i will not argue silly what are nothing more than biased opinions of seasoned american posters on this board, even if their opinions are supported by quasi-arguments in favour of criminalizing illegal aliens.

what shall i produce here? conclusive proof that everyone should have right to travel, work and settle freely? and what shall i argue here? that illegal aliens are bad for US citizens?

you see, this stuff is matter of opinion or better yet, a matter of system of beliefs. one believes that fairness and equality is "good" and another one believes that maximizing profit is "good". since in open society nobody is in possession of ultimate truth, it then follows, this issue cannot be decided objectively.

sociology or economy are not hard sciencies like math or physics, where there's little room for opinions. sure, most or even vast majority would probably agree that illegal aliens are bad simply because they make americans poorer. and i ask. how do we know that richer but consumer society is "better" than poorer but equal society for example? once there was time when majority thought it was ok to discriminate jews. were they right because they were in majority?

define better? define good? define bad? see what i mean? this stuff nothing like Pythagorean Theorem or speed of light in vacuum.If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally. - Moonbear

i have my SS number in front of me and i have my NYC driving license in front of me at this very moment. i was never nothing more than illegal alien. ;)

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all. - SOS2008

perhaps a closer look at Sweden, UK or Ireland would shed little more light on this argument. labour markets of these coutnries opened themselves to workers from new EU member states some time ago, unlike Germany, France or Spain and the rest of old EU members and what happened? nada .. no invasion .. no friggin' all. surprise surprise!

still not an opinion poll? id even say its uneducated opinion poll, but then again, I am an idiot..

 

[loseyourname]

This is a discussion forum, not an opinion poll. The whole point is to make arguments and defend your position. - loseyourname

dont you say? :)

so what is your point? that i should defend my opinion with arguments? or you were merely answering my rethorical question?

if its the later one, then thank you for explaining it to me the idiot, and if its the former one i will say this. i will not argue silly what are nothing more than biased opinions of seasoned american posters on this board, even if their opinions are supported by quasi-arguments in favour of criminalizing illegal aliens.

You asked why people felt the need to defend their opinions. My response is that that's the whole point of a discussion forum. Look through every thread and that's mostly what's going on. If it was just 'state what you believe, then move on,' we'd have quite a lot less going on here.

what shall i produce here? conclusive proof that everyone should have right to travel, work and settle freely? and what shall i argue here? that illegal aliens are bad for US citizens?

You don't need to present conclusive proof. You don't even necessarily need to present any kind of argument. If that's just what you believe, and there is no reasoning process behind it, so be it. But others are generally going to tell you what their reasoning process is, and why they disagree with you. You're going to have to get used to that.

you see, this stuff is matter of opinion or better yet, a matter of system of beliefs. one believes that fairness and equality is "good" and another one believes that maximizing profit is "good". since in open society nobody is in possession of ultimate truth, it then follows, this issue cannot be decided objectively.

Well, there you go, you're making an argument. SOS made much the same argument, that the only reason illegals are allowed to stay as they are, and we mostly look the other way, is that it's good business for certain people. It allows them to maximize profits. On the other hand, she thinks it's unfair that they get a free ride by having access to taxpayer funded services but often don't pay taxes, and they are being treated unequally in the sense that laws which apply to the rest of us legal residents are not being properly enforced on them.

You either agree or disagree with her, and there is some reasoning process behind why you come to either of these conclusions. The kosher next step on a discussion forum is to state why you either agree or disagree, and then we move on, back and forth, until either a resolution of some sort is reached or one or both parties simply give up. Is it pointless? In many cases, maybe it is. In other cases, maybe someone is actually learning something from this, which is the reason the forum exists.

I realize I'm being patronizing, but come on. Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions?

 

[tuco]

Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions? - loseyourname

an idiot or a troublemaker or both :)

fair enough.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I hear the argument, "Well, they pay their taxes..." but I cannot see how that is possible. If they are paying taxes, that means they obtained a social security number, and in order to obtain a social security number, you need to prove your visa status is valid and permits you to work in the U.S., which means you are here legally.

BobG already touched on this but here's a bit more...

The immigrants have been able to file since 1996 when the IRS started issuing special tax numbers for people living and working illegally in this country. Experts say the 8 million to 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States contribute untold billions each year in payroll taxes.
__________________________

The taxpayer number is intended only to allow illegal immigrants to pay their taxes. The IRS cannot share the information with other agencies. The Social Security Administration, for example, cannot use the IRS information to help stop fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.

Because the taxpayer numbers cannot be used to get a job, many of the tax returns filed with the numbers come attached with W-2 employer forms showing a fake or fraudulent Social Security number.

Also, the Department of Homeland Security's immigration arm is not allowed access to the numbers to identify undocumented workers and help control illegal immigration.
___________________________

A General Accounting Office report released last month highlighted other weaknesses with the ITINs, which are formatted like a Social Security number: XXX-XX-XXXX. It said an ITIN can be obtained by submitting fake documents through the mail and then used for things that would normally require a Social Security number.

The IRS acknowledges that that the numbers were being used for unintended purposes such as opening bank accounts, applying for driver licenses and renting apartments.

These are excerpts from...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of course we need to continue allowing immigration, it just can't be a friggin' free for all.

Do you support rounding up families looking for a better life like they're felons and deporting them? Sending them back to the place where they were willing to risk injury and arrest to escape and now have nothing because they have used it all to get here? Same with people who perhaps came here legally but once they had made a life for themselves, had a job paid taxes and kids were in school, they were told their visa won't be renewed?

 

[JamesU]

Illegals are quite a problem over here :/ Most people in Airzona agree that it's one of the weakest points of this administration/government...

I don't see it as a problem. They're very helpful and cheap when doing construction and other things...

 

[russ_watters]

I am stupid but not that stupid guys. unfortunatelly, i do not believe in such a thing as "illegal immigrant" as i believe everyone should be able to travel and work freely.

There's a saying, that whether or not you believe in it, it believes in you.

As Ivan said (I agree with him on this one), immigration to the US has always had limits, and rightly so. I'm not against immigration per se, but too much, too fast can have negative effects.

So given the fact that there are limits and given the fact that no border to any country is completely open (you need a pasport to go pretty much everywhere), that makes being where you aren't supposed to be illegal. Its kinda like tresspassing. And like with tresspassing, illegal immigrants are not some special class that needs to be protected, they are a drain on society that needs to be removed.

Who comes to a discussion forum, a political one no less, and complains when people argue for contrary positions? - loseyourname

an idiot or a troublemaker or both :)

fair enough.

Idiots are permitted here (as long as they are willing to learn), troublemakers are not. Please do not be a troublemaker.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks Bob G and Statutory Ape for the additional information regarding SS numbers. I wasn't aware of that loophole. (I couldn't get back into this thread yesterday or even onto PF this morning, so I'm just catching back up here.)

BobG, I especially agree with your views that the problem is that the past laws were so lax that people have been able to either enter illegally or remain illegally so long that their country of citizenship is no longer home for them. But, that doesn't make it legal, just unfortunate that they've made risky choices. People are crying it would split up families to return them home...did they not leave their families behind when they came here? Apparently it was okay in one direction, but not the other?

As for the claim the would get nothing back for the taxes paid, I don't agree. Maybe they don't get social security benefits, but who do you think pays when they need medical treatment at the ER and don't have medical insurance or the ability to pay the bills themselves?

If we truly need workers from outside the country to fill positions we can't find Americans to fill, then the solution isn't to allow those who cut in line or got here by breaking the rules to suddenly get a break, the solution is to extend visas and work permits or even permanent immigration status to those who are in line waiting to legally enter.

However, why are we only focusing on the Mexican immigrants? ANY illegal immigrant should be subject to the same laws.

 

[ray b]

I don't see it as a problem. They're very helpful and cheap when doing construction and other things...

intill the hurricane comes and blows the poorly built home to pieces
with no unions there are no training programs so you have unskilled people trying to doing skilled jobs at pay rates that hurt other workers
if you want a 3rd world class home good luck

after ANDREW in 92 you could clearly see the newer homes blew apart while the older union build houses DIDNOT

then there is the other problem, the export of our dollars
many illegals export a big part of their pay back home
this makes the citys poorer as less dollars are spent localy
miami is a very good example of this
we are now the poorest major america city thanks to illegals

we allso have fake doctors killing people and many other problems as part of the massive illegal imigration

DEPORT ALL OF THEM and JAIL THE CORPS leaders who hire them
we should only allow in the very best and brightest

 

[Evo]

I think people don't understand that legal immigration from Mexico has been cut off for some time.

"Citizens of the following countries may not apply for visas. The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as "diversity immigrants" (DV immigrants). The Act makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. Applicants for Diversity Visas are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. The visas, however, are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to citizens of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the past five years. Within each region, no one country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in anyone year.

For DV-2007, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because they sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the previous five years:

CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1318.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

we should only allow in the very best and brightest

With that mentality perhaps we should start kicking out citizens that aren't the best and brightest too. It doesn't take the best and brightest to wash dishes and work fields which is exactly the niche in the labour force that illegal immigrants tend to fill.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think people don't understand that legal immigration from Mexico has been cut off for some time.

"Citizens of the following countries may not apply for visas. The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as "diversity immigrants" (DV immigrants). The Act makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. Applicants for Diversity Visas are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. The visas, however, are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to citizens of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the past five years. Within each region, no one country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in anyone year.

For DV-2007, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because they sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the previous five years:

CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1318.html

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification? Maybe this just a particular sections of visas that are set aside for that purpose and do not detract from the number of visas that people from any particular country may receive? I know from some reading that there is a number set for the amount of visas that are supposed to be given specifically to Cubans anually. I would think that this would detract from the point of only giving out DVs. At the same time the US has not been fulfilling its obligation for the number of visas given to Cubans, perhaps this is one reason.

 

[Anttech]

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification?

I would say so, UK citizans are allowed to immigrate to US... In fact anyone can who has enough $$$... If UK citizans arent allowed to immigrate to the US, I would suspect the same would be for US to UK.. However this doesn't seem to be true.

 

[Art]

Interesting. Are you sure that the DVs aren't just a particular group of visas set aside for the purpose of diversification? Maybe this just a particular sections of visas that are set aside for that purpose and do not detract from the number of visas that people from any particular country may receive? I know from some reading that there is a number set for the amount of visas that are supposed to be given specifically to Cubans anually. I would think that this would detract from the point of only giving out DVs. At the same time the US has not been fulfilling its obligation for the number of visas given to Cubans, perhaps this is one reason.

There are several different classes of visa. The DV (green card) type are the best as they give you permanent residency. Apart from the lottery allocation there are other ways of qualifying for a green card such as marriage, relatives, investment, employment, adoption and as a 'special' immigrant e.g. Workers for recognized religious organizations.

There are a wide variety of second tier visas available which allow for temporary residency only. Mexicans can apply for these under the NAFTA agreement but there are strict rules re eligibilty.

 

[Bystander]

"Deine Ausweiss, bitte (or else)."

Wet feet vs. dry feet for Cuban "refugees" --- smuggled Chinese once the railroad boom ended --- if you could get the paperwork to leave elsewhere and get here in the past, or evade it as a stowaway, you were in --- given the common border with Mexico, it's a bigger problem --- Mexico doesn't care if they leave, and the "natural barriers" (deserts & terrain) have been rendered ineffective by motor vehicles.

The "down-easters" might get touchy if the French Canadians run out of moosemeat and start invading Maine, but there wouldn't be near the fuss about the same numbers of Canadians moving south --- INS and the Labor Dept. may be understaffed to handle the employer-employee relations and obligations, or simply not communicating. Much cheaper to "hire" aliens, pay them as "contracted" services, and duck the various workers' comp, social security, and IRS withholding.

Might be a matter as simple as hitting every employer with a tax number for a flat percentage of gross (sorta the way the IRS hits waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys and other service categories with a minimum "tip declaration") --- kill the economic advantages of the exploitation.

It's a toughie.

 

[Anttech]

There are a wide variety of second tier visas available which allow for temporary residency only. Mexicans can apply for these under the NAFTA agreement but there are strict rules re eligibilty.

Its interesting that America will allow people from the other side of the world to immigrate easier than someone who lives right next door, very neighbourly

 

[BobG]

Its interesting that America will allow people from the other side of the world to immigrate easier than someone who lives right next door, very neighbourly

There's a reason for that, at least theoretically. The idea is for immigrants to disperse throughout the country and blend into American culture, not for immigrants to create a subculture. In fact, that's one of the fears of Mexican immigration. If they just cross the border and go no further, they form a strong political base and have more effect on US laws and culture.

 

[Dawguard]

There's not much left to say here, since SOS2008 (wow, I never thought I'd agree with you on politics, but now I completely do on this ), Ivan Seeking and the others seemed to have made a very solid case for their positions. Just adressing some of the general problems or questions with the issue:

It is a fallacy that they are good for the economy. Sure they provide cheap labor, but isn't it true we have unemployment amongst citizens? If citizens took these jobs instead of being unemployed or collecting welfare then we could vastly drop our unemployment problem. They don't pay taxes, but they can get free schooling, free healthcare, etc. This sucks a large amount of money from our already messed-up budget, while putting none back in.

There is no inherent right to live in the U.S. We have always had a quota system, and for very good reasons. Do immigration laws need changing? Most certainly, but the answer to the problem is not to blast the door off and let anyone in. What about criminals fleeing from the law in Mexico? We don't want them in our country, but now they can come in almost freely. Another myth is that they all want to come here to work. A good majority of them maybe, but definately not all.

That's just my two incomplete cents. I think others can do a better job of explaining it, but I thought I'd chime in and give them my support.

 

[SOS2008]

Do you support rounding up families looking for a better life like they're felons and deporting them? Sending them back to the place where they were willing to risk injury and arrest to escape and now have nothing because they have used it all to get here? Same with people who perhaps came here legally but once they had made a life for themselves, had a job paid taxes and kids were in school, they were told their visa won't be renewed?

I do not support making illegal entry a felony, but rather treated as any other country does--Yes I support deportation of those who do this. Why should we feel sympathy for those who knowingly take risk of injury to enter a country illegally any more than those who take such risks to break any law, such as trafficking drugs? No one makes them do it--they choose to do it knowing full well the risk. Technology has lessoned the risk (you can be trucked across) and has contributed to the explosion of illegals. The problem is there is not enough deterrence.

However working in the U.S. with fake ID and other fraudulent activity should be a felony.

NIV Fraud
By all accounts — GAO reports, State Department OIG reports, Congressional hearings, anecdotes, and the hard evidence of the presence of 3.2 million NIV overstayers — fraud is rampant in the non-immigrant visa program. Problems include identity fraud, document fraud, counterfeiting, corrupt employees (both American and foreign), and widespread lying and misrepresentation on the part of applicants.

The INA states clearly that visa fraud must not be tolerated: "Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible," and permanently so (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)). Yet consular officers have few tools at their disposal to help detect and deter fraud.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back103.html

People say it is impossible to enforce anything at this time because of the sheer numbers involved:

Demographers believe that the undocumented population in the United States numbers close to 10 million people, with Mexicans accounting for 55-60 percent of this total.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=205

Hmm... Suppose we put the same kind of effort/funding into this as the NSA Spying program? We should at least be able to track fraudulent Social Security numbers. Also, studies of building a wall along the border show it is feasible and a fraction of the cost for the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

TSA, people come here precisely for purposes of having children who will be granted automatic citizenship--some women barely make it across the border in time to a county hospital. One individual comes here knowing they will be separated from loved ones. When he gets the money he sends for the rest of his family, then other relatives, then neighbors--there is no end. Moonbear has already addressed this issue well.

They are using such arguments for sympathy to get your support, and it works.

Characterizations of the illegal alien range from the sympathetic to the xenophobic. Such characterizations contribute to the confusion about the illegal alien problem. The media usually portrays the plight of the illegal alien in the United States using the historical view of a nation of immigrants. Often, the media resists portraying the illegal alien as anything but the hard working border-crosser that simply wants to feed his family.

...participants in the general environment, such as politicians and religious groups, have a vested interest in not enforcing interior immigration laws. Such groups stand to receive benefits from a larger alien population--one for votes, the other for potential converts. The implied powerlessness may be a strategic attempt to soften the impact of an amnesty program. Skerry compares the two perspectives of the illegal living in the shadows contrasted by those that are more vocal about their plight. In his opinion, the latter is a more accurate characterization. (Skerry, 2001) More recently, advocates compared the plight of illegal aliens to the civil rights movement and organized an immigrant worker’s freedom ride to rally support.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html

The "civil rights" argument -- that's just rich isn't it? These people do not have the same rights as legal citizens, nor do Americans when they go abroad. TSA, you and I have had this discussion before. I stand by my position that people are confusing U.S. law on civil rights ("held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live") with International law on human rights ("rights possessed by all human beings derived from nature. These are thus distinct from the rights derived from membership in society derived from a changeable social contract. The "right" to a free education, for example, cannot be a natural right since it depends on contingent factors such as the wealth of a given society.") -- while there are some similarities, these are two different things. - http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/glossary.htm

So let's get back to the "open border" utopian BS. tuco brought up the comparison about immigration into other countries. Let us not forget recent violence in France from immigrants there. I've brought up the importance of homogeneity and harmony in a "melting pot" society in earlier threads on the topic (and which BobG touched upon above). This is not to say people cannot still enjoy their own ethnic backgrounds, but that they share a common national identity (such as the flag, language, etc.) that the illegals are not embracing. As a result, we are now experiencing new racial tensions.

Those of you from other countries who have no sympathy for the wealthiest country in the world (well for now that is), tell us how the U.S. compares to your country in regard to the number of immigrants allowed in, and strictness of requirements for citizenship. The U.S. is known for accepting immigrants more than any other country. There is no room for criticism on this point.

There's not much left to say here, since SOS2008 (wow, I never thought I'd agree with you on politics, but now I completely do on this )

LOL (We agree on a lot more things than you know).

We agree, but perhaps not always for the same reason. I despise Bush and his catering to Big Business and the religious-right to obtain and retain power, and this is just more of the same. Some Republicans are concerned for reasons of security and feeling a little burned by their earlier leader Ronald Reagan and his disastrous amnesty program--and rightfully so. I've said it before that Bush's broadcast of the word "amnesty" was incredibly irresponsible. Now his base is splitting, so he is taking a harder line, but he still advocates a guest worker program.

As stated earlier, if you look at history you will see what has been successful and what has not. Amnesty of any kind has never worked, and in fact has always resulted in an exponential increase in the flood across the border. The worker visas are no longer limited to migrant workers for seasonal, low-end agricultural work, but for any industry where there are shortages--shortages due to low wages?! Women are still battling unequal pay (which has dropped to 74 cents to a man's dollar), and minorities such as blacks face even stiffer competition for unskilled jobs. I support worker visas, but only if it is very limited, strictly monitored, and fairly granted, for jobs Americans really won't do -- meeting qualifications and no reward for cutting in line.

Otherwise who knows how far reaching these effects will have in the long run. Southpark already did an episode about how the boys lost their jobs mowing the neighbor's lawns to illegal aliens. But seriously, because we pay Jose less than our kid's allowance, our kids aren't learning work ethic and entrepreneurship as children, so are living at home until the age of 28.

I have my own view of what should be done, but no time to submit it as legislation. Long ago I wrote to one of my congressmen, John McCain suggesting payment of back taxes, etc., which I believe are in his proposal. For a side-by-side comparison of current legislation:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ws+and+visas+granted&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

In the meantime, if there are any legal Americans who plan to take to the streets, please let me know so I can join in.

 

[Art]

Those of you from other countries who have no sympathy for the wealthiest country in the world (well for now that is), tell us how the U.S. compares to your country in regard to the number of immigrants allowed in, and strictness of requirements for citizenship. The U.S. is known for accepting immigrants more than any other country. There is no room for criticism on this point.

Ireland with a population of 4 million takes in 70,000 legal immigrants a year. The USA with a population of 290 million takes in 700,000 legal immigrants a year.

When compared per capita we (Ireland that is) take in the equivalent of ~4,500,000 immigrants p.a. The only country in europe who takes in more in respect of their population is Luxembourg where 1/3 of the population is now foreign born.

Ireland also has the same problem as all other wealthy countries with regard to illegal immigration. Currently that figure is estimated to be around 16,000 per annum which would equate to ~1,100,000 in the US. As you can see the US are by no means alone with regard to this problem as some here appear to think.

The heavy influx of non-nationals here has given rise to many of the same arguments cited above. Ultimately though these arguments have no merit. For example a very common complaint is that migrant workers who will work for very little adversely affect the indigenous workers pay and conditions. However this is fallacious. It is not a valid argument to justify keeping them out. It is an argument for the gov't to enact legislation to prevent unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of immigration. Thus people's anger should be directed at the gov't, and not at the immigrants, for allowing immigrants to be exploited.

 

[Art]

Another question people commonly ask is why their gov'ts don't do more to stem immigration (both legal and illegal). The answer is simple, it's not that they can't, it's that they don't want to.

The reason why so many developed countries have turned a blind eye to illegal and semi-illegal immigration is because they know the majority of their electorate are fundamentally racist and it would be political suicide to openly promote a policy of encouraging widespread immigration. However gov'ts are also realists so they do it by the back door, they realize the birth rate in western societies is dropping dramatically to the point where in countries like Germany population growth is now negative and they know they need these new workers coming in.

They need the influx of young people and their children to provide the economic base for the future to support an aging population which is living longer than ever. Expenditure in the short term on education and health may appear as a drain on the country's resources initially but it is in reality an investment for the future.

Whilst I am in favour of immigration for the reasons stated I do believe all countries who have a heavy influx of migrant workers do need to drop the taboo and have a serious debate on the subject. This fear of appearing too 'moderate' in their approach to immigration and thus total avoidance of the subject leads to a disorganised and chaotic situation which exacerbates the social problems. This is an international problem as evidenced by the total inabilty of the UN and all other international groupings to reach agreement even in a limited area such as how to manage asylum seekers.

I also believe in the saying 'when in Rome do as the Romans do' and so immigrants should understand they can't import their entire culture with them. They need to understand exactly what is and is not allowed before they enter a country and if they find certain laws or customs totally unacceptable to their personal viewpoint then they should look elsewhere for a home.

I also believe immigrants as guests in one's country should show exemplary behaviour and so their admittance should be on a probationary basis. If they misbehave they should be told to leave.

In return they should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as their adopted country's citizens.

 

[Smasherman]

I'm fairly certain that the Californian economy depends on illegal immigrants at this time (I know no specifics for other states). It's a shame, but it's true. Unless the minimum wage is increased, and employment laws enforced better, a lot of immigration is necessary to keep California afloat.

The book Reefer Madness outlines some aspects of the United States black market, including illegal immigrants (specifically strawberry pickers).

To conclude, I recommend attaching a new minimum wage law ('course, I recommend a command economy, but realistically...) to the immigration bill.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They are using such arguments for sympathy to get your support, and it works.

I'm really just taking the other side only because there isn't anyone else aside from Tuco and Art doing so. The fact is that I think a lot like you on the matter but I am a bit conflicted. I've known people that were illegal and they are mostly very nice people and not the selfrighteous types you see waving mexican flags at protests. It's like the difference between realizing that military action will likely result in 'collateral' loses and really thinking about the poor people whose lives are being ruined (or taken).

I do not support making illegal entry a felony, but rather treated as any other country does--Yes I support deportation of those who do this.

Entering the country illegally is a federal offense and hence a felony. As far as I know there are no federal offenses that carry a charge of less than felony. Also, per the law, no person can be taken into custody for anything less than a felony. As far as the US legal system is set up it is necessary to make these people felons if they are to be deported by force.
This is one of the very issues which makes things like the PATRIOT Act and a constitutional amendment against things like flag burning so dangerous. It makes people felons for things that may otherwise be lesser charges and gives the federal government that much more authority to step into legal matters.

Why should we feel sympathy for those who knowingly take risk of injury to enter a country illegally any more than those who take such risks to break any law, such as trafficking drugs? No one makes them do it--they choose to do it knowing full well the risk. Technology has lessoned the risk (you can be trucked across) and has contributed to the explosion of illegals. The problem is there is not enough deterrence.

Immigration and drug trafficing are very different issues. The main difference is that immigration in and of itself is not illegal. Drug trafficing under any circumstances is illegal. There's also quite a disperity between the intentions of these two groups of 'criminals'.

So let's get back to the "open border" utopian BS. tuco brought up the comparison about immigration into other countries. Let us not forget recent violence in France from immigrants there. I've brought up the importance of homogeneity and harmony in a "melting pot" society in earlier threads on the topic (and which BobG touched upon above). This is not to say people cannot still enjoy their own ethnic backgrounds, but that they share a common national identity (such as the flag, language, etc.) that the illegals are not embracing. As a result, we are now experiencing new racial tensions.

Do you think that these racial tensions may be from the fact that these people generally are not welcome and don't feel welcome? How many of the "spicks/beaners/wetbacks/what have yous" that people ***** about are actually illegals do you think? Most people seem to have a low opinion of Mexicans in general and the issue of illegal immigration just makes them feel that much more justified in their racism.

 

[SOS2008]

To Art:

I agree workers should unite against exploitation, which INCLUDES legal citizens who's wages are being depressed by illegals and outsourcing. In regard to population control (or lack of it) I would rephrase this to say the birth rate is out-of-control in third-world nations, and why they can't support their own population. And where are the stats for lack of labor in the U.S. Vis-à-Vis unemployment rates?

I agree governments don't want to stop the flow, but not for the same reasons you state. Mexico depends economically on the money illegals send back to their families:

Despite the relative stagnation of the US economy, this flow of money keeps growing, according to recent data. In 2003 it increased by 35% - the total amount sent that year to Mexico was more than $13bn.

Remittances from Mexicans in the US have become one of Mexico's most important sources of income - second only to oil and surpassing the traditional tourism industry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3582881.stm

As well as Big Business like Western Union and First Data Corp. that profit from wire transfers of money from millions of illegals in the U.S. to Mexico. http://www.Americas.org/item_25908

Like I said, look at where the support for recent protests is coming from, and you'll find the organizations and motives very unsavory.

To continue, Big Business in America needs to stay competitive with other countries that have no labor laws. Wonderful.

High Immigration Harms Many American Workers

Federal policies of high immigration interfere with market forces that otherwise would cause corporations and other employers to find ways to maximize American wages and working conditions while also maximizing productivity.

The result has been a decades-long wage depression in many occupations and even in some professions.

America has become less of a middle-class nation because of the quadrupling of immigration since 1965. And it has become more of a society of wide economic disparities.

Virtually all studies of this phenomenon have concluded that the greatest harm is to those American workers who already are the most vulnerable: those without high school degrees, those with lower intrinsic intelligence, those with fewer skills. The harm also is disproportionately felt by native-born minorities, especially Hispanics and Blacks, and by recent immigrants. For instance, a study by Harvard professor Dr. George J. Borjas finds that, by increasing the supply of labor, immigration between 1980 and 2000 cost native-born American men an average $1,700 in annual wages by the year 2000. However, the effects of immigration on wages were most profoundly felt by native-born black and Hispanic Americans who suffered 4.5-5% wage reductions as compared with the 3.5% wage loss felt by native-born white Americans.

https://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amerworkers.html

I wish I had year-by-year by industry wage comparisons at hand, but I assure you wages are being depressed, and this IS hurting American workers. Perhaps I will have time to do more fact-finding later (though I am a bit miffed that as usual I am the only one backing up my statements with data), but I agree with Smasherman that the minimum wage needs to be increased along with enforcement of legal entry.

To TSA:

I have not been aware of illegal entry being a felony, but deportation of the offending individual is the minimum action that should be taken. As for enforcement of law, you make a contradictory comparison of drug trafficking and immigration. This is another trend that REALLY annoys me, and that is the confusion (often on purpose if you ask me) between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. We are discussing illegal entry, which is ILLEGAL.

And don't get me wrong about national identity. I am not in favor of suppressing freedom of speech via flag-burning laws. I am referring to the use of the Mexican flag in these protests, and display of such flags smack of secession, not unlike the Confederate flag, which many Americans don't appreciate either. As for racism, this is perpetuated by the minority who sets themselves apart. The reason is not just skin color, but resistance to assimilation.

Though ultimately I feel all these peripheral issues tend to obfuscate the bottom line: I cannot accept any argument in favor of illegal entry into the United States. It's illegal, and reason enough for it to be brought under control.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have not been aware of illegal entry being a felony, but deportation of the offending individual is the minimum action that should be taken. As for enforcement of law, you make a contradictory comparison of drug trafficking and immigration. This is another trend that REALLY annoys me, and that is the confusion (often on purpose if you ask me) between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. We are discussing illegal entry, which is ILLEGAL.

And don't get me wrong about national identity. I am not in favor of suppressing freedom of speech via flag-burning laws. I am referring to the use of the Mexican flag in these protests, and display of such flags smack of secession, not unlike the Confederate flag, which many Americans don't appreciate either. As for racism, this is perpetuated by the minority who sets themselves apart. The reason is not just skin color, but resistance to assimilation.

Though ultimately I feel all these peripheral issues tend to obfuscate the bottom line: I cannot accept any argument in favor of illegal entry into the United States. It's illegal, and reason enough for it to be brought under control.

Sorry I had believed that all federal crimes were automatically felonies. I was wrong. Here are the actual penalties for illegal immigration though even though it isn't a felony...

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

Any offense after the first is a felony and there are people trying to make it a felony.

The INS estimates that 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States in January 2000. The total population estimate is somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimate. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated the population to be 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated annual population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. In addition to the total population, estimates were compiled for each State of residence and for 75 countries of origin. As expected, California is estimated to have the most unauthorized residents in January 2000, about 2.2 million, or 32 percent of the national total. The States with the largest numerical increases in unauthorized population in the 1990s were California, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2000ExecSumm.pdf

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States. While welcoming all legitimate travelers and trade, CBP officers and agents enforce all applicable U.S. laws. CBP prevents narcotics, agricultural pests and smuggled goods from entering the country and also identifies and arrests those with outstanding criminal warrants. On a typical day last year, CBP officers welcomed 1.2 million people at the nation’s 314 land, air and seaports while denying entry to more than 3,000 inadmissible visitors.
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/antiterror_initiatives/border_sec_initiatives_lp.xml

In FY 2005, Border Patrol Agents made almost 1.2 million arrests of people for illegally entering the country.

Considerable success has been achieved in restoring integrity and safety to the Southwest border, by implementing our border-control strategy. These include Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, CA, Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, TX, Operation Rio Grande in McAllen, TX, Operation Safeguard in Tucson, AZ, and the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI) along the Arizona border.
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/overview.xml

It seems that regardless of how much we try to control the borders people will get in anyway. Just what do you propose we do with them? So we spend billions on a wall which needs to be maintained and can likely be gotten past anyway. We boost the number of people working on the CBP which already numbers at least 11,000. Then apparently we boost the number of INS workers so we can investigate, track down, round up, and process 7 million plus people that need to be deported. How any more do you think that will take and how long?
This paints a rather grizly picture. A country walled in and rounding up people by the millions taking them out of their homes because they don't have their papers so that they can be imprisoned and deported sounds a lot like a fascist state to me.

I'm not supporting illegal immigration. I'm just not supporting deportation as a proper means of dealing with the issue.

 

[X-43D]

Nativism is hypocritical. If businesses can move their capital around the world freely, then workers should also have at least some of this freedom.

More:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_063900_nativism.htm
http://www.campusprogress.org/features/270/the-new-nativism

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note how many photos of the rallies are like this
http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/small/small_LA10503242342.jpg

What is wrong with this picture?

This is not immigration, this is an invasion.

 

[Art]

Note how many photos of the rallies are like this
http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/small/small_LA10503242342.jpg

What is wrong with this picture?

This is not immigration, this is an invasion.

People showing pride in their heritage does not symbolize an invasion.

There are 40 million americans who claim Irish ancestry. Many of these are second, third or more generation american. Every St. Patrick's day they turn out in their thousands swathed in Ireland's national colours to celebrate Ireland's patron saint. Do you think the parades held in New York, Boston and elsewhere constitute an invasion? Do you think these parades threaten America's national identity?

Every year many thousands (if not millions) of people in the US celebrate Halloween with kids going door to door trick or treating. Again this is an Irish custom dating from 5 BC introduced into America through Irish immigrants. Do you think following this Irish custom detracts from the americanism of the participants?

If your answer to the above questions is yes then I'll grant you consistency at least but if not then can you explain why it is okay for the Irish to celebrate their roots and customs but not okay for the mexicans?

The Irish were once in the same position in the US as the mexicans are now with waves of illegal immigrants entering America. Far from damaging America's economy these immigrants helped in no small way to make America the world economic leader it is today. This despite the fact that they too sent money home to take care of families left behind.

Given the chance I'm sure the mexicans will contribute in the same way to america's future.

Some posters have said they have no problem with legal immigration and it is only illegals they object to but as Evo pointed out mexicans have zero access to legal permanent residency visas and so they resort to illegal entry.

Illegal immigration should be curtailed but this should be done in the context of fair employment laws to reduce demand for their labor and prevent their exploitation and fair immigration laws to facilitate legal immigration coupled with an orientation program for new entries to minimise social disruption.

To address the issue of whether or not immigrant labor is required - well that depends on how many new jobs are being created each year but given America's natural population growth rate of .6% if it's more than 870,000 then the answer is yes.

ps I'm not sure what SOS means by this

(though I am a bit miffed that as usual I am the only one backing up my statements with data)

I have provided data to support my statements.

 

[Burnsys]

Note how many photos of the rallies are like this
http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/small/small_LA10503242342.jpg

What is wrong with this picture?

This is not immigration, this is an invasion.

Every action has a reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
The Mexican-American War was fought between the United States and Mexico between 1846 and 1848. In the U.S. it is known as the Mexican War or Mr. Polk's War; in Mexico, it is known as the U.S. Intervention, the U.S. Invasion of Mexico, or the United States War Against Mexico.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Art, the problem is not two generations from now, the problem is now. Estimates ranging from 11 to 20 million illegals at any moment means that we are talking about up to 6% of the population. The load on our social programs and public services is intolerable. For example, this has a lot to do with the collapse of the medical system back in the eighties; when hospitals began even refusing emergency patients, with the system still in crisis today.

And no one can argue that this situation is conducive to national security. In a post 911 world, this is absolute insanity.

 

[BobG]

Another question people commonly ask is why their gov'ts don't do more to stem immigration (both legal and illegal). The answer is simple, it's not that they can't, it's that they don't want to.

The reason why so many developed countries have turned a blind eye to illegal and semi-illegal immigration is because they know the majority of their electorate are fundamentally racist and it would be political suicide to openly promote a policy of encouraging widespread immigration. However gov'ts are also realists so they do it by the back door, they realize the birth rate in western societies is dropping dramatically to the point where in countries like Germany population growth is now negative and they know they need these new workers coming in.

They need the influx of young people and their children to provide the economic base for the future to support an aging population which is living longer than ever. Expenditure in the short term on education and health may appear as a drain on the country's resources initially but it is in reality an investment for the future.

Whilst I am in favour of immigration for the reasons stated I do believe all countries who have a heavy influx of migrant workers do need to drop the taboo and have a serious debate on the subject. This fear of appearing too 'moderate' in their approach to immigration and thus total avoidance of the subject leads to a disorganised and chaotic situation which exacerbates the social problems. This is an international problem as evidenced by the total inabilty of the UN and all other international groupings to reach agreement even in a limited area such as how to manage asylum seekers.

I also believe in the saying 'when in Rome do as the Romans do' and so immigrants should understand they can't import their entire culture with them. They need to understand exactly what is and is not allowed before they enter a country and if they find certain laws or customs totally unacceptable to their personal viewpoint then they should look elsewhere for a home.

I also believe immigrants as guests in one's country should show exemplary behaviour and so their admittance should be on a probationary basis. If they misbehave they should be told to leave.

In return they should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as their adopted country's citizens.

Good post. I agree with you on immigration, in general. If illegal immigration is controlled, then legal immigration has to be increased at the same rate.

In spite of my feeling about immigration, illegal immigration across the border is bad for a different reason. It's a pretty good indicator that border security isn't very good, which means at least an easy way to import illegal drugs, even if heightened concern since 9/11 isn't considered.

 

[SOS2008]

It seems that regardless of how much we try to control the borders people will get in anyway. Just what do you propose we do with them? So we spend billions on a wall which needs to be maintained and can likely be gotten past anyway. We boost the number of people working on the CBP which already numbers at least 11,000. Then apparently we boost the number of INS workers so we can investigate, track down, round up, and process 7 million plus people that need to be deported. How any more do you think that will take and how long?

We need to secure our borders and stop the flood as best we can NOW. The money spent on additional security measures will be worth it.

But ultimately we need to remove incentive. If these people can't get a job once they enter, they will return home. Business must not only collect ID, but must verify that the ID is not fake, and then prosecute those committing fraud. Businesses not abiding by this need to face large fines.

For those who are already here, they need to be screened. If they have a criminal record, contagious disease, are unemployed and/or relying on public services, or can't speak English, they need to be deported immediately. The rest need to do public service (military time will work) if they have committed fraud (used fake ID), pay any back taxes owed, and fined for illegal entry (to help with costs for border security, detention facilities, plane tickets, etc). Then they need to get in line for citizenship, which should move fairly quickly due to original screening. Those who do not come forward willingly will be automatically deported if caught. If these kind of requirements are not made, it will equate to amnesty and send a very wrong message. And once again, the cost to process these people will be worth it--we will pay the piper sooner or later.

And as stated above, for jobs where migrant labor really is needed, these people can apply for guest worker visas. To keep it honest and to prevent wages from being depressed, the businesses hiring them should pay minimum wage.

Nativism is hypocritical. If businesses can move their capital around the world freely, then workers should also have at least some of this freedom.

I do not see the logic in this thinking. Incentives to American companies to operate in (or should I say return to) Mexico and other countries to our south (instead of outsourcing to India/China) would be a better idea. This was in part the original intention of NAFTA and CAFTA, no?

People showing pride in their heritage does not symbolize an invasion.

Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo along with Hispanics. These protesters, especially those who are illegal, are protesting against U.S. laws, not celebrating their heritage.

:Given the chance I'm sure the mexicans will contribute in the same way to america's future.

Some posters have said they have no problem with legal immigration and it is only illegals they object to but as Evo pointed out mexicans have zero access to legal permanent residency visas and so they resort to illegal entry.

Illegal immigration should be curtailed but this should be done in the context of fair employment laws to reduce demand for their labor and prevent their exploitation and fair immigration laws to facilitate legal immigration coupled with an orientation program for new entries to minimise social disruption.

To address the issue of whether or not immigrant labor is required - well that depends on how many new jobs are being created each year but given America's natural population growth rate of .6% if it's more than 870,000 then the answer is yes.

I do not argue that immigrants can't/don't have the ability to contribute to American society.

If Mexicans have zero access it is because of quotas that are overwhelmingly exceeded by illegal entry--they are shooting themselves in the foot. CNN was running a special on the topic last night. It was reported that on the border of Tucson, Arizona alone there are 2,000 people crossing each day (minus the few who are caught)! When interviewed they complain that legal immigration is too slow and backlogged. HELLO, there is no way these extremely high numbers can be accommodated. And BTW, there are people from the south in the process of becoming legal citizens every day. Those who earn enough money get immigration attorneys to expedite matters.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2006

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.2 million, and the unemployment
rate, 4.8 percent, were little changed in February. A year earlier, the num-
ber of unemployed was 8.0 million, and the jobless rate was 5.4 percent.

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=jobsearch&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Fempsit.nr0.htm

It's not true Americans don't want jobs. They just don't want to live 12 people to an apartment to do it.

 

[Art]

SOS I am trying hard to understand exactly what your position on immigration is. Are you agreeing that legal immigration should be increased whilst the influx of illegal immigration should be stopped? Would you be happy if the same total quantity of immigrants entered America as do now provided they all had green cards?

BTW FYI 4% unemployment is classified as full employment as this is the figure calculated to comprise of those 'churning' i.e. between jobs and those who just will not work or are working invisibly in the black economy and claiming benefits.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS I am trying hard to understand exactly what your position on immigration is. Are you agreeing that legal immigration should be increased whilst the influx of illegal immigration should be stopped? Would you be happy if the same total quantity of immigrants entered America as do now provided they all had green cards?

BTW FYI 4% unemployment is classified as full employment as this is the figure calculated to comprise of those 'churning' i.e. between jobs and those who just will not work or are working invisibly in the black economy and claiming benefits.

Look at the numbers--I just stated that 2,000 try to cross through Tucson alone each day. Go look at other numbers as well, for example currently 1 in 20 workers are illegal with birth rates to match. No, I do not agree that legal immigration should be increased indiscriminately to match all those who want to live in the U.S. It simply cannot be sustained, and why there are caps, and to be fair, why there are quotas so people from other parts of the world can come here too.

For seasonal work, I feel migrant workers are a great source of labor, but it needs to be monitored and wages need to be fair.

Bottom line, anything Bush favors makes me wary. He acts so sympathetic to these people "who want to feed their family" yet look how he and his family behaved toward our own citizens in New Orleans. It is BS just like WMD were not the real reason for the invasion of Iraq. Vicente Fox has been running our borders since Bush became president, and Bush has enabled Fox in order to increase his own base.

Bush’s Hispanic share grew 5 points in Colorado, 7 in Florida, 9 in Arizona, and 12 in New Mexico. The sample size in these four states is still a healthy 1,503. Weighting these states by Hispanic population, so that the GOP’s 12-point increase in New Mexico is not treated equally with, say, Florida’s 7-point increase, the weighted GOP increase in the 4-state sample is 7.60 percent — a shift of better than 15 votes per hundred for President Bush.

This performance was broadly consistent with the 2002 results of similar pro-GOP Spanish-language broadcast campaigns, which saw top-line Republican performance in Senate and gubernatorial races increase 6.14-percentage points.

In other words, when Republicans have aggressively courted Hispanic votes, they have won them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp

 

[X-43D]

The best way to reduce immigration is to fight poverty.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3648346