So tired of all the crap about illegal immigrants

[Brian_Expat]

Shame on all the people who are demagogues on this issue.

NAFTA is supposed to be a free trade zone like the EU. A person in the EU, from poor Greece, can move to wealthy Germany and live and work and even vote in local elections for mayor -- no problem. Our free trade zone? It cordons off Mexicans with a Berlin wall, despite supposedly being our "free trade partners," in a racist pogrom against them.

Nobody's talking about the illegal Canadian immigration problem, but tens of thousands of Canadians live in the USA illegally. They have driver's licences and health care and are usually white.

Someone asked if we've ever known any illegal immigrants. I have known two in my lifetime. One was a Mexican doctor who came to the northeast to earn a living -- ANY living -- because his livelihood collapsed along with the peso in Mexico. He was here, in Mexico's supposed "free trade partner" the USA, to earn a living for his family in exchange for all the cheapo goods and tourism that Mexico provides. He was a criminal? Perhaps technically, but the real criminals are the people who would begrudge him an opportunity to earn a living for his family.

Another illegal immigrant I knew was a man from Iran who lived with his partner in San Francisco. A gay man, he would have been instantly killed if he returned to Iran. But his partner couldn't get him a visa in the USA because of the Defence of Marriage Act (thanks Bill Clinton), and so he had to live there illegally. Should he be denied a driver's licence and health care just because some comfortable white straight people think "this immigration thing has gone too far?"

The stories of humanity are filled with struggle and with the desire for opportunity. It unfortunately is NOT filled with equity and fair dealing.

Thus we're in a "free trade" deal that bans workers in the free trade zone from working and living in other parts of the free trade zone (except on an extremely limited basis). And we have lots of immigrants of circumstance who are hardworking and contribute massively to American society -- yet continue to be targeted by demagogues on both sides of the political spectrum.

(edited to change mistake on country of origin of man in SF)

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Why is it racist.

Defend your statement.

When I talk about "illegal immigrants" I mean all of them. None of them should be here illegally.

[Brian_Expat]

2. It's racist because nobody's advocating putting up a wall against Canada

And per capita, Canada sends more illegal immigrants than the USA. But most of them are white.

And NAFTA puts more labor restrictions on Mexican workers than Canadian ones. Some "free trade" deal (not that Canada gets much better terms from the US).

[DarkPhenyx]

3. I'm all for the wall against Canada.,

Now, explain why it's racist? You are seriously over simplifying the European position. Which means you ahve it wrong.

[Brian_Expat]

4. I'm not "oversimplifying" anything

EU citizens (including people from poor countries like Greece, Portugual and the 10 accession countries) can seek work and live in wealthy EU members like France, Germany and the UK.

They have an absolute right of entry and work.

I know.

I live here.

And if you're for a wall against Canada too, you move from "racist" to "xenophobic." :)

[shraby]

5. Whenever I think of a wall like that

I think of the Berlin wall. It was built to keep citizens IN. Shame to any country that builds walls with its neighboring country. Anyone who advocates building walls should remember a wall works both ways.

[Ghetto_Boy]

20. Berlin wall was built to keep people IN, not out.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. And the EU isn't nearly the same...

...as the trading relationship between the US, Mexico, and Canada. You are comparing to entirely different systems and trying to draw parallels. It isn't going to work.

I know you live there. You are still over simplifying things. I used to live there too.

And I am not "xenophobic". I'm an asshole. World of difference there chap.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

11. No, that isn't the only difference.

However you apaprently don't care to actually discuss the issue. Have a charming day.

[Brian_Expat]

13. Just like I thought

Your tactic is to throw out a few phrases and not actually defend them. Typical.

[AP]

32. Brian_ExPat has this exactly right.

As I said below, you can't have free trade that works to make economies stronger without having labor that's free to cross borders and chose to work in communities that give them the most opportunities.

In the EU, they know this. The EU isn't just about making capital wealthy. It's about making capital & labor wealthy. It's the manifestation of the FDR approach to economics: everyone's wealthier (including capital) when you have a wealthy middle class that's well-compensated for their labor.

NAFTA doesn't do that. NAFTA has become a system by which capital is guaranteed low wage costs and one of the biggest ways they do it is by using immigration laws to trap people in countries where there a low labor rates and governments more interested in helping capital than labor. This is what was going on in Haiti. The gov't was about to pass a tax law that would have gone to providing services that would have created a middle class which wanted more money. There was a coup to prevent it. Low wages were guaranteed.

Throughout American history, there have been economic situations like this, where, if people knew the economics of a situation, they'd force their government to change their laws, so society, to protect capital, has to use things like racism, sexism, and nationalism to discourage people from persuing good public policy.

We'd all be better off in the US if everyone within the "free" trade zone were free to cross borders to chase the best jobs. That would ensure the highest valuation of labor and the most competitive industries, and the least waste. It would ensure that political power followed the money: down to the middle class, which would strengthen democracy. How do you get people to act in ways that aren't in their best interest? Racism and naitionalism. Keep those stinking Mexicans out of here, and don't help the ones who made it here already.

Incidentally, Western Canada is BEGGING for immigrants to come work there. If there ever came the moment when Canada was shrinking and trying to send people to the US to find work, I'm sure we'd find a way to hate them too.

[PsN2Wind]

29. So although you live "there"

You feel OK advocating that the US continue to import labor to compete against those in this country legally and the citizens here. How magnanimous of you.

[AP]

33. You're misreading Brian_ExPat

Read my last two posts. Brian is right.

The differences between NAFTA and the EU show why the former is about profits for large corporations and the latter is about building up a wealthy economy with a wealthy middle class and strong democracy.

[stavka]

123. ...I am against a wall between Canada/USA - I want to be able to get out

[ima_sinnic]

6. I completely agree

The U.S. has systematically robbed the rest of the world and guards its ill-gotten gains as though there couldn't possibly be enough to share. My heart goes out to people without hope or opportunity everywhere in the world, who risk their lives trying for something better and are treated with heart-breaking cruelty.

[Brian_Expat]

8. Amen

We act like we have no responsibility to anyone else, anywhere in the world.

We treat our free trade "partners" citizens like shit.

We treat the foreign partners of gay and lesbian American citizens (as well as those citizens themselves) like shit.

And then we go out later to the world and talk about "freedom, democracy and compassion." Ech.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Name an industrialized nation...

...that doesn't work hard at defending it's own interests. Even Socialist nations are far more concerned with their own position than that of others.

Let's not get all Polyanna about this. Take off the rose colored glasses and look at reality. Yes, the US is far from perfect. This would be due in large part because humanity, and the world at large, is far from perfect.

[Brian_Expat]

12. How is discrimination against NAFTA citizens or gay partners "protecting"?

You've not made ANY sensible argument to that degree yet, just talk about building lots of walls.

[ima_sinnic]

21. "its own interests" are in reality the interests of the citizens

of the world

you really haven't said anything at all except that (1) everybody else is selfish so we have a god-given right to be too, and (2) just accept the fact that the world is imperfect.

[AP]

35. Even on the most selfish level, it's still not in the US's best interests

to do this.

It's only in the interest of a few multinational corporations who are able to manufacture things abroad and then ship them to the US or Europe.

Europe should actually be concerned with NAFTA too, because, unless there are European companies exploiting the Haitians, they have to compete with American companies in the European marketplace.

Perhaps the EU has plans to rip off Africa the way the US is ripping off S.America.

Maybe the US should be really concerned about Africa not becoming Europe's S.America so that US companies can compete in the US? Oh, it's all so complicated. Why can't there just be social justice and governements which care about their citizens everywhere?

[AP]

34. It's not in the US best interest to ensure huge profits margins for corps

while holding down labor rates in the US and abroad.

The EU is acting in the best interest of its economies and its citizens AND the corporations which want to be competitive (which are the best kinds of corporations) when it ensures that labor is free to move and compete with capital.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Do you want to give up your place in the US to someone

from another country? Maybe trade places with someone in Darfur? I don't and I won't feel guilty about it. Assuming that you don't really want to pack up and move to the Sudan, either, I'd say our only alternative is to do what we can to help those less fortunate than us. I'd also remind you that there are people who greatly need help within the US.

At the risk of sounding like a spokesperson for America, it is true that Americans do a lot of good around the world through charity. Our government has also done some things right in the field of foreign relations, though the past three and a half years have not been good. Some Americans have robbed but other Americans have returned what was stolen and given more besides.

It's not "My country, right or wrong," it's "My country, right and wrong, well-meaning and imperfect."

[AP]

37. When everyone does well, we all do well. People don't want to emmigrate

to places where they have no opportunities. They're trying to go places where they can be industrious and be rewarded for their labors. Of course, US policy is ruining economies elsewhere, so there's a low threshold.

Nonetheless, how do you do better when a guy comes here from Mexico, works hard to start an garage, which competes for customers by trying to be better than other garages, which makes all garages work harder, and this guy pays taxes, and then his daughter grows up to become your brain surgeon?

Don't you want those tumors removed by someone who is really smart and works hard? Don't you want your car repaired by someone who won't rip you off because he really needs your business? Don't you like it when there's more economic activity generatng tax revenue?

[DemBones DemBones]

88. I support everyone doing well, just not all in the same place, place

being a finite, limited resource.

You paint a rosy picture of an imaginary immigrant's success. Some immigrants do succeed but many others fail, as do natives.

But the issue is not immigration, it's illegal (i.e., unregulated) immigration. If your imaginary immigrant was here illegally, he took someone else's place

I don't think that I have any "right" to demand that another country accept me as a new resident, much less that I have a "right" to break line and get ahead of hundreds of people who've waited for years to get in. Why should I support people stealing a spot in this country? Every nation has the right to decide how many people should live within its borders in order to assure a reasonable standard of living. Secure nations in which there is a high level of employment and little poverty are able to help other nations that need help caring for their people.

[AP]

100. I'm painting the picture of how economic development works: competitve

capital and a competitive labor market. If only capital is allowed to compete, and labor is shackled (prevented from moving and competing) you just shift a lot of wealth to the owners of capital, and you starve the middle class -- the people who only get their wealth from selling their labor.

This is part of the reason wages are stagnating in the US today. US workers have to compete with CAPTIVE labor markets in Mexico and Haiti and Guatemala. If those people could move as freely to chase jobs as capital is allowed to move to their countries, then Americans wouldn't see their factories disappear, and they'd see more wealth flowing down to workers of all nationalities. Unless labor in those countries is free to leave (and Americans free to chase jobs down there -- but who would want to without the legal job protections?) then we should be taxing the hell out of those goods and using the money to do good things for the people back here whose labor rates would sink if we didn't do that.

It's amazing how people here don't get this.

If a factory has a right to move accross a border to set up shop and a right to ship back its wears with NO tariffs or duties or taxes imposed, then the people in America today, and the people in the foreign country should have a right to either follow that job abroad, or leave that country to chase the profit created by that job back to the US (if it's not passing down to the worker in the factory). And that factory should be forced to pay higher wages in order to give the worker a reason to keep working in the factory.

US manufacturers do not pay competitive wages in Mexico because they have captive labor market. That only helps capital. It hurts the labor market in Mexico AND in the US.

If you don't believe me, read the US constitution. One of its foremost concerns was the free movement of people among the states, and preventing any one state from setting up barriers to inter-state travel. The framers didn't care about spring break. They cared about commerce. They knew that, for the states to produce the most wealth through competiton, the competition had to be fair. Workers had to be able to chase economic opportunity accross borders.

[rman]

23. the question is,

should illegal immigrants be favored over US citizens?

And if so, then why?

Is Bush* tolerant towards illegals because in the end he really is a compassionate conservative, or could it be that the fact that big corporations benefit from the cheap labor that illegal immigrants constitute, is not entirely coincidental?

[boot@9]

30. You are right

about the cheap labor. Here in the Southwest, and I suspect elsewhere, several industries would virtually collaspe without the cheap labor. The industries include hopitality, construction, agricultral, lawnservice and others.

[AP]

39. Wrong question. Immigration within EU is not illegal. It's encouraged...

...because governments know that you need a competitive labor market to create wealth. You want people to chase the best jobs. You don't want to force labor to be a captive market to bad, inequitable government. You want governments to work hard to make their own markets competitive.

The question here is whether we should allow the same thing in the US -- we should tell our governments that we do not believe in capital that moves freely unless we have labor that can move freely in order to compete with capital for the highest paying jobs.

[rman]

96. In Europe there is such a thing as illegal immigration.

I'm pretty sure there legal immigration in the US as well.
My previous post was not about legal immigrants but about illegal immigrants, who can more easily be exploited since officially they don't even exist.

What a (right-wing) government wants is what big corporations want: a "flexible labor market" where laborers compete with one another in a rat-race rather then cooperate to stop the confiscation of their wealth. After all it is labor that creates wealth.

[AP]

97. Within the EU, EU citizens are free to work anywhere. You cannot be a

German illegal in the UK or portuguese illegal in France.

The argument Brian ExPat is making is that for a trade zone to work, you can't have freely movinig capital and people who are not free to move.

The argument is that, like the EU, if US business are free to go to Mexico, then Mexicans should be free to go to the US. They shouldnt' even be illegal. This is not an argument about what illegals should be able to do. It's argument about what should and shouldn't be illegal.

[Tight_rope]

63. Amen again! Hight 5 to that statement!

[matcom]

14. A.FUCKING.MEN

it's almost like that "other" site here sometimes :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

15. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

The threadstarter of one of yesterday's anti-immigrant threads commented that one of the posters was "making my job easier". Of course, it would be paranoid to think that disrupters are paid to post flame-bait topics here.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Not all Europeans are happy about increased immigration and

neither the unhappy Europeans nor the Americans unhappy about illegal immigration are necessarily racists. No doubt some are, but you find racists in most groups of people, whatever their commonality. Look at the root of the problem: illegal immigrants are stealing a place in the United States that legitimately belongs to those who have applied and waited their turn, often for years, to immigrate. That's not in line with truth, justice, and the American way, is it?

Feeling sorry for people like the Mexican doctor and the gay Iranian in your anecdote doesn't mean either man has a right to live in the US. Citizenship is determined by birth and only a limited number of people can be allowed to adopt citizenship in another country. It's terrible that thousands of Sudanese Christians have been raped and murdered by the janjaweed and the violence continues, but I don't think we can invite all the Christians in Sudan to come live here. Our social systems and public schools are overstretched as it is, unable to meet the needs of the people who are
here now (a number which already includes tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of illegals.)

It's a fact of life that we are all born into circumstances that are either relatively favorable, as in the US and Western Europe, or we are born into circumstances that are relatively unfavorable, as in parts of Mexico, Eastern Europe, Africa. But what should those of us who were fortunate enough to be born citizens of a first-world country do? If we throw open our borders to anyone whose life isn't all it should be in his native land, we'll soon have most of the world's population standing cheek by jowl in our native land and be facing the total destruction of our environment caused when the carrying capacity of land is exceeded. We should do what we can to help people born in the third-world (and we could do a lot more of that) but we should also preserve our own interests and guard our own borders better than we have. That's how nations are preserved. Why preserve nations? Anarchy doesn't work too well.

[AP]

43. But all Europeans will benefit from higher wages in a marketplace that is

competitive for labor, and they will all benefit from and economically and politically powerful middle class.

Meanwhile, in the US, all Americans who work for a living will hurt from an uncompetitve marketplace, a shrinking middle class, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few CEOs of companies who are beneifitting from the crappy labor markets (who will probably be making the bulk of their profits selling to a wealthy European middle class).

[Sterling]

64. How does a glut of cheap labor

from south of the border raise my chances of getting a living wage job? Explain plz.

[AP]

101. Why is there a glut of cheap labor outside the US?

One of the reasons is because they're not completely free to leave legally.

When a factory in the US moves south of the border, its profits increase because labor rates drop.

That profit comes right accorss the border to the US (capital can cross borders freely, while labor cannot). It accrues in the US in the hands of CEOs. Labor rates in the US drop. We see relative wealth disparities increase, depending on how you make your money.

Now, say, the people in Mexico were as free to leave Mexico for the US (to chase that wealth that is accruing do to their labor down in Mexico) as the Portuguese are to head to Sweden.

What would happen is that that factory would have to raise wages in order to keep those jobs in Mexico. Now, say, those wages become reasonable, then Americans should be able to go down and compete for those jobs too.

This entire issue is about whether wealth flows up to the owners of capital or down to the owners of labor. Mobility is a great power that, in the EU is given to capital AND labor. With NA, it's only given to capital, which means that labor is shackled and can't compete as effectively. No labourer in the US or in Mexico benefits when labor is not mobile. It just guarantees that wealth will never flow down to anyone who works for a living.

[AP]

102. One more thing, there should be no cheap labor. Making immigrants illegal

forces them into a gray market that holds down labor costs. With LEGAL immigraiton (which is the argument in the OP) everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard, and legal protections, that prevent exploitation.

And you aren't hurt by the fact that people come to the US and try to work hard for fair pay.

Check out the US, from 1945 to 1972. There was a population explosion, but we also had a government generally committed to making sure wealth accumulated in a class of people (middle and working) who made all their wealth from labor. And everyone was happier.

When you reward labor rather than existing wealth, society can tolerate of population growth, and, in fact, uses it to create wealth and innovation and progress.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. I have VERY mixed emotions about this.

My paternal grandparents came here illegally, although they legalized their status later on, and are now citizens. My mother came here 'legally', which means she snuck out of Cuba on a boat and was able to apply for amnesty the very instant her feet touched the beach in Florida.

My grandparents were technically criminals for doing what they did, although they otherwise worked hard, payed taxes and obeyed the laws in all respects, while my mother did nothing more than breath and touch US soil in order to be 'legal'.

Just seems pretty fucked up, to me.

:shrug:

[AP]

41. This isn't so much about "legality" as it is about free labor markets

It should be legal to move from country to country to chase the highest paying jobs.

What Brian is trying to show people is how the EU decided that if capital can cross borders freely, it's critically important that labor should to. If that didn't happen then capital would just cross the border into the country which had a captive audience of the most underpaid laboreres, and would transfer the profits from their activity back to some other country, and the captive labor force would never be able to chase it back to that other country and compete for it with better jobs back there.

[Cuban_Liberal]

46. I know, AP.

I was just sayin'...

:hi:

[Mr.Green93]

19. "NAFTA is supposed to be a free trade zone like the EU."

Try going to Mexico.

[blondeatlast]

25. If ya got money, it's damn easy. It's a very popular retirement spot. nt

[TX-RAT]

26. I go to Mexico all the time.

Whats the problem? I also go to Canada at lest once a year. I haven't had a problem with either.

[rman]

22. crap?

Do you mean to say that illegal immigrants are not an issue?

If not, then why call it crap?

Then again,
"Nobody's talking about the illegal Canadian immigration problem"

So it seems you do agree there is a problem with illegal immigrants, yet it seems as though you do not want the subject to be discussed.

If it were so that your only problem with the discussion is that it tends to focus on Mexicans while illegal immigrants from Canada are also a problem, then why not just say so instead of calling all of the discussion "crap"?

[blondeatlast]

24. It is COMPLETELY racist; I live in Arizona, I see it ALL the time.

I think we need to trot out the word RACIST more often, I really do.

[Leilani]

27. I really resent the { racist} label being thrown around here!

I live in Hawaii, the most racially diverse state in our country.

It is the brownest state, has the highest Asian population, almost 50%.

You want a melting pot & diversity, come here.

I was not born here; I choose to live here, because I love ALL kinds of people.

Can the U.S. absorb every poor person in the world, who would like to come here? No, we cannot. Our natural resources cannot handle it.

In Hawaii, we are very aware of water as a precious resource. The Western part of the country has been in a water crisis for a long time & it is getting worse.

Look at our suburbs..they are pushing out further & further into exurbs. We are pushing animals out of their habitats.

Calling people names is easy...that is what the Freepers & Ditto-heads do. Being for controlled immigration does not automatically make one a racist.

[Commendatori]

28. I do, too

My office is full of Repugs, and all of them to a man are against the idea of illegal immigrants belong here. To be fair to them, though (as tough as that is), not one of them even hint at the idea that it's all about Mexico. We have tons of Chinese illegals here, too (for example), and these guys don't discriminate - they want social services stopped for ANYONE not here legally.

Although I'm not for rounding up illegals and catapulting them into the ocean like these guys in my office are, I do support the idea of deporting illegals who break laws once they're here, and I'm not just referring to Mexicans.

If you (the original poster) can find someone who only wants to enforce immigration law against Mexicans while turning a blind eye to illegals of other nationalities, then fine, I understand your post. However, I have yet to meet one. And I will not tolerate being called a racist for wanting illegals who commit crimes here deported.

[barb162]

87. if they are illegal, how about

just rounding them up and sending them back to their own countries whether they commit crimes or not. The thing is we just cannot keep absorbing millions and millions. I am saying crime should not be factor nor country of origin. One factor counts and that is whether they are here illegally. (Throwing them in the ocean , whoa nelly!)

Buses, airplanes, ships, whatever...a nice trip back home.

[AP]

104. So they can work in what are essentially the prison farms of Haiti and

Guatemala as captive laborers, further driving down the price of labor in the US, and increasing the profits for capital, which never trickle down to anyone else?

From 1945 to 1972, the US population boomed, but the government also made sure that people who worked for a living retained a fair percentage of the wealth they created for society. That created even more wealth.

We don't have a problem in the US with population. We have a problem with rewarding labor. The field is tilted against the favor of labor. Your "solution" compounds the problem.

[AP]

40. I don't think you understand this argument.

This isn't about "absorbing poor people" it's about competitive labor markets.

People should be allowed to chase the highest paying jobs. Why? Because it forces people to pay the highest wages possible for jobs. That's good for the economy because it builds up an economic and politically powerful middle class (FDR/New Deal/Real Deal anyone?).

NAFTA operates to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer people which is bad for the economy. The EU spreads it down to the middle class and a big tool for achieving that is the mobile labor market (why do you think they have this?).

You just can't have a free trade zone without have labour which is as free to move as capital.

Hell, even the US consititution recognized this. 90% of the consititution seems to be about ensuring that people can move freely between the states and that no state can pass laws which prevent other state citizens from competing in the marketplace. Duh.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. It's not illegal immigrants who are causing urban sprawl

It's those yuppies who require McMansions on two-acre lots "out in the country."

[AP]

31. Free capital without free labor isn't free trade.

What NAFTA does is impoverish labor in some countries and prevents them from crossing borders to find better jobs. Captial goes into that country and reaps huge profits by exploiting cheap labor.

The EU knows you can't have free trade without labour that's free to cross borders. The EU wants people to get riche. NAFTA mostly wants companies to make huge profits.

As I said, you simply cannot have free trade without labor that's free to chase the highest salaries, or move to countries that are committed to making labor wealthy and leave the ones that aren't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The usual scapegoating of the poor and powerless.

With a hefty dose of thinly veiled racism.

The immigrants come here because they were driven out of their jobs and off their land by the corporations. They come here to work and pay taxes, for which they are repressed and condemned.

Sad to see so much scorn for the immigrants here, and so much support for "law & order" that victimizes them.

Insead of curbing "illegal immigration" we should be curbing the rapacious power of the corporations.

[AP]

42. When the GAP and LEVI's make millions of dollars off of poorly paid ...

...Hatians, you'd only think it would be fair if, say they're not going to get paid fair wages in the sweath shops, at least they could move to San Francisco and try to get some of that wealth they created when it trickles down from the CEO to his maid and automechanic and busboy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Quite right. Only to be blamed for "taking" American jobs.

Of course, if the local workers should do something like unionize and demand better wages in Haiti, then the corporations just move on to Honduras or Guatamala or Indonesia.

Of course, the only ones not to pay a price for the Catch-22 are the ones who created it.

What's sad is to see how many "progressives" buy into the crappola about the immigrants coming here to get rich. Don't you just love the mansions they have in the migrant workers' camps?

[Sterling]

65. Better just to hire Americans in the first place.

Stop the problem at the source.

[AP]

81. there's talent and desire to contribute to society all over the world.

Americans are better off when everyone all over the world is better off.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

45. I'm sure no illegals come here to work for corporations

Nope. They all own their own businesses.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[medeak]

47. Bravo!

Indeed! Illegals support the California economy....without them me thinks the state would collapse.

Had a friend as well from the middle east. Iraq... family moved here to hopefully keep son from serving in military under Saddam. Unfortunately he was caught with a joint (17 yrs old) and entire family was deported back. They are always on my mind.

[barb162]

48. I'm not

I think we should kick all of the illegals out of here and keep them out.

Canadians who live here usually make sure they go back to Canada for a few months every year to keep their residency and health care in effect.

The Mexicans who come here usually use "public" facilities for health care at taxpayer expense as they have no health care insurance. Lou Dobbs has constant reports on small cities in AZ where the local hospitals are absorbing millions in expense for illegal aliens using their facilities and never paying. Year after year. The taxpayers absorb this. Up north here, they do the same.

I also think the illegals lower the wages for American citizens. Employers love the illegals as the employers can pay them less than minimum wage, give them no benefits, etc.

Does "free trade zone" mean we are supposed to keep absorbing large numbers of the Mexican population or something?

I doubt if any of these illegals are filing income tax, wouldn't you agree.

I am a big believer in solid borders, north and south. I would also heavily fine employers for using illegal workers so they don't keep doing it.

Let all of these illegals file for legal immigration and wait their turn, like a lot of people in other countries do.

[Xithras]

49. There are two basic problems with illegal immigration

Immigration caps are in place for a reason, just as they are in every single other nation in the world. In fact, the United States ALONE accepts more legal immigrants every year than every single other nation in the world COMBINED.

The first major problem with illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants will work for a pittance and undermine the wage structures long established in the U.S. Fifteen years ago a person could made a good living in a union shop in the construction and landscaping trades. Today? Both of those businesses are being hit HARD by companies that hire illegals and use those cost savings to undercut the bids of the union shops. Attempts by the illegals themselves to organize are quickly met by threats of deportation and never go anywhere. The immigrants are moving beyond the jobs that "Americans don't want" are are now taking jobs in traditionally blue collar sectors. How do you fix that without putting the illegals out of jobs?

The second problem with illegal immigration is that it undermines efforts in the U.S. to control population growth. There was a study posted here in the past couple days that the U.S. is the only first world country that is still experiencing major population growth...all of the other first world countries have population growth in check. The undiscussed factor in this is that birthrates among American citizens are about equal to those of Europeans...American population growth is being driven for the most part by immigration. This induces sprawl, takes a serious toll on the environment, and basically undermines everything the left has been fighting for for the past 30 years.

I'm not anti-immigration. I believe that people who want to come here, SHOULD be able to come here...within limits. The immigration process needs to be streamlined, guest worker permits need to be much easier to get, and people who have the skills to give themselves a better life should be able to do it, but we should NOT simply allow millions of people to walk across the borders and take up residence here without knowing who they are or what their intentions are.

You want to call that bigoted? I call that common sense.

[AP]

60. Will anyone admit that it makes no sense to allow capital to freely cross

borders without letting labor freely cross borders to compete for the highest wages?

It's so wrong for capital to be able to go where it wants, but to force captive labor markets into subservience.

The history of the world is basically the history of labor crossing borders freely to maximize their economic potential which consequently makes economies progress and grow faster than they would otherwise. The EU understands this. NAFTA has a different project. Nafta is about driving down wages in the US and holding down wages abroad. That is incredibly bad and is basically the way feudalism and monarchies worked and it is why they failed. It's a great way to ruin an economy (as we're learning today in America).

[sweetheart]

73. I agree, but its way beyond NAFTA

What about when 200 million chinese want reciprocity for the billions
of loose capital that has been foreign direct investment in china?
As long as there are repressive regimes killing or destroying:
Women, non-white races, alternate religions, freedom of religion,
gay people, and sentient animals.... these drive citizens abroad
to seek justice in a second life as an immigrant.

If the causes of the migration are purely reduced to temporary greed,
the sweeping immigration of the open borders paranoia is a lie... and
only true when there are causes, like the roma being systematically
displace in eastern europe, even today. They get the same justice
that mexican workers get washing dishes in downtown los angeles...

Methinks that for a civilization to be healthy, it needs a constant
supply of immigrants, and as well, people leaving to go elsewhere.
These two forces are in balance, and 7 million americans are living
abroad. That should enable 7 million citizens of the world to take
their places statesside for a while.

Natural reciprocity works best when the lawmakers do not make laws
and leave life well enough alone. People are where they need to be.
THis police state stuff is really OTT.

[AP]

98. If the US has a common market with China, like they EU has in Europe,

then you would HAVE to allow Chinese and Americans to chase jobs wherever they wanted without restriction.

This is an economic issue. You cannot let factories go freely and unrestricted anywhere they want, not imposing duties on the stuff they ship back to the US, and force the citizens of the countries to which they go to remain in those countries.

As we are seeing today, it holds down wages not only abroad but in the US.

Mexicans who want to work shouldn't be forced by law to remain in Mexico where they can only get crappy jobs. The factories should be forced to pay competitive wages. They pay less competitive wages when people are forced by irrational laws from economic migration.

(I read somewhere that one of the things that is responsible for a great deal of Africa's development is a relatively mobile work force. If there's a growth spurt somewhere, a competitive labor force builds up, they make money, then they move somewhere else where they take their built up knowledge and wealth.)

[sadiesworld]

103. Yes. I am sure that China and India are going to allow US

factory workers, doctors, programmers, etc. to flood their markets and compete for jobs. Let's not even get into the issue of whether Americans want to live in third world and/or communist countries and whether they should be required to do so in order to make a living. And what about the environmental implications of people and products zipping around the globe at an accelerated rate? Kinda makes the idea of carpooling and using fuel efficient vehicles seem downright silly, doesn't it?

This neo-liberal nonsense is disheartening coming from such a strong supporter of John "the populist" Edwards. Or wait, was it John "I'll see you in Bilderberg" Edwards?

(BTW, I have to take care of some business so if you choose to respond, I won't be able to get back to you immediately)

[AP]

105. Then we don't let capital freely cross borders to and from those countries

Are you reading what I'm writing?

I'm pointing out what nonesense it is to allow capital to flow freely without letting labor flow freely.

The EU has it right. The US Constitution had it right (and it worked across a nation as large as the US). NAFTA has it wrong.

[sadiesworld]

109. Yes, I am reading what you are writing.

My point is that the whole idea of achieving some sort of true free trade arrangement w/ India or China anytime soon is laughable. If you are suggesting that we scrap all current policies, I agree. If your position is that we can tweak what we have, I strongly disagree.

You continue to point to the EU as a workable comparison here. The EU has been in the works for 50+ years. The EU is founded on member states having democratic governments, sound economic policies and solid human rights records. They have contiguous borders and a common currency.

Free flow of labor is not a magic bullet.


edit for spelling error

[AP]

110. The EU requires member nations

to have certain legal protections for citizens. It's a prerequistie rather than a fortunate consequence.

That's part of the whole deal.

I didn't say free flow of labor solves all problems.

I said you can't allow mobil capital without allowing mobilie labor forces.

Get it?

[sadiesworld]

111. Got it.

You pepper the entire thread with your posts about how mobile labor would give us an EU-type common market with third world and communist countries...now you acknowledge that it may be a bit more complex.
WE'LL be a third world country long before these issues are resolved.

[AP]

112. I'm not certain that you do.

I'll use your word. I'm peppering this thread with posts about how you can't have a "free" trade zone where labor doesn't have the same freedoms as capital.

You don't like me because of some (Edwards vs Clark) shit that happened a long time ago, I think, so you're trying to call what I'm saying "neo-liberal" when you know it isn't.

I didn't say freely mobile labor alone will give us an EU type commone market. I'm saying that the EU will work to deliver wealth to people who work rather than to just capital (which will create more total social wealth) because it gives labor the same mobility as capital. I'm saying NAFTA won't deliver much wealth to anyone but capital because it doesn't give labor the same mobility as capital.

What did I say that makes you think I'm backing down or that I'm saying it's more complex? I'm not backing down. What I'm doing is providing further examples of how the EU takes seriously workers rights and competitiveness, whereas NAFTA doesn't.

If you want to talk about ALL the vicissitutdes of the EU, I'm ready for it. I started with immigration, but if you want to talk about other things the EU does in the same spirit as allowing a mobile labor force, let's talk about it.

[sadiesworld]

114. Bottom line.

NAFTA should be repealed and we should withdraw from the WTO. I don't believe our current "free trade" agreements can be fixed by opening borders (or anything else for that matter).

I don't dislike you. I dislike the propagation of "our trade agreements can be made workable if only we...". It sounds like you wish to dismiss my arguments by insisting that this is "personal".

I feel quite confident that you know a great deal about the EU. And if you wish to enlighten me about how the EU is a workable, realistic model for our trade issues with China, feel free.

[AP]

115. Borders stink. But we can't have free trade unless labor can compete with

capital effectively, and to compete effectively, you need to be mobile, and you need legal protections, and you need to operate in a democracy.

I think you imagine that the US will always be wealthy and every country south of the US in NA, CA, and SA, and Asia, will always be poor and undemocratic, and therefore we should not let people cross those borders freely. Not only is that not the case, it is not even desireable. When all of NA and SA is democratic and has strong middle classes, maybe we'll all have borders as inconsequential as those between nations in the EU. Then we'll be able to reap the full potential of humanity, I think. If that happened on a global scale -- including China -- that would be even better.

In fact, taking steps through economic policy to ensure that wealth flows down to people who only have their labor to sell on the marketplace is great way to develop thriving democracies.

For now, clearly, it's important that the US engages in trade in a way that helps wealth flow to the workers. Of course, the first step isn't to enter into trade agreements that removes visa requirements for citizens if that country doesn't extend legal protections to workers. John Edwards voted for two trade agreements. One was with Jordan. He said that he voted for that one because Jordan has environmental and labor protections, which meant that the US workers wouldn't be competing against underpaid labor in a country that could produce even more cheaply because it destroyed the environmnet. That's one great way to protect the value of labor if you're not going remove visa requirements.

Bottom line: the goal in trade agreements, and even domestic economic policy, should be to ensure that people who create wealth through their labor are competing on a level playing field with people who create wealth from capital. Mobility is one small part of that strategy. But if it's impractical to eliminate visa requirments for labor between two countries, then it's unwise to eliminate tariffs and duties on the products traded between those two countries.

[sadiesworld]

117. Do you support FTAA?

What about the Indo-US FTA?

[AP]

118. I think the EU is a fantastic model for an economic zone. I agree with...

...Edwards that you can't sign trade agreements with countries that unfairly compete with American labor and which compete with american industries by poluting. I believe in trade which delivers wealth to people as well as to capital. And I don't know enough about FTAA and Indo-US FTA, but I do get the impression that FT in the Americas is basically big American corporations taking advantage of captive labor markets in order to increase profit margins, and they don't even pass their lower costs of production to customers in the US through competitive pricing (and they don't pass their profits to their laborers abroad with higher wages which, consequently, drives down wage rates both in the US and the country of production -- which is a problem that can't even be mitigated by mobile labor markets thanks to restrictions on immigration and the impracticality of American labor emmigrating).

Trade in NA and SA is basically a one way flow of profits to the top, and not down to either labor or to consumers.

The EU balances the best interests of capital, labor, and consumers in a way that will create much more total wealth, and wealth which will be distributed much more fairly -- in fact, in a way that rewards productive work, productive use of capital, and maximum benefits to consumers.

[Vladimir]

50. Indeed indeed

the EU of course has its own problems with immigration. For example, since the existence of the Schengen agreement borders between the EU and the rest of the world have been more thightly controlled than ever, which makes immigrating into the EU from outside it more difficult than ever. This is of course motivated by the lowest common denominator principle, i.e. that those EU countries with the strictest pre-agreement immigration policies have gone on to dictate immigration policy to the rest of the EU.

The second point is that within the EU, migration has actually been reasonably small as compared to say Mexico-US, at least partly due to the demographic situation. Most of European society is very old and the impetus to migrate is statistically speaking not that high. Of course once Turkey joins, this situation may well change.

[nomatrix]

51. Do you pay taxes in the U.S.?

You support illegals.

Do you own property and pay taxes on it?

You support illegals.

Do you pay car insurance?

It goes up everytime from accidents with uninsured motorists.
You support illegals.

Google up percentages of prisoners (illegals) 28% and they are not Canadians.
You are paying for illegals.

You like paying the rising cost of healthcare, and like having that hospital open?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37834

"Many public hospitals in the United States, especially in the Southwest, are facing major financial difficulties because of the services that they are rendering to indigent alien patients. Some have closed; others are threatening to do so. By the spring of 2003, lawmakers said 77 hospitals along the border were facing a crisis. In September 2002, the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition found U.S. border hospitals spent close to $190 million in 2000 to provide health care to illegals. The study calculated the losses at $79 million in California, $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona and $6 million in New Mexico. It also said that emergency-service providers incurred another $13 million in uncompensated costs.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform says that, according to its estimates, illegal aliens soak up $3.7 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

"It's an enormous cost and can be very crippling, especially in border states," says David Ray, a spokesman for the group, of the cost of those benefits. "The federal government is the one that's dropping the ball in allowing poor immigration enforcement to the state's pocketbooks."

"The simple fact is our border hospitals are struggling to remain in business because they can no longer afford to absorb the cost of providing medical care to undocumented immigrants," says McCain. "As hospitals and emergency rooms close, citizens across the state and the nation will face higher health-care costs and reduced access to care. It is time the federal government took responsibility for this problem, before the crisis worsens."

I for one am sick of it.

[Vladimir]

53. The simple answer seems to be

to make the pay taxes. I.e. give them legal immigrant status.

People are rational, and migration is a rational activity, governed by supply and demand as much as anything else. Once a market is saturated, immigration will decrease. It is barriers to free movement which create a problem, because they stop people from rationally moving in search of jobs. That is if you run a capitalist system - with a planned economy things change but I doubt the US wants to go down that route.

[barb162]

don't even get me going on this

"Do you pay car insurance? It goes up everytime from accidents with uninsured motorists."


I'll say.

My brother was nearly killed by an illegal a few years ago as he was driving down this major street in his 3 week old car. The illegal broadsided my brother's car. The illegal also had no driver's license, no auto liability insurance, he was driving drunk, went through a red light and I think (but am not sure) he was driving a stolen car. I am so glad my brother wasn't killed. My brother's auto insurance paid for a new car,etc., but his rates went up. What a total joke.

And just to make sure anyone here doesn't think I am picking on a certain ethnic group, I would also like to see people who came here on student visas, now expired, get picked up and sent back to their own countries. There are how many people here like that. Thousands. And every time I read of a terrorist cell being broken up and they are here illegally, my blood boils.

We have got to get our immigration laws working and by that I mean enforce them. I say pick up all illegals.

[AP]

61. Your problem would have been solved if the US did what the EU did:

allowed labor to move freely within the countries which allow capital to freely pass.

If the guy didn't have to be illegal, he might have been operatingn properly (licensed and insured). If he wouldn't have, your problem isn't that he was an illegal immigrant. It was that he was an asshole (and there are plenty non-immigrants who don't get insured).

[SeekerofTruth]

52. So then you agree it's okay for American companies to move jobs overseas?

We have fewer jobs in this country because more jobs are being taken over by illegal immigrants. If free trade is so good and illegal aliens coming in and taking jobs is good then what is wrong with corporations moving jobs overseas? They both result in 'legal' Americans losing jobs!

American companies shouldn't move jobs overseas and illegal aliens shouldn't be allowed to come in and take jobs. There is a reason they are called "illegal".

[Brian_Expat]

113. An outright fallacy

We have fewer jobs in this country because more jobs are being taken over by illegal immigrants.

What jobs are being "taken over by illegal immigrants?"

Workers at McDonald's and Wendy's? Janitorial part-time jobs? Car-washers and maids?

You can apply for those jobs too -- but the point is you DON'T, because you don't want to. Neither do other Americans, hence the interest by illegal immigrants and recent legal immigrants.

The margins in all those businesses that they couldn't pay a living wage without doubling or tripling their prices, and nobody's going to pay $11 for a Big Mac.

[AP]

119. One of the reasons American companies can move jobs abroad and make

a profit is because they're moving to countries with captive labor markets (people who have no choice but to work for those companies at exploitative wages because they can't easily migrate to places where there are better opportunities).

You can't really stop capital (and production) from migrating out of the US, but you can tax the hell out of what they make when it comes back to the US if they're making money in countries where they exploit labor. AND you can realize that making it harder for people to come to the US legally helps achieve nothing buy holding down wages in the US and overseas.

In the 1870s-1920s, Europeans came to the US to work. They created wealth in the US with their labor, and they repatriated some of that wealth back to their families in Europe, which helped those countries build up democratic, competitive economies whose competition with America made both Europe and America wealthier, not poorer. Mobile work forces help everyone get wealthier.

Using the law to hold back workers and hold down wage rates and prevent middle class wealth accumulation hurts workers in America as much as it hurts workers abroad.

[Right Makes Might]

54. The Catch 22 nature of this problem is a perfect example of

why the current system we're operating under is totally bankrupt.

1) The wealthy and powerful, particularly of this nation, are able to chase after the most vulnerable people all over the world to maximize profits. Why? Because they've made damn well sure it's "legal" to do so.

2) Those made desperate by their shenanigans are forced to leave their homes in order to survive. Where can they go? The only places they can make any sort of living is in the very countries of the people who put them into their desperate situation in the first place.

3) They're allowed in (while ostensibly being "illegal") because it's good for the same jerks in power to have a large pool of people willing to take crap wages, in addition helping depress wages and work conditions for people in general.

4) The middle and lower classes suffer and blame it all on the "damn immigrants" while the real criminals get off scott free.

What can be done? Every effort to reform the system has failed because the system itself is the problem.

[lucky777]

57. My wife is an illegal immigrant (not for long, though)

so I have some perspective on this.

First, they are willing to do dirty jobs for bullshit wages: getting up at 4am to make coffee and clean the diner, changing sheets for $5/hr, picking strawberries for 12 hours ---- the entire economy is built on them. If we had to pay minimum wage to every worker in LA, Chicago, and NY the economy would collapse. They do all this without any benefits, none whatsoever, so they save employers billions of dollars.

Second, they do not drain resources. It is very hard for them to get basic services since they lack citizenship: they tend to avoid hospitals, avoid the police, avoid asking for help. They pay sales taxes, etc.

Third, they avoid trouble. SInce they are afraid of deportation, they don't sue, don't get into fights, don't bring trouble in the way that citizens would. Most of them live in communal homes, share expenses, and send money home.

Fourth, it is brutally hard to get citizenship. We had to wait months for her working permit, now we are waiting for her green card, that has be to renewed every few years, and citizenship is way way off: and we are married.

In short, they work hard and deserve some measure of protection.

All this talk about illegal aliens is just hysteria. The real problem is that we have lost most of the good jobs due to corp greed and globalization.

[Sterling]

69. BS

It might mean smaller profits at the top but certainly not a failure of the economy. In fact the more you pay lower wage people the more money they have to pump back into the economy.

I have little patience for people who think slave wages are good for the economy and society in general.

[barb162]

83. are we talking about the same country?

You make certain statements that cannot be serious:

(1) "economy would collapse"

Absolutely not; prices would be higher, that's all. But then taxes would be lower because all of the free services (such as hospital problems discussed elsewhere) the illegals get would disappear.

(2)"they do not drain resources"
they certainly do drain millions upon millions of dollars. How do you account just for the public hospital costs mentioned elsewhere., And that was just for a few cities in the Southwest states. Are you (implying they pay either state or federal income tax by the "etc" after "sales " taxes in your second full paragraph. There have been studies done on this question and they use far more in services than they ever put into the system here. They are USERS.

(3)I completely disagree with your next paragraph except for three items. Personally I know landlords who rent to a couple with one child. Within two or so months there are 20 people living in the 2 bedroom apt. Then the landlords have to evict and clean up mounds of filth. The only things I believe you are correct on is the "communal" living aspect and the point about sending money back to their origin country. The comment that they "don't get into fights" point is beyond belief. The largest and most brutal gangs are often the illegals, at least in my neck of the woods. They buy and sell drugs, steal, murder, etc.

[Sterling]

68. You called it.

I wish liberals understood what this stuff was really about. It does not benifit the lower classes in any way to allow corporations to chase cheap labor around the globe and it won't help lower or middle class Americans as it's not like Americans can move to Mexico and make more money. I also think it is crazy to think that the global populace can migrate en mass to chase strong job markets.

[sleepystudent]

55. But countries in the EU actually have a safety net for their citizens...

you know like health care, unemployment benefits, etc. So the non-immigrant population is somewhat protected from fluctuations in the economy that can be exacerbated by an influx of immigrants. There are no such protections in the US, we have so few and even those are getting stripped. So the effect of illegal immigrants on the economy( higher health care costs because of lack of insurance, higher education costs, etc, driving the cost of labor down) disproportionately effect those that are already here, pay taxes, and are already vulnerable because of lack of education and being at the bottom of the economy. Do illegal immigrants actually pay taxes? If not, I see them as basically taking more out of society than they actually contribute. And I know in the black community, many are feeling directly threatened and pushed out by illegal immigrants because they are now usurping the place that many uneducated blacks held in the economy. However, no jobs are being created to replace the ones that Americans are losing.

I basically think that until the US has taken care of its own ( there is 50%+ unemployment in NYC ghettos right now-why not try to hire them first?) and the safety net is strengthened to protect people from a weakening economy, then illegal immigration should be discouraged and clamped down on. It should be treated the same way people from developed countries are treated when they move from country to country-if you do not have a sponsor, a identifiable skill, some support, etc.-then don't come.

[sweetheart]

106. I hear ya, but what to do

A few years ago, i went out on a limb at our Manhattan business and
employed someone from Brooklyn. It was a risk, as most of our
staff were imported from India (Americans who want to move to
manhattan and NOT work in an investment bank are few). We paid our
indian staff fair wages and they got all the benefits that any local
person would expect.

This chap from brooklyn could not spell, could not type and was
severely undereducated. When he took an instruction to deliver
flowers to a client, and went out looking for flour, we started to
wonder.

When the local population has been that berefit of eduction, there
is nothing a business can do to change it by hiring them... The
government has to invest in schools and outpatient education to get
the workforce literate. The need for illiterates in manhattan is
not so great, and only a very large corporation can take the time
to invest in someones long term education.. and even then without
indentured servitude, it'll never happen.

[Cleita]

56. Living in Southern California most of my life and working in

the restaurant business a lot of the time, I met many illegal immigrants both from north and south of the border, white Canadians, white Europeans, white Australians and New Zealanders as well as the Spanish speakers from below our southern border.

It's true no one really worried much about the white English speaking illegals. These were the ones who really did take white American jobs in offices and other better paying positions. These illegals made enough money to eventually get immigration lawyers. Many of the women, as well as men, married American citizens to get their green card. I even knew one who married an American all the while being married to another woman back in the old country.

The Spanish speaking illegals are the ones who did the jobs no one else wanted. This whole issue has smacked of racism from the beginning. There is another European immigrant, who entered this country on a temporary visa and stayed past the visa illegally. He eventually got his permanent resident status allowing him to become a citizen and is now governor of California through the back door, evidentally his MO, seizing opportunity by entering through the back door.

This same Governor has vetoed a proposition that Californians had voted for to allow immigrants driver's licenses. This is a very racist move and is directed toward the Spanish speaking immigrants, most of whom take the bus or bicycle to work anyway. So essentially he screwed the white illegal immigrants instead of the ones his racist GOP puppeteers had targeted.

[barb162]

58. and here's another problem

"He eventually got his permanent resident status..." after he stayed past the original visa. They automatically should have picked him up and sent him back to Austria. The laws need to be enforced; stop giving passes to illegals/ lawbreakers.

[Cleita]

59. Yeah, but he was a white European.

Believe me, they all got a pass from the mostly white INS at the time Arnold entered this country. I only knew of one guy who got deported, a native of Australia. He had an affair with a prominent local businessman's wife. The immigration picked him up no doubt after the businessman, who was a big Republican contributor, probably asked some influential pols to lean on the INS to do so.

He was back a month later, making sure that he flew under the radar of the ex-girlfriend's husband. As far as I know he could still be here. Oh, the businessman had no problems otherwise hiring illegals to work for him.

[Sterling]

71. More BS

My "white" friends from overseas have a much harder time staying in the country than the latino illegals my asshole step dad hires for his slave labor force at his plant.

[Cleita]

74. Well, apparently there is your answer.

Maybe your European friends aren't as desperate for jobs as the slave labor so maybe they have a harder time getting hired because they are more discriminating. You didn't mention if they were legal or illegal.

[barb162]

76. my sister in law

is from Europe and she has 2 brothers and a mother who still live there. Just to come here on vacation for one month, to stay at my brother's house, I think my sister-in-law has to sign all kinds of papers that her brother(s) won't work, that he will go back, that she is personally responsible for him at all times, that if he did do any work, she can go to jail and pay a big fine, she or he has to buy a round trip air ticket, etc. Why it is so hard for Europeans to come here and these illegals are streaming in every day by the hundreds is beyond me.

So what happens is they never come here and she goes back there every few years to visit her mother and brothers.

INS has to be strengthened substantially. To me there is not one reason to tolerate one illegal in this country. I doubt if there is a country on this planet that would tolerate the situation we have going here. (Did you ever think of turning Your stepfather in or would that cause such a stink in the family.... )

[Cleita]

79. I can imagine that your sister-in-law is

having problems because she is trying to do things on the up and up. Remember though that if those brown, Spanish speaking aliens tried to do things on the up and up,like your sister-in-law, that they would have one-tenth of a chance of stepping foot in this country than your sister-in-law's family.

[Chovexani]

91. My boyfriend

My boyfriend is a white Australian, and he has been trying to move here legally for the last five years. He can't afford an immigration lawyer, the fees and red tape are almost insurmountable.

I can't speak about NAFTA, or economic policy, or anything like that. All I know is, a guy who has never been in any kind of trouble, and is trying to play by the rules, is getting screwed by the system. We have never once thought about stooping to illegal measures to get him here, although we have had opportunities in the past. We are law-abiding people who want to do the right thing. The one thing we have going for us is the fact we are in a heterosexual relationship. God forbid if either one of us were a different gender, we'd be even more screwed.

And yet some guy on a leaky boat from Cuba can just show up with no kind of papers or anything and instantly have rights. It's totally unfair to people who WANT to follow the rules and have doors slammed in their face left and right. If you want to curb illegal immigration, come up with a reasonable policy that doesn't penalize people who follow the law and reward people for illegal actions. That is admittedly a tall order, but I have one practical step: end this racist, pandering bullshit that says people from ONE country in particular are above the laws people from every other country have to abide by. Make Cubans have to go through the same process as everyone else, and you'll be on the road to a sane and fair immigration policy. I'm not saying round people up and drop them into the ocean; everyone should be treated with human dignity and respect regardless of where they come from or how they got here. But it is not inherently a racist notion to suggest everyone follow the law.

I didn't used to really think either way about the issue, but being personally affected by this sort of thing will do that to a person. I admit I am very bitter and resentful about this issue, so YMMV of course.

[AP]

116. Your boyfriend isn't being kept out BECAUSE illegals come over, and ...

...illegals come over the way you describe BECAUSE of the same restricitions you're complaining about for your boyfriend.

How people come to the US reflects the level of desperation they have.

The US made a lot of money off of CUBA before Castro came along, and Florida sugar growers are making a ton of money off restrictions preventing Cuban sugar competing with their sugar today.

How is it fair that the people who are deprived of that wealth can't chase it over to America to work for a little bit of it?

When US policies fuck up Australia so bad that it becomes a third world economy (to the US's economic advantage) maybe Australians will be willing to boat over to the US.

[Sterling]

70. If you lived in the Southland you should know

The ratio of immigrants from south of the border to Euro/English speaking is like 100000000000 to one.


Visit LA county sometime.

[Cleita]

75. Well, I'm a born American of Hispanic heritage.

I don't appreciate your racist "factoids". Also, please be informed that Los Angeles was once a part of Mexico and hispanics were there before the European Americans arrived. I think the white population far outpaced the Mexican population about a hundred years ago.

[barb162]

80. there are millions of illegals

in this country and they are in EVERY state. While Hispanics have been in CA since the Spanish conquered and killed off many of the native peoples, it still doesn't cut any ice at all that illegals are overrunning this country and costing this country tons of money.

[Cleita]

82. Millions of illegals here, is there?

Do you have any facts to back that statement? Do you have any demographics as to where these illegals are from? Are they all from Mexico? Who compiles these facts? I hope it isn't Rush Limbaugh. We all know how carefully he checks and double checks his facts.

Also, what is your bone to pick in this argument? Did an illegal take a job picking lettuce for 50 cents a crate from one of your kids? Did an illegal not wash your car or mop your floor as well as you would have? If not, maybe you should do these jobs yourself.

[barb162]

85. here's the "bone to pick"

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that in January of 2000 there were
7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number that is growing by half a million a year. Thus, the illegal-alien population in 2003 stands at at least 8 million. Included in this estimate are approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror. It is important to note that the 500,000 annual increase is the net growth in the illegal-alien population (new illegal immigration minus deaths, legalizations, and out-migration). In 1999 for example, the INS estimates that 968,000 new illegal aliens settled in the U.S. This number was offset by 210,000 illegal aliens who either died or returned home on their own, 63,000 who were removed by the INS, and 183,000 illegal aliens who were given green cards as part of the normal "legal" immigration process. One of the most important findings of the INS report is the intimate link between legal and illegal immigration. The INS estimates that it gave out 1.5 million green cards to illegal aliens in the 1990s. This was not due to amnesty legislation, but rather reflects how the legal immigration process embraces illegal immigration and encourages it through legal exemptions. According to the INS, only 412,000 illegal aliens were removed during the decade.

The Census Bureau has also developed estimates of its own. Their estimate at the time of the 2000 Census suggests that the illegal immigration population was about 8 million. Using this number, it can be concluded that the illegal-alien population grew by almost half a million a year in the 1990s. This conclusion is derived from a draft report given to the House immigration subcommittee by the INS that estimated the illegal population was 3.5 million in 1990. For the illegal population to have reached 8 million by 2000, the net increase had to be 400,000 to 500,000 per year during the 1990s.
----
(Maybe I have more facts than you do about the situation and I am more concerned about this serious situation in this country. How you interpret these facts, estimates, etc., of the number of illegals in this country and the rate at which they are streaming is not up to me. If it doesn't disturb you that the immigration types estimate about a half million are coming here a year, well, what can I say. My position is that the illegals cause serious harm to the job /wage structure, the infrastructure, the resources, taxes, etc. That being said, you can take your snotnose comments and in the immortal words of Ms. Kerry, "shove it."

[Cleita]

86. Poor desperate people over the millenium have caused

serious harm to the overly privileged, who don't mind exploiting them until oh, they start interfering with the wage structure, the infrastructure, the resources, taxes, etc. Oh you can take your snotnose comments about Mrs. Kerry and put them in a place where we don't have to look, I hope.

<sarcasm off>

[barb162]

92. I thought your last question was

"Millions of illegals here, is there?" and you wanted proof.

When I kindly supply you with the answer, (why can't you research it yourself, are you tired of picking lettuce today? ) you can't admit or appreciate the fact that you are wrong. Sorry, but 8 million illegals is 8 million too many for me.

You are not making any sense at all here. Why the heck bring anything up about poor..over the millenium... since this is not about social history over the last few thousand years.
However, as to your last comment, repeated here, same to you: Oh you can take your snotnose comments about Mrs. Kerry and put them in a place where we don't have to look, I hope.

[DavidFL]

94. I have a suggestion...

and I don't mean this in an offensive way, but Mr. Kerry should ditch the pro-"neo-liberal" economic sleaze on his policy team, namely DLC corporate whores like Richard Holbrooke and Sandy Berger. Because it's those neo-liberal policies, courtesy of the Milton Friedman school of how-to-wreck-an-economy-and-benefit-your-country's-oligarchy, as well as the "austerity" policies that the World Bank and IMF condition their loans upon, that leave the people in those countries south of border in destitution and poverty and migrating north of the border to find a living for themselves and their families. Want to put a halt to a lot of illegal immigration? Start demanding our leaders enact policies which economically and socially benefit us and the citizens of nations this country enters into free trade agreements with, instead of selling themselves like whores to highest corporate bidder. If NarcoNews was correct in its report on Kerry's first rebuff of Chavez, he should start listening to one of his daughters who told him to ignore Holbrooke and Berger and accept Hugo Chavez's olive branch.

[Cleita]

89. Oh are you misinformed.

The so-called hspanics are the native people mostly. True the Spaniards forceably converted them to Christianity, made them speak Spanish and take Spanish names and customs, but there weren't enough of them to kill all the natives off and repopulate. The conquistadores, if you studied your history, were a few men.

They seldom brought women with them like the Northern Europeans, so they intermarried with the native women. The illegal aliens you are so dismissive of as vermin are about three quarters native american. As a matter-of-fact your friendly busboy probably comes from a place called Oaxca in Mexico or he could be a full-blooded Mayan from Guatemala. Spanish is his second language because his native american language is his first language. So who really belongs here first?

[barb162]

93. I am well aware

of everything mentioned in your first paragraph.

I am not dismissive of illegals and I do not think of them as vermin and I dare you to find any post I have done here that states that. You are reading things in my posts that aren't there. I don't care if an illegal is Austrian, Chinese, English, Mexican, Indian, Chinese, etal. I have posted several times that an illegal is an illegal is an illegal without regard to country and that this country cannot keep supporting this number of illegals coming here every year.

I resent your unsubstantiated insinuations. I gave INS data to you supporting my positions and it appears you can't handle that I can back up my comments with government data. What the hell is your problem? On second thought, don't answer that as I don't want to know. I will not respond to any more of your posts.

[Cleita]

107. Of course you won't respond because you don't have any

facts that you can substantiate with a link to an article or a statistical data base. How would the INS go about getting these figures? Are they going to get the employers to admit they hire illegals. Are they going to poll the illegals to admit they are illegal, I'll bet not. The only places I can find stats stating many wild figures as facts are on the RW or Aryan websites and they don't link to anything factual either.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

122. Agree

My family lived in what is now the United States for a hell of a long time longer than any european has lived there. They were thrown back when Texas became part of the Union. Then in 1920 my greatgrandmother came back to live with her husband legally. They deported my AMERICAN born grandmother because they saw dark skin and just assumed she was here illegally. Why? Because of idiotic stereotypes like those given on this thread.
Hispanics were here first. They got thrown off their land and sent into the new Mexico. Then when they come back legally, they get lumped together and treated like shit because of racial stereotypes and racial profiling. And as for being a drain on resources? I know illegals and they don't take up ANY resources for fear of getting sent back. They even home school their kids. It's not the illegals fault we don't have national healthcare, it's the european men who run this country that are to blame.

[barb162]

77. I think the ratio is the same in Illinois

[Cleita]

84. If those figures made sense to you, I don't know what to think.

Not only did the poster not specify which demographic outnumbered the other, the numbers had no meaning as they were written. You agreed with his figures? ROFLMAO.

[barb162]

90. ACTUALLY

the person was clearly joking in a concise fashion and the poster used hyperbole superbly since we all know there aren't a hundred billion people in that area of the country let alone on this planet. But then one has to have a sense of humor to understand it was a joke in the first place.

[AbbeyRoad]

95. I'm an American of Hispanic heritage born and bred in the USA...

who grew up and still lives in Illinois. If you saw me on the street, would I figure into that exaggerated "100000000000 to one" ratio? I was born into my citizenship while members of my paternal family acquired their citizenships through legal immigration. Nothing about me or them is illegal or, even more precisely, from south of a border.

I don't find overgeneralizing assumptions to be particularly funny.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

121. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

My family has been here LEGALLY for some time. Yet because we are dark skinned we get shuffled into the racial profiling you do in an attempt to be funny? You've been listening to Republicans too long.

[Tight_rope]

62. I totally and abosulely agree with you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Illegal immigrants are here because

dishonest and stingy employers keep hiring them.

There were frequent exposes on Oregon TV about how badly the growers (mostly Republicans) treat their Mexican workers, but they'd rather pay Mexicans sub-minimum wage piece work wages instead of what they used to do, which was hire local schoolchildren to pick crops.

[Sterling]

72. Yes that is the other side of this.

This is bad for everyone but the bad guys.

[barb162]

78. yes

[boot@9]

99. exactly why

enforcement is so lax. The power brokers do not want to lose their cheap labor supply.

[AP]

108. And they also don't want to make them legal because that would give them

too much leverage against employers who can rip them off so long as they're illegal.

[CaTeacher]

120. There are some in my apartment complex.

I would never turn them in or cause any trouble for them. I am hoping that they do not get caught--they have 10-12 people in a 1 bedroom apartment and it is pretty obvious to everyone around here what is going on. I have talked to several of them--they are such nice people and very scared. I have deep sympathy for them.

There are other people I have not had deep sympathy for--I know a couple who came here supposedly to go to school--and they purposefully had a baby (instant American citizen) so that they could stay. They are wealthy people who want to get around the rules. I don't support them in what they did--but it is not illegal--just immoral.