"Most Democratic voters are closer to the Republicans in their attitudes toward illegal immigration

[pampango]

than to their own party's leaders and activists."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/11/alabama_immigration_law/index.html

Alabama's harsh new immigration law explained

Alabama's Republican governor signs the harshest immigration law in the country

Despite the relative lack of national media attention, the Alabama law includes more harsh measures than even Arizona's notorious SB 1070, which immediately faced legal challenges after passing last year. Like the Arizona law, Alabama's measure requires local police to check the immigration status of people who they believe may be in the country illegally.

But it goes much further, establishing new requirements for checking the immigration status of students and potential tenants. It is scheduled to go into effect in September -- but not before a promised legal challenge by civil rights groups.

What are the harshest provisions in this new law?

It is everything that was included in Arizona's SB 1070 -- including everything that was enjoined by the courts when they evaluated that bill. The twist is a provision in the Alabama law that requires schools to determine and verify immigration status of any student who is enrolling and any parent of students who are enrolling. The bill's backers are saying that this is constitutional because they are not turning people away from schools. The schools are not supposed to turn people away, but they are required to collect this data and to report it to the Legislature. This is clearly in violation of existing Supreme Court precedent, because it will in fact have a chilling effect on immigrant children enrolling in school.

There's also a prohibition on renting in the law. It is a crime for a landlord to rent an apartment if they knew or should have known that the tenant is undocumented. Also under the law, if a person enters into a contract with someone who they know to be an undocumented immigrant, that contract is unenforceable in the state courts.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[rfranklin]

2. I've noticed that there are many Polish people here illegally...

why is it no one seems to mention them?

[leftistboy]

6. we must make sure that everyone has the same likes and dislikes

whatever it takes

[csziggy]

38. Because European illegal immigrants are never a problem

It's only those *other* illegal immigrants with brown or yellow skin that cause problems - steal our jobs, use our social services, and cost us money. :sarcasm:

Over twenty years ago in two separate incidents I was ripped off by two different illegal immigrants - one was from Canada the other from Sweden. INS was not interested in going after them for staying and working in the country illegally - they would not even take a report.

But the sweet Mexican man who married the step-daughter of a friend and who was here legally had and still has constant problems being hassles by INS and now ICE. He has to carry ALL the papers proving he is here legally ALL the time. Recently he had to get new copies because the papers were wearing out and while one official was checking them, they tore. The guy threatened to arrest him because the line of type along the fold line where it tore was no longer readable.

This guy is sweet, a hard worker, and takes very good care of his wife. The Canadian was convicted of more than one felony, continued to commit the same crimes, but INS would not deport him. The Swede stalked and assaulted women, was a thief, and a belligerent drunk who got into street brawls, but no one ever checked his papers.

[leftistboy]

40. drive up in front of Home Depot and tell me how many European immigrants are lined up in front

of the home depot willing to work cheap?

[rfranklin]

182. You should try some communities in New Jersey...

and due to having a Polish partner in business, I am very well aware of the huge number of European illegals working and getting paid under the table (i.e. no taxes paid.)

[WatsonT]

219. Is it your opinion that your personal anecdote is the same as a verified statistical trend?

[nomb]

195. Try the Brickyard Home Depot - it is Eastern Europeans

Interestingly they are knocking Hispanics out of certain trades, real pressure, except they rarely venture out of the city.

[WatsonT]

47. Yeah clearly we're being overrun by Canadian and Swedish illegals

Every time I drive by the border nothing but blond haired blue eyed 8 ft tall aryans running across.

The parking lot outside of home depot looks like a bunch of extras from Triumph of the Will.

[CreekDog]

98. we aren't overrun by Mexicans

what ignorance makes you think so?

California was once part of Mexico, so many of the brown people you see have been here for generations.

[WatsonT]

103. You're not from anywhere near the border are you?

It's easy to say there is no problem when you live somewhere else. For instance there is no famine in my neighborhood, clearly there is no problem with famine anywhere.

And the whole thing once belonged to the Native Americans, the Mexicans stole California from them if you want to take that route. Unrestricted immigration didn't work out so well for them did it?

[CreekDog]

105. You think we're overrun by Mexicans, wow. You also think Mexican people aren't Native American

apparently you learned everything you know about Mexicans from Pete Wilson and Archie Bunker.

you ever heard of the saying, "we didn't cross the border, it crossed us."?

no.

but i don't know why i'm here arguing with someone who isn't even liberal.

[WatsonT]

108. Mexicans aren't native americans

there are Mexicans who are pure blooded native, and there are some who are lily white. The nation of Mexico is racially mixed. So saying Mexican = Native is absolutely false.

"you ever heard of the saying, "we didn't cross the border, it crossed us."?"

Hahahaha, wow.

Yeah Mexico is a nation of indigenous peoples that was here when the Europeans arrived. Oh that's right, the entire nation came in to being much the same way we did. So arguing over whose borders are more legitimate is like two thieves arguing over who is the more legitimate owner of the loot.

[lumberjack_jeff]

163. Do you really think "mexican" is a race? n/t

[CreekDog]

171. I didn't say Mexican was a race

and I don't consider "Mexican" a race either.

but is there racism directed at Mexican's based on their race and assumptions about their origins?

yes, there's lots of it.

based on your posts, this is one group that you don't seem to think suffer from racism or maltreatment.

[lumberjack_jeff]

184. Native Mexicans and Native Americans both suffer from maltreatment in their countries

I'm responsible for the wellbeing of the latter.

[CreekDog]

187. that's the theme anyway

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

188. I imagine it can become quite important at times...

I imagine it can become quite important at times to divide up the human race by imaginary constructs-- it allows exclusion to be both rationalized and moralized.

[pampango]

115. Indeed we aren't overrun by any group of immigrants. -- From "5 Myths about Immigration"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001106.html

Myth #2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.

The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Now it is 11.7%.. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as "green card" holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas.

It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part."

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf

About 35% of our immigrants are from Mexico; another 18% from other Latin American countries; 25% from Asia; 14% from Europe with the other 8% from other countries/regions.

[Upton]

123. That's a bit dated..

how about we look at some more current figures?

Mexicans make up the largest share of the undocumented population, at about 6.7 to 7 million people, or 59% of the total.

http://roygermano.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/how-many-illegal-immigrants-live-in-the-united-states-and-where-do-they-come-from/

[pampango]

155. Our figures say the same thing: Mexicans are a majority of the illegal immigrants AND

are the biggest group of legal immigrants, as well.

I quoted: "the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants."

You quoted: "Mexicans make up the largest share of the undocumented population, at about 6.7 to 7 million people, or 59% of the total."

[lumberjack_jeff]

167. A distinction without a difference.

I think we all understand that immigration was frequent in 1890. Industrialists wanted immigrants to put to work in the factories to keep wages down. Today is no different (sans factories).



It's at an all-time high in the sense that no one alive today has ever seen it higher. I'm prepared to accept that it might have been higher in the past, such as during the last ice age.

And I'm not sure why the observation that legal immigrants are also disproportionately Mexican makes a difference.

Our economy can't employ the workers our birth alone rate produces.

[Lasher]

169. Nearly eight million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2005

That's more than in any other five-year period in the nation's history. Almost half entered illegally.

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

[pampango]

174. AFL-CIO: “Immigrants are not the cause of America’s problems."

"The problem is that privileged and powerful people are using the same old dirty tricks of division, diversion and distraction to make people blame the least among us in order to keep us from seeing and solving our real problems.

Our wisest leaders have always understood that, here in America, on these shores, we must not fall for hate and fear and divisiveness—we must stand together for justice, unity and opportunity.

“Immigrants are not the cause of America’s problems,” Trumka said. “And S.B. 1070 is not the answer.”

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/05/29/tens-of-thousands-protest-arizonas-immigrant-law

And Canada's immigration rate as a percentage of population is almost 4 times bigger than ours (8.5% vs. 2.3%). Yet they have a more progressive society with a much more equitable distribution of income (GINI of 32 compared to our 45).

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

Sweden's foreign-born population (14.3% is larger than our - 11.7%). They have a much more progressive society and an even better GINI of 23 (one of the best in the world).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Immigration

The relationship between immigration and economic inequality in a country is an inverse one. The progressive countries with the best levels of income equality have more immigration as a percentage of their population than the US has.

It may seem logical that excluding immigrants will help middle and working classes, but in practice those countries with more immigration have stronger middle and working classes.

You can see that in our teabaggers who love to focus on border walls, E-verify and anything else that will reduce the number of "thems" in the country. The baggers want their country back from the minorities (mainly Hispanic in their eyes, but Muslims, too) whom immigration has brought to the country. They would love to keep the country white and Protestant, but care little about providing any progressive policies to benefit anyone be they citizens or immigrants.

Their small minds oppose "them" but also care little for "us".

[WatsonT]

218. The economy is not at the worst it's ever been

but I still think it's worth paying attention to, yes? So pointing out that a problem doesn't exist because at one point it was worse is gibberish.

Additionally I would hesitate to make the claim that the economic, social, and political conditions today are identical to that of 1890.

We hardly have a rapidly growing economy and country in desperate need of workers/settlers. Or do you suppose our industries are starving for lack of laborers?

Likewise the fact that most legal immigrants are from Mexico does nothing to disprove the fact that most illegals are also from Mexico.

And it's not the legal immigrants that are the issue. So that's irrelevant.

/also you did that sneaky thing that all pro-illegal immigration types do in subtly dropping the "illegal" and simply throwing all immigration in together.

[csziggy]

168. We DON"T know how many actual "illegal aliens" are in this country

OR how many of each nationality there are. There may be estimates, but no one knows the real numbers. There are claims of how many are from south of the US border, but I have never seen hard, documented figures.

Northern European immigrants blend in and authorities do not check their papers as often as they do for immigrants of other races. It is so much easier for cops to see a brown skin and think "ILLEGAL" than to check the papers on everyone or to actually use their brains to look for other indicators.

Why not systematically check for expired visas? Or check all those duplicated and bogus Social Security numbers used for employment? Instead, the cops like to terrorize the members of specific ethnic groups and to use racial profiling.

My illustration of the Canadian was that he had already been CONVICTED of a felony but no one ever checked on his immigration status, even after he was sent to state prison. Instead of deporting him out of the country, he was transferred to Pennsylvania when Florida wanted to be quit of him. And yes, there were warrants out for him in Canada, that could have been used to allow Canadian authorities to come pick him up from Florida. Even after I found out this information, the authorities here were not interested in getting him out of the country.

The Swedish guy had been here for five years on a three month tourist visa, working without a green card, and was totally ignored by authorities. He bought himself an American wife (that came straight from her) and even though it was clear that it was a marriage to give himself a way to stay in the country, there was no investigation.

My Mexican friend had to undergo a six month investigation and several unannounced visits to verify that his marriage was for real before he got his papers - and he was already legally in the country with a legitimate green card. The difference in treatment is disgusting.

This entire "illegal alien" push is racially motivated IMO. I am ashamed that Democrats are falling for the GOP propaganda.

[WatsonT]

177. Wait, are you seriously arguing that europeans are here illegally in anywhere near the same rates?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha good one.

Which european nation is currently on the verge of total collapse and shares a thousand mile long border with the US?

[csziggy]

226. No, I am saying we have no idea how may people are here illegally

And that it is easier for Europeans and Canadians to come here legally or illegally and stay here illegally, mostly because the authorities make absolutely no effort to enforce the same laws to the same extent on them as they do on people from other places. Even when the abuses by European illegals are blatant, they are ignored and tolerated. And that is an abuse of the immigration policies.

[WatsonT]

228. Have you been to any of the regions heavily affected by illegal immigration?

They authorities don't really make an effort to enforce those laws anywhere.

"Even when the abuses by European illegals are blatant, they are ignored and tolerated."

Point out one person who has said they oppose illegal immigration by hispanics but are fine when europeans do it. Just one person.

The reason hispanics get the lionshare of the attention is that they make up the lionshare of the illegal population.

Just like a discussion of serial killers or famous generals will predominately cover men. Not because women can't be either, but because they are so in far fewer numbers.

[formernaderite]

199. my niece married a german

After 9-11, and it was a long and arduous process to get him a green card. They met in Europe, and lived together for quite a few years, before getting married..and still the system was unbelievably complex. Oh... and she was already pregnant when they were dealing with the INS. I think the process is somewhat like the TSA... some people are plucked out of the line and hassled. Considering that many Mexicans aren't bothering with green cards, I don't think his treatment was due to him going through the legal channels. Some of the bureaucrats are just assholes.

My niece and her husband have since returned to Europe lol

[FreakinDJ]

64. My wife is an immigrant and in 8 yrs has never asked for her papers

except while applying for a job

I think your friend has problems OTHER then his immigration status

[awoke_in_2003]

90. you are in Cali...

the person you are responding to is in Florida. They are a world apart.

[csziggy]

166. Yeah, his problem is being Mexican while living in Georgia

And trying to make an honest living.

[WatsonT]

45. There are between 10 and 20 million Poles here illegally?

Alert the presses!

[formernaderite]

198. define "many"

there is obviously a mass of undocumented immigrants from central and south America. Of course there are Europeans who overstay their visa... and it's probably easier for them to get by unnoticed, until their are truly "many" of them working illegally.

[MineralMan]

4. Uh, no, actually. The foreigners who are taking American jobs

do not live in this country. They live in the countries to which those jobs have been exported. You're quite incorrect, so...duh, yourself.

[WatsonT]

48. So illegals come here to do what exactly?

Not work apparently because they are not occupying any jobs here, as you claim.

[EFerrari]

81. MineralMan is correct.

NAFTA and its clones have displaced workers all over the Americas. If you want to blame immigrants, that's up to you. But they and we are both being screwed by the same policies.

[WatsonT]

93. *illegal* immigrants, please don't try to be sneaky and drop that bit

also if they're working here are they not occupying a job?

[personman]

132. Undocumented immigrants.

Gay marriage is *illegal* some places. Equating legality and morality is historically ignorant.

Edit: "No human being is illegal." - Howard Zinn quoting immigrant-rights protestors.

[WatsonT]

180. Should they return home they will no longer be "illegal"

Hence their status as human beings is not the reason they are being called that, merely being somewhere they are not allowed to be.

Change that status and they can be legal once again. Simple enough.

[LanternWaste]

189. Much as we refer to speeders as illegals too..

"Change that status and they can be legal once again..."

Much as we refer to speeders as illegals too.. um, wait. I don't think we do-- it seems to be applied to merely one aspect of breaking a civil law.

[WatsonT]

206. We refer to people who have broken the law as criminals do we not?

I suppose we could just call them criminals. But that is less specific.

Ever heard of illegal trespass?

[EFerrari]

137. I don't recall asking you to correct my English.

And I think my post was plain enough. MineralMan is right.

[WatsonT]

181. And yet I provided that service, free of charge!

Equating opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to all immigration is a subtle way of implying anyone who supports the law is a racist.

I support legal immigration, oppose illegal immigration. And yet you'd say I oppose all immigration to paint me as a racist and xenophobe to avoid addressing real arguments.

Like saying someone who is anti-rape opposes sex. The two things are superficially similar but in reality they are radically different. So trying to equate them is foolish.

I hope this correction was of some assistance to you.

[Edweird]

79. Last time I checked you couldn't export digging a trench or forming house foundation to India.

[EFerrari]

83. You are right that construction is impacted more than

other sectors. But American Ag is making money hand over fist while Mexican farmers are being pushed off their farms and north. So, it all works out. The real complaint should be against Big Agriculture, not against the farmers and farm workers who come here because their industry has been killed.

[palmtree guy]

91. meat packing too I believe

[EFerrari]

138. I don't know as much about that, but you are probably right. n/t

[palmtree guy]

151. my basis for that

is I live here on the border and the meat packing plants advertise heavily with the spanish only crowd, and I know that a lot of them that cut thru our farm tell me they are heading to tyson and pilgrims plants up north.

[EFerrari]

152. That makes sense. Welcome to DU, palmtree guy.

[Edweird]

112. I don't see how 'it all works out' for a carpenter that's had his/her wages literally cut in half.

[EFerrari]

136. I was being facetious. Of course it doesn't work out for them

just as it doesn't "work out" for the thousands of people who are pushed up here because crossing the dessert is a little better than starvation.

[WatsonT]

94. Apparently some believe you can

also when those jobs are taken by illegals that doesn't mean that that job is no longer available for an American.

Somehow that all makes sense to some people.

[Edweird]

118. I believe it mostly makes sense to retirees and 'entitled' desk jockeys. But they understand the H1B

It's a bit of a conundrum: Illegal immigrants taking labor jobs and driving wages down from living levels is A-OK. "They aren't hurting anybody". But LEGAL H1B's taking tech jobs is unfair and hurting people that matter.
In summation: a blue collar worker that talks about wage suppression is a racist bigot engaged in scapegoating while a white collar worker doing the same thing is a victim.

[WatsonT]

119. I think the main difference is that

people on here don't tend to be blue collar types. Their jobs aren't being taken by illegals so who cares?

This came up on another thread where people thought that working outside was literally a death sentence. The concept of manual labor is completely alien to many people on here.

[EFerrari]

140. Blaming undocumented workers for US policy is scapegoating

no matter who your are.

[Edweird]

157. You're conflating two entirely different things.

[libmom74]

149. Why put the blame on the people who just

want a job and not on OUR politicians and corporations who are selling us all out? Scapegoating people and fighting each other is exactly what they want, it takes our focus off the fact that we are being screwed while the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer.

[Edweird]

156. It would be hard for me to find a better example of the sanctimonious garbage I'm talking about.

It's easy for you to tell me how I'm supposed to be 'ok' with watching my wages get cut in half before my very eyes because of some nebulous 'corporation'. That's insane. The reason my wages as a carpenter dropped was because 'that guy' is willing to work for half of what I can. He is shacked up with 5 other guys in a 1 bebroom in crack town and is gonna bail as soon as he has some moeny saved up. He doesn't have my mortgage or truck payment or liability insurance. I'm pissed at him but I'm enraged at you for making excuses for him driving MY wages down to 3rd world level. You wanna work for 3rd world wages? Go do it. I do not. I cannot.

PS: Here's a little 2+2 for you - wages are down. That means people don't have money to spend. Where does that fit in to our current economic situation?

[leftistboy]

173. but...but..but...those who will not sacrifice for immigrants MUST be racists!

the people on tv said so!

[CreekDog]

144. no person is illegal

despite your desire to consider them that instead of human.

why, i think you dislike them as much as unionized teachers.

[WatsonT]

179. Repeat something often enough and it becomes true, eh?

That doesn't actually work. Not when the other side is able to offer a counter argument.

[Upton]

84. "The foreigners who are taking American jobs do not live in this country"

Then what exactly are the estimated 11+ million illegals doing here?

[MikeW]

208. ya could have fooled me too

Apparently most of these posters have never hired a contractor lately.

I just told one ... are they all licensed? He said ... "er um"

I asked do they work for you full time and have experience?

Needless to say he lost the job on the spot.

[WatsonT]

44. But the only reason to oppose illegal immigration is racism

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

80. What else would explain the willful ignorance of where our jobs have gone

and what immigrants add to this economy?

[WatsonT]

96. *illegal* immigrants

Not simply "immigrants".

You do realize there's a difference right?

Also if there are 10-20 million here illegally working don't you suppose that would mean 10-20 million jobs for Americans should they be removed? Or would we somehow export construction and agriculture jobs to India?

[personman]

135. Undocumented immigrants. No human-being is illegal.

Again, equating legality and morality shows historical ignorance. Many horrible things done throughout history were considered legal by the perpetrators (slavery, genocide and land-theft of the natives, the holocaust, nuking Japanese cities, the Iraq War...). Many things we take for granted today as basic human-rights, were once illegal or unrecognized. (Interracial marriage, women's right to vote, black people's right to vote, and the battle continues for gay marriage.) Then you have things like torture and indefinite detention without charge, that were once illegal (and are now supposedly legal again thanks to the Bush and Obama admins...)

My point is, if you want to put all your eggs in the legality basket... Good luck with that.

"No human being is illegal." - Howard Zinn quoting immigrant-rights protestors.

[WatsonT]

178. This is such a boring argument

they're here illegally so they are illegal aliens. If they were to go home then they are not illegal aliens. Their status as humans has nothing to do with it, merely being somewhere they are not legally allowed to be.

But continue with that argument, that opposing illegal immigration is the same as supporting torture. I'm sure that will be a real election winner with the millions of unemployed Americans losing hope of ever finding a job and the millions of union members watching their wages fall as they lose out to people who are willing to work for less than minimum wage.

Anything to line the pockets of big-business eh? I mean if they had to pay americans their profit margins might be fractionally smaller. Can't have that can we?

[personman]

202. Oh, "boring" rules it invalidated...

"they're here illegally so they are illegal aliens."

Oh no, lord knows nothing illegal has ever been right. I think I've already obliterated that argument.

"But continue with that argument, that opposing illegal immigration is the same as supporting torture."

That is not at all what I said. My point was equating legality and morality was historically ignorant, and that was all.

"I'm sure that will be a real election winner with the millions of unemployed Americans losing hope of ever finding a job and the millions of union members watching their wages fall as they lose out to people who are willing to work for less than minimum wage."

Recruit those who are willing to work for less in to the unions.

"Anything to line the pockets of big-business eh? I mean if they had to pay americans their profit margins might be fractionally smaller. Can't have that can we?"

Frankly I despise big business. What if the poor Americans and poor Mexicans formed a union to agree to a minimum standard of pay and benefits?

Seems a bit more fair than "Oh no, I have to work as hard as a brown foreign person for the same money."

-Andy

[WatsonT]

215. Boring because it's a bumper sticker, not a rational argument

"Oh no, lord knows nothing illegal has ever been right. I think I've already obliterated that argument."

You're using the argument that because A) some laws have been unjust it must logically follow that B) all laws are unjust.

That is patently absurd. A very juvenile way of thinking.

Name one successful nation with no border regulations at all. Just one.

And then come out and support outsourcing, union busting, and a global race for the bottom. Because that is what you are arguing for but are too timid to just come out and admit.

[personman]

220. Rational argument:

You're using the argument that because A) some laws have been unjust it must logically follow that B) all laws are unjust.

Not at all. My argument was "because some laws are unjust, some laws are unjust." and that means the law does not have a monopoly on morality.

On the other hand, your argument that it's wrong because it's illegal, is as fallacious as if I HAD argued "because some laws are unjust, all are." Which I did not.

[WatsonT]

221. It is illegal

that was in response to your bumper sticker that "no one is illegal".

It is illegal because it is wrong in this scenario. Not all laws are just, but this one is.

I'm glad you've dropped your argument in favor of illegality based on slavery once being legal. That was pretty silly.

BTW: one country that has implemented your bumper-sticker philosophy on a national level.

[EFerrari]

142. I hope you're enjoying NAFTA and CAFTA.

And Obama is looking to do another FTA with Colombia. The stream of immigrants won't dry up any time soon.

[CreekDog]

130. because you talk like everyone who is brown = illegal immigrants

you use the word "overrun", you talk about people standing outside in front of Home Depot and (for the grand finale):

"Mexico is a horrible place and the US is a better place"

:eyes:

[WatsonT]

216. I don't remember saying "everyone who is brown = illegal immigrants"

That seems out of character for me. Could you please find that quote and point it out where I actually made this statement?



Perhaps it's next to your statement that "the holocaust wasn't that bad"?

[personman]

133. There is always nationalist jingoism.

Not much better a mentality, IMO.

[MikeW]

209. no better than the people who pull out the word "jingoism" and use it regularly like toilet paper

[WatsonT]

217. Name one nation with no border enforcement

just one.

[MineralMan]

3. Scapegoating is an easy thing to do. Too easy.

It's easy to get people stirred up against an easily-recognized class of people. Such strategies have been used many times in history to start wars, cause genocide, and other lovely things.

It's difficult to stem this tide, but it's essential to do just that.

[notesdev]

72. It's not a matter of scapegoating

It's a matter of choosing priorities. Practically by definition the U.S. government has an obligation to favor its own citizens over foreign workers, even if you ignore the wide-ranging benefits of lower unemployment. Right now there is little reason to train an American worker in needed skills, they just ship the job out or ship a foreign worker in. The US worker is the loser in this arrangement no matter how it plays out.

A worker can't just ship in a new job when he needs one like an employer can; the employer-labor balance of power must be adjusted to provide fair opportunity and an even playing field for labor.

[sendero]

82. Especially..

.. when there is 17% un/under employment in the country. Mexico has had decades to develop an economy, it is time for them to do so.

[pampango]

95. AFL-CIO: “Immigrants are not the cause of America’s problems."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/05/29/tens-of-thousands-protest-arizonas-immigrant-law

The problem is that privileged and powerful people are using the same old dirty tricks of division, diversion and distraction to make people blame the least among us in order to keep us from seeing and solving our real problems.

Our wisest leaders have always understood that, here in America, on these shores, we must not fall for hate and fear and divisiveness—we must stand together for justice, unity and opportunity."

[still_one]

5. Anyone for these draconian laws are not Democrats, or for that matter for the Constitution.

This is about pure racial profiling, and I have no doubt it will be used mostly against those people of color

[leftistboy]

7. so it is bad to be against the constitution?

then I must be bad...

[still_one]

9. If you don't believe in the bill of rights and Constitution, then I suggest perhaps you should

follow a different drummer

[leftistboy]

14. I do follow a different drummer--populist leftism

is that ok with you?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WatsonT]

53. What's your opinion on states rights then?

And gun ownership?

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Not your call. n/t

[WatsonT]

51. Is there anyway to remove illegals from this country that would not predominately affect hispanics?

Where do you suppose most illegals in the US come from?

Sweden, Mongolia, Australia?

[totodeinhere]

86. It is not up to you to define who a Democrat is. Under our political system all you have to do to

become a Democrat is to register as one. There are no litmus tests. If I register to vote as a Democrat they don't ask me first about my attitude about draconian immigration laws.

[leftistboy]

8. some polls show that 70% of voters want less immigration

but enforcing the desires of the majority of americans, that would be democracy. ((shudder))

[COLGATE4]

10. "Leftist Boy" does seem appropriate.

[leftistboy]

12. damn straight n/t

[still_one]

11. Wanting less immigration is one thing, and racial profiling is an entirely different thing /nt

[leftistboy]

13. any excuse to cram more cheap labor into america, right?

>..

[MineralMan]

15. Let's see...where have I heard that before?

I don't think it was on this forum. Maybe on some other forum. Anti-immigrant advocacy isn't a plus here.

[leftistboy]

16. you would have heard it on any union labor picket line 60 years ago

you know, like the ones that fought and bled so that the rightwing yuppies of today can work a 40 hour week.

You see, anti-immigration is a central plank of leftism.

[MineralMan]

22. At least half of the people on that picket line would have been

immigrants themselves. Major Fail.

[leftistboy]

25. so if a man rapes a woman and she has a girl child, then it is ok..

...for the rapist to rape the girl child because she only existed because of rape?

mass immigration was wrong then because it was against the will of the people. And it wrong now because of the same reasons.

[Forkboy]

58. LOL

Good lord. :rofl:

[MineralMan]

60. Wow! Your logic is simply amazing-

ly lame. Rarely have I seen such masterful misuse of logic. Bravo!

[leftistboy]

63. how so? Please explain.

[MineralMan]

66. No. It would be impossible, I'm certain.

I hope you're enjoying yourself.

[Avant Guardian]

74. You are basically saying that mass immigration is a bad thing

But without it the US would not exist. Unless you are pure native American, you are being hypocritical.

[Iggo]

111. Yes. That's exactly correct. (n/t)

[Upton]

24. Being anti immigrant is one thing..

being anti ILLEGAL immigration is quite another..

[pintobean]

65. That's not for you to decide.

[MineralMan]

70. But it is for me to state my opinion, I believe.

See my signature line.

[pintobean]

76. That's just so special

but you stated it as fact. I don't care about the disclaimer in your sig line.

[still_one]

17. Legal OR illegal immigrants are NOT the reason we are losing our jobs, it is because exporting jobs

to India and China which is where the majority of cheap labor and loss of jobs is occurring

This country is made up of immigrants, and it is what makes it great

If you are against illegal immigration, you won't have much argument, but if you are classifying legal immigrants with the same brush as illegal immigrants, I think I understand exactly WHO you are

[leftistboy]

20. that line comes straight out of the rich people mouths

the ones that own and operate the corporate media, the corporate high education industry, and the corporate entertainment.

Methinks the interests of working class people are NOT the same as the ones at the tops of those industries, and so whatever THEY say and think, and I usually do just the opposite.

[still_one]

26. Really, seems to me what you are saying comes right from Fox news /nt

[leftistboy]

27. look at the polls--a super majority want less immigration

but I guess democracy is a bad thing, right?

Just because the democratic party elite and the news media do not give voice to the opinions of the people on immigration, progressive taxation, universal healthcare, etc, that does not mean that I have to regurgitate everything they say.
Many polls show americans want less immigration--democrats and republicans. Just because fox news just happens to give voice to the majority on that issue does not mean I have to NOT support that issue.

[still_one]

31. For some reason you don't understand that racial profiling and NOT wanting immigration, is NOT the

same thing

[leftistboy]

35. so once the GOP is in favor of an issue, it becomes verboten ....

for those on the left to even consider also being in favor of that issue? Is that it?

So, if fox news favor letting americans live in their own home or apartment, then I cannot come on DU and speak in favor of that same principle?

[CreekDog]

145. wait, this is the 2nd post giving credit to Fox news

what's next? Howard Stern reference?

[pinboy3niner]

33. Actually, it comes from the AFL/CIO

Trumka: Immigration Reform Crucial For New Economy

by James Parks, Jun 18, 2010

...


Immigration reform is not just an economic issue, he added. The way we as a nation treat the immigrants among us is also about who we are as a nation. He pointed out that we are a nation of immigrants, chronicling how his parents fled poverty and war from different corners of Europe.

When I was a kid, there was an ugly name for every one of us in all twelve languages spoken in Nemacolin, Pennsylvania-wop and hunkie and polack and kike.


We were the last hired and first fired, the people who did the hardest and most dangerous work, the people whose pay got shorted because we didn’t know the language and were afraid to complain.

And yet, he said, today he hears working people, including some in his own family say that immigrants are taking our jobs, ruining our country. But workers should know better, he said:

When I hear that kind of talk, I want to say, did an immigrant move your plant overseas? Did an immigrant take away your pension? Or cut your health care?

...


http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/06/18/trumka-immigration-reform-crucial-for-new-economy/

[leftistboy]

62. the afl cio got too big for the members to control it,

just like the USA is too big for american voters to control it. The degree of democracy is inversely proportional to the size of the voting entity.

[Upton]

21. Are you saying there are no jobs..

being lost to Americans in this country due to the influx of illegals?

[leftistboy]

28. maybe that person cares more for immigrants than jobless americans?

just guessing...

[still_one]

30. I am saying most of the jobs are being offshored, and that doesn't just include the technical jobs,

but the jobs that supply food and produce.

As just one small example, Gilroy, California was the center of garlic growth in California, and the country. They closed it down years ago, and most of the garlic is being produced in China.

There are a lot of other industries where that has happened also

[Upton]

32. Sure a lot of jobs are being offshored..

but there are also jobs being lost right here in America because employers are able to hire illegals at reduced wages.

Make it a serious felony to hire an illegal. A loss of jobs means a loss of incentive for illegals to come here. Employers will then be forced to hire real Americans at a liveable wage..

[still_one]

36. Of course there are jobs being lost because of illegals here, but not even close to what is being

off-shored.

I also do not disagree with your point on making it a felony to hire an illegal. However, I am against racial profiling, One should NOT determine if a person is legal or illegal by appearance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Nativist shouldn't be a dirty word.

Offshoring, outsourcing, legal immigration in excess of our economy's ability to support it and tolerance of illegal immigration are all the same issue.

The racism card is getting old. The people who are most hurt by the status quo are native americans and US minorities.

[still_one]

100. In this case racial profiling is racism. Ask everyone for work papers and it is fair, select from

A group because of color it isn't

[CreekDog]

146. Racism card getting old? You mean you don't actually believe that racism happens

but you believe men are victims of sexism.

i think you need to adjust your mirrors sir.

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. Racism absolutely happens.

But the african and native americans who are the victims of it don't benefit from unlimited illegal labor either.

White guilt won't atone for racism by giving the jobs of oppressed minorities' to a different minority. All we are doing is depressing our wages, and giving Carlos Slim dumping ground for all the people who can't find work at home.

As for the rest? It's a non-sequitur, an ad-hominem and demonstrative of poor reading skills.

[dkf]

87. I agree...check everyone.

[still_one]

102. Then I have no problem, however some will caution that it might be a preamble to a

Police state

Seems it can't be both ways

[dkf]

113. Have you tried flying recently?

I had to get frisked on my latest trip. I was not happy.

[still_one]

129. I know. Interesting times they say. /nt

[kath]

114. "Make it a serious felony to hire an illegal." - YES! - This should have happened DECADES ago.

Working construction, roofing, yard care, picking fruit used to pay a good wage back in the 70s. So did factory jobs. American citizens used to work in meat, poultry and other factories, and they would certainly do so again IF PAID A DECENT WAGE.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. Shut it down? Gilroy Foods of Gilroy CA is the worlds leading

processor of Garlic. China grows the leading world crop, followed by India, South Korea then the US. China is a huge issue for the garlic producers, but they did not close down production, CA garlic is still a huge crop and money maker. The largest processing facility for garlic is in Gilroy. Not shut down. Gilroy was never really the garlic growth center, outpaced for decades by inland valley areas. The processing is what gave them the title. My grandpa lived there. So, facts at hand and all....

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. The economy can't support it.

limitless immigration is depressing wages. The elasticity in that system is unemployment. Those discouraged workers? They just haven't caught on yet that their labor is worth less. Often less than the minimum wage.

[snooper2]

190. unless you are a roofer, concrete work, rough plumbing, landscaping

painters, heavy equip. operator...

Of course blue collar workers and manual labor are not represented on DU....

[MikeW]

210. you apparently havent visited a construction site south of Virginia lately

You wont fine very many AMERICAN union workers anymore

[Exilednight]

18. Then you don't understand representative democracy. The purpose of government is to ensure that

the majority does not right roughshod over the minority. That is why we have a representative democracy vs a straight-forward democracy.

When you go back to school on Monday, Leftist Boy, be sure to ask your social studies or history teacher to cover this subject.

[leftistboy]

23. demo kratia == Greek for "people rule"

[Exilednight]

34. That would be right, IF we were a small "d" democracy, but we're

a republic. We're modeled after the Roman version of small "r" republicanism.

A republic is a form of democracy, but not direct democracy. Easiest way to put it, a republic is representative democracy where minority views are protected against mob rule.

[leftistboy]

37. perhaps we ought to change the same of the party to "Representative Democratic Party"?

just to let the majority know that on "certain issues" (like the ones that let the rich cram more cheap labor into america) that the will of the majority will not be heeded?

[Exilednight]

39. Every form of government has its plus and minsues. If it weren't for

our form of republicanism, we wouldn't have had civil rights legislation, a woman would probably never have a right to choose, women and minorities would not have been given the right to vote when they did, along with several other landmark legislative wins for Democrats. liberals and progressives.

On the down side, Bush would probably never had been president.

To be perfectly honest, I find your view to be scapegoating of a minority that is supported by bottom feeding groups like the tea-party.

[leftistboy]

41. yeah, whatever. But what about that name change? Get rid of that deceptive advertising

what about it?

[Exilednight]

49. No, again, use a dictionary. We are the

Democratic party, not the Democrat party. The suffix "ic" means pertaining to, or characteristic of.

Our party is characteristic of being democrat, but we are not a straight forward democracy party.

[TheKentuckian]

85. I think a solution from the opposite perspective would be a better fix.

If you take a way the threats of prosecution and deportation and give all workers guaranteed competitive wages, benefits, and protections from abuse then the incentive to hire unauthorized migrants would be reduced and they could not be used to reduce wages and the entire game changes.

If you give the Mexican worker the rights and protections we are supposed to have you remove the benefits to employers. Alternatively if you do the enforcement entirely on the employer side with substantial fines and imprisonment then you enforce a change of behavior in the buyers of labor.

When you mainly or exclusively go after the poor worker it is fueled by racism or nationalism. When you do so and insist on ignoring the distribution of resources and/or our insane trade policies then you are short sighted and using an easy hot button of nativisim which is the hight of hypocrisy considering almost all of our fore bearers were immigrants of various sorts including slaves and indentured.

I don't cotton to this movement because it seems to focus on the little fish and seems to flat out ignore structural failures in the broad design of our present economics, settling on the easy and age old tactic of setting the publics anger on the newest influx of people and pulling up the ladders after they have been climbed. The hatred of the "outsider" seems to color the discussions more than how to expand opportunity and grow wages. The seeming refusal to go after employers or to give the protections that would make all things equal is telling and damning for this movement.

Get back to me when the populism gains interest in getting to real cause and effect and/or gets the head and guts to go after structural failings hammer and tongs instead of lazily attacking the brown people for wanting to feed their families and build a life.

You might want to take some interests in what our meddling and craziness does to destabilize the governments and economies these workers are born into.

Acknowledging the role immigration played in your own story would be a lot more honest and might challenge you to consider different options and viewpoints and solutions if you gave up the outsider is stealing my jobs point of view.

[dkf]

88. But you agree that in the absence of guaranteed livable wages an illegal immigrant will depress

wages and take jobs away from citizens?

Add 11 million people who do so and you've got a problem.

Actually 11 million extra competitors for scarce jobs in a time of 9% plus unemployment is quite significant I would think.

[TheKentuckian]

131. I do because I cannot pretend there is no such thing as supply and demand

What I don't accept is the stupid and false solutions being championed by people that should understand a hell of a lot more than to fall for the most regressive and irresponsible answers to complex problems that don't work when rubber mets road.

You can fix this on the employer side without encouraging a police state, walls, and absurd law enforcement powers and you could skip the whole chain of events with giving folks the right to competitive wages and benefits. The nanosecond you do that, the unauthorized migrant is less of a prospect because they aren't seen as permanent parts of communities, are more likely to send their money to other economies, often don't speak the language, often are less educated, and many other factors.

Hell, if you fix our woeful trade situation and more money circulates in our economy, one would discover we'd actually need some influx of labor as birth rates slow.


You must wrap your head around the fact that the entire situation exists because of the hunger for below market labor and lots of bad policy that makes other regional economies a fiasco with no upward mobility.

Address the disease and the symptoms will clear up. Address the symptoms and the disease lurks in the wings growing more virulent and spreading.

[Exilednight]

134. Supply and demand are a myth. Take oil as the prime example. There is plenty of

oil in the system, demand has sharply fallen, yet the price remains artificially inflated. If DeBeers dumped their entire supply onto the market, demand would stay the same and diamonds per carat weight would drop like a rock.

Supply and demand only works if supply runs its natural course and demand runs its natural case. This rarely, if ever, is allowed to happen. There is an invisible hand at work in the market, but it's not the same invisible hand as described in the Wealth of Nations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

159. You're simply wrong.

Oil is driven supply and demand. OPEC announces that they are supplying 26 million barrels/day in July and speculators (demand) bid to buy it at about $101 a barrel.

Labor is an even more obvious example. Our massive labor surplus is driving wages down.

[Exilednight]

203. To the contrary. Using your example, OPEC controls the world

oil supply, thus demand is not running its natural course. A country like Saudi Arabia is forbidden by OPEC rules to increase oil production on their own.

That's not supply and demand at work, that's a monopoly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. That's quite a mashup there.

Constitutional protections are what protect us from mob rule. A representative democracy is no more or less vulnerable to infringing on the rights of the minority.

What you're saying is that 70% of the people can elect someone who will do what 30% want, if that 30% includes big money.

[Exilednight]

55. Who had more votes, Gore or Bush? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Resident aliens - legal or illegal - aren't citizens.

They don't participate in our democracy, representative or otherwise.

Legal aliens are guests, but either way they don't and shouldn't vote.

Direct democracy or representative democracy? Doesn't matter. Elected officials aren't there to represent them.

[Exilednight]

52. That's your opinion. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. My opinion on this is consistent with the facts. n/t

[Exilednight]

73. And what facts would those be. I see plenty of opinion, but I see nothing that

is proven fact.

Elected officials represent everyone within their jurisdiction. There are plenty instances where elected officials have upheld, supported and fought for the rights of individuals who were not citizens of this country. There are plenty of court cases where judges have upheld such rights.

The constitution does not discriminate.

[WatsonT]

104. Actually that's a legal definition

non-citizens are by definition not citizens. Doesn't really seem like this should need explanation.

[Exilednight]

127. That's not even close to being the legal definition of a citzen. The official definition of a US

citizen is several pages long and explains the several types of citizenship. It also expands on which rights certain citizens have.

[WatsonT]

176. Really, so a non-citizen can be a citizen?

What a crock. I suggest you look at that "several pages long" definition and see which part states that people here illegally, who are not citizens of the US, can in fact be citizens of the US.

I can't believe this must be argued.

[Exilednight]

204. Do non-citizens get counted in the census? Once counted do they

not get representation? If a non-citizen breaks a law, are they not granted the same rights as you and I?

[WatsonT]

207. Being counted in the census =! citizen

just like being skipped over in the census doesn't strip you of your citizenship.

I think it's fair to say you've lost this argument at this point.

"If a non-citizen breaks a law, are they not granted the same rights as you and I? "

For a criminal trial yes. But otherwise no they do not get the same rights. Voting for instance.

[Exilednight]

231. "I think it's fair to say you've lost this argument at this point. " Again, that's your

opinion.

I'm just picking apart the arguments that have been presented piece by piece. Up-thread, lumberjack jeff stated that people are non-citizens because they don't participate in our democracy.

To the point that you think I've lost the argument: you've presented nothing that proves otherwise other than your opinion.

[WatsonT]

232. So are you backing off on your claims that being counted in the census makes one a citizen?

[Exilednight]

233. Nope. I'm looking for someone to counter the argument with facts. n/t

[WatsonT]

234. I just did

claim: being counted in the census makes one a citizen.
Fact: there is no legal basis for that claim.

[Exilednight]

235. You didn't prove anything. You gave an opinion and attempted to pass it off as fact. If you have

evidence to the contrary - court opinions, legal statute, etc - then please post it with link.

[WatsonT]

236. Wait, you're serious?

You really think that becoming a citizen is simply being counted in those little door to door censuses they do ever 10 years?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

{gasp}

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Thanks. That was fun.

[CreekDog]

141. that means they don't represent children either

hmmmm.

well, from the looks of things, that makes sense. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. Children born in the US are citizens.

. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

[CreekDog]

161. but they don't vote and you just said that the officials represent those who vote

i can't take back what you said, only you can do that.

and i can't help but notice the extreme excitement at explaining that non citizens aren't represented by anybody and don't deserve to be.

[lumberjack_jeff]

162. I don't need to take back that which I didn't say.

Non citizens are represented by the government of the country in which they are citizens. In ours, they're only entitled to basic human rights and those they have by treaty. Anything beyond that is a courtesy we extend to guests.

Non citizens are not obliged to any allegiance to the US nor are they entitled to its protection.

Non citizens can't vote... because they're non citizens. Underage citizens can't vote until they reach 18. We owe it to them to promote an economy that can employ them when they reach adulthood.

Citizens are protected because they are citizens (and thus participants in our society), regardless of how or if they vote.

A red herring of the strangest kind.

[CreekDog]

170. you're very into the idea that other people's rights diminish yours

women gain rights, but not yet parity

minorities gain rights, but also not parity

and some people are threatened, because the thought is, for him/her to move up, i have to move down.

that's the thinking anyway.

[lumberjack_jeff]

185. You're doing it wrong.

To know what I'm thinking, you have to either have to be in my head or read what I write. Neither applies.

[WatsonT]

56. Even if that majority is breaking the law?

And "riding roughshod" is simply enforcing that law?

By that logic a democracy could never arrest anyone for any crime. Indeed the very existence of laws would be unacceptable by the reasoning you use.

[Exilednight]

61. We don't put people in jail because of majority votes, if one juror holds out then the whole

trial is declared a mistrial.

If you have a majority of people breaking the law, then you more than likely have a revolution or rebellion. And again, we are not a democracy, we are a small "r" republic. True, it's a form of small "d" democracy, but it's not a straight forward democracy.

As I've stated previously, all forms of government have their plus and minuses. If it were "majority rule", then women would probably never have the right to vote, a right to choice, and we probably we would still be fighting equal rights legislation.

The minority often wins in this country. I'm not saying that it's always fair, just look at Gore v Bush, but that's the way it is and the way it was intended to be.

[WatsonT]

67. So illegals are not breaking the law?

And they're just being picked on for no reason?

[Exilednight]

69. First of all, the term "illegals" is right wing talking point. Second, some

laws are more just than others, and I find our immigration laws to be quite unjust.

[WatsonT]

77. So in your opinion these criminals are not criminals

do you believe the US has a right to have a border?

Other nations obviously do but what about the United States?

[Exilednight]

78. Borders? Yes. But it's not borders that are the problem.

What's really at the root of immigration?

[WatsonT]

92. Ok so we can have borders

meaning we can decide who gets to cross them (otherwise it's meaningless).

So what would you call people who cross these borders we have without our permission?

/and the root of this problem is mostly that Mexico is a horrible place and the US is a better place. Also we share a huge, mostly unguarded border. We can't fix Mexicos problems. We can change things on our side of the border.

[Exilednight]

97. We disagree on the purpose of borders.

Why is Mexico a horrible place to live, in your opinion? Could it have anything to do with the way the US has treated Mexico and exploited their natural resources, destroyed their economy and left their natural resources, like the Rio Grande, in a shambles?

By your definition of borders; state, county, and city borders are meaningless since no state, county or town can decide whether or not I cross them. No governor of any state is allowed to kick me out and tell me that I'm not welcomed there - whether I'm a citizen of theirs or not.

[WatsonT]

101. You don't see a difference between national borders and state borders?

I do. And those borders do have meanings. The state of Illinois can't levy taxes on sales in Alaska. For instance.

And the reason Mexico is terrible is debatable. Either way we can't fix it and it doesn't change the basic fact that it is terrible. We don't need to subsidize their problems at our own expense.

[Exilednight]

121. Now your changing your tune about borders. I agree about the purpose of taxes and such

and that is the need for borders.

I find it highly embarrassing that you call your self a Democrat and yet refuse to help that need help because of our over indulgence. While it is true that Mexico has some internal problems, it's also true that many of their internal problems are byproducts of our foreign policy.

[WatsonT]

124. Not at all,

My definition hasn't changed. You're just trying to conflate borders within a nation to borders between nations. They are different.

And what do you propose we do to fix mexico? Perhaps move in some peacekeeping troops to stabilize the problem? Maybe replace their corrupt government and put in some proper American bureacrats to run things? Rewrite their laws and take over their industries to run them more efficiently?

Helping the poor downtrodden brown people is often a stated goal for people whose intentions are somewhat less noble.

[Exilednight]

126. The way you help Mexico out of their problem is by promising to pay a fair and

just price for their products. We could also help by cleaning up their environment, since we are mostly responsible for its destruction. We could, also, help by sending in people of industry to help them develop advanced industry instead of sending them our leftovers like the automotive industry.

Our problem is we are attempting to do what you stated. We've send in the "peacekeepers", we call them DEA. It's been proven, and still is, that our intervention of force is always self defeating for us and them.

[WatsonT]

175. Promising?

Well that's meaningless. I assume then you mean tariffs to force us to pay more for their products. Not sure how that will help.

And we can't go in and "fix" their environment, we can't even fix our own. Nor did we cause their pollution. That was their own doing.

You seem to be in favor of a white-mans burden sort of policy towards them: sending in proper white people to show them how to run things.

And no, we are not sending in peacekeepers. The war on drugs is foolish but calling it an invasion of Mexico is equally foolish.

[MikeW]

211. or it could be that the Mexican government is so corrupt the people

dont have a chance.

Either way why is that my problem?

Let the Mexicans have their own "Mexican Spring" just like the middle east.

No wait thats right they'd rather do it the easy way .. just stroll across the border and hide in the US.

[MikeW]

212. or it could be that the Mexican government is so corrupt the people

dont have a chance.

Either way why is that my problem?

Let the Mexicans have their own "Mexican Spring" just like the middle east.

No wait thats right they'd rather do it the easy way .. just stroll across the border and hide in the US.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Exactly right and welcome to DU

The US economy is not adding enough jobs to employ the native born. This is primarily an effort by the elites to drive down wages to level economies.

[WatsonT]

54. Less *illegal* immigration

Important distinction.

[pampango]

99. Not sure where your 70% came from. Polls show Americans positive about immigration.

In another poll 64% of republicans thought immigrants were a burden (in terms of jobs, housing and health care) while 22% thought they are an asset to the country. For Democrats, 35% thought immigrants are a burden with 55% thinking of them as assets to the country. For the public at large 52% view immigrants positively as independents are almost as supportive as Democrats regarding immigration.

http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf

Approximately 3 in 4 Americans Support Path to Citizenship and Want Immigration Solutions

New polling shows that by a 3:1 margin, Americans want a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. This confirms that Republicans are blocking the solutions that the American people want.

The poll finds overwhelming 72%-24% support for a path to legal citizenship for the undocumented, “provided they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs.” For you more visual folk, that's approximately three out of four Americans who believe in a path toward citizenship.

Pew divided voters into eight distinct subgroups, and support for the path to legal citizenship was at least 58% among seven of the eight subgroups. The eighth, which was the “staunch conservatives” subgroup, was split 49%-49% on the topic.

Yet many Republicans in Congress, led by Representatives Lamar Smith (TX), Elton Gallegly (CA) and Steve King (IA) continue to push for enforcement-only approaches or hide behind the empty "border security first" argument. However, the public understands that a lasting and workable version of immigration reform must also include a path to legal citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people living in our nation, once again showing that Republicans are almost clueless on what the average American thinks or wants.

http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/americans_want_immigration_solutions_support_path_to_citizenship/

[leftistboy]

107. gallup polls show that CONSISTENTLY more americans want immigration DECREASED

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122057/americans-return-tougher-immigration-stance.aspx

yet the elite do nothing to reduce immigration.

Why is that?

Oh, that's right--it's a "representative democracy."

Yeah....

[pampango]

120. Your oen poll shows only 50% want it decreased (CONSISTENTLY more?) with repubs leading the way.

"Republicans are more likely than Democrats to want immigration decreased as has typically been the case, but more than 4 in 10 independents and Democrats share this view.



Since you seem to want what the republicans want, are they the "representative democracy" that will get immigration reduced for you in opposition. Do Democrats and Independents (who favor continued and expanded immigration by 52% to 44% and 47% to 46%, respectively) represent the ELITES who will "do nothing to reduce immigration"?

There's a party out there these days that likes to rant about how the Democratic elites won't listen to what the people ("representative democracy") really want.

[leftistboy]

122. neither the Dems nor GOP will do what the majority wants on immigration

nice try

[pampango]

125. It only a majority of republicans that want what you want, not of Democrats and

Independents.

Your best hope would seem to be if the tea party can push the GOP far enough to get them to do on the national level what they have achieved on immigration in many republican-controlled states.

[MikeW]

213. I dont know where you got that from but Americans overwhelmingly DO NOT support Amnesty ...

which is what you are referring to ... no matter how much frosting you put on it its still a sh*t cake.

[pampango]

222. I've seen polls contradicting your view of what Americans believe. Do you have evidence

to support your view of Americans' opinions?

Here's one from Pew in February. There are many others.


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1904/poll-illegal-immigration-border-security-path-to-citizenship--birthright-citizenship-arizona-law

35% support a focus on better border security, stronger enforcement of immigration laws;
21% support a focus on creating a way for illegal immigrants already here to become citizens;
42% suport giving both equal priority (this is the option supported by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and organized labor)

63% support either a path to citizenship as a primary focus or as equal with stronger enforcement.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/the-possible-dream/?partner=rss&emc=rss

"...anything you propose that isn’t “round ‘em all up and deport ‘em” is automatically described as “amnesty” by the right. And then swing voters hear that it’s “amnesty” — whatever the proposal is — and assume they should be against it.

As long as right-wingers control the debate, you can’t propose anything that won’t fall victim to this sequence of events. You could write a bill that mandated fifty years at hard labor before the opportunity to apply for citizenship kicked in, and right-wingers would still call it “amnesty.”

[MikeW]

227. and 64% like the Az immigration law so that pretty much negates the rest of your post

[pampango]

230. Hardly. Polls that show support for AZ immigration law also show support for a path to citizenship,

as this Pew poll does.

It's not an either-or choice. People support both enforcement of immigration laws AND a path to citizenship - which is the comprehensive approach backed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and organized labor.

Do you have a source for your statement that "Americans overwhelmingly DO NOT support Amnesty...?

[Andy823]

29. Actually

I think what most people want is for a new immigration plan, one that allows those who have come here over the years to become legal, and for those who have come here simply to commit crimes, to be deported!

The real irony in the whole problem is when republicans in congress "CLAIM" to want change, yet refuse to do any kind of "REAL" reform. They don't want things to change, they want to see illegals coming in who will do the work cheaper so big business can keep wages down! They want to see cheap labor so the only alternative most young people have would be joining the military so they can fight the wars the right wants us fighting for OIL!

We can do something to actually help anyone employer who really does need help, but not those employers who lay off citizens so they can reduce wages by hiring illegals! We need to crack down on those who hire the illegals instead going after those who come here for work so they can support families in their home countries. NAFTA caused a lot of our problems and instead of "FREE" trade we need FAIR trade agreements! Instead of trying to lower the wages in the U.S., we need to do more to make sure people around the world are paying a fair wage to those who now work for less than a dollar a day!

The problem is as long as GREED is in the equation, and big business is allowed to get away with what they have been doing since Reagan did his "immigration policy", nothing will change. Republicans will us immigration as a wedge issue in every election, claim they will FIX the problem and then when elected will do NOTHING to change the current policies which help the corporations and the rich make more money while lowering wages and benefits, and putting citizens on the unemployment lines!

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Republicans want to wave the flag and flog a couple of issues forever.

They don't want to actually do anything about those issues because then they would no longer have a smoke and noise-screen to continue transferring wealth to the already wealthy.

[Avant Guardian]

75. Single issue voters

Most single issue voters tend to be wildly bigoted with their mindless wedge issues. Abortion nuts, gun nuts, immigration nuts....etc, etc.

[dkf]

89. Using illegal labor is a wonderful way to transfer wealth to the richer than rich.

Americans who want a decent wage are the ones who get shafted.

[kath]

116. + a brazillion!

[suffragette]

106. Who are you quoting? I see an article about a Republican

policy passed by Republicans.

Searched and the quote you lead with is nowhere in Salon's article.

Are you quoting yourself?

[leftistboy]

109. Survey Sez: 60% Dems, 66% GOP, 63% Americans want LESS IMMIGRATION

http://www.npg.org/facts/immpolls.htm

[dorkulon]

110. I don't want less immigration, I want proper enforcement of labor laws.

The problem is not that there are immigrants, it's that their employers get away with paying them peanuts, thereby undercutting wages for others. If they couldn't do that, there'd be no problem, and, in fact, there'd be fewer immigrants as well.

[BlueCheese]

128. Unfortunately, this is where our side likes to believe a myth.

We all know the Republicans have a lot of myths they stubbornly cling to, against all evidence: Cutting taxes raises revenue! Climate change is a hoax! Evolution is false! etc. These are implausible things they force themselves to believe because it's politically convenient.

I think Democrats as a whole have fewer such blind spots. (Of course I do--that's why I'm liberal.) But this is one of them. It's simply not plausible that illegal immigrants do not compete with those here legally for jobs. You can't simply add millions of people to the labor force without displacing others, or driving down wages.

Accepting this doesn't mean you have to support draconian immigration policies, or anything like that. But I do think it's something that needs to be acknowledged when we talk about immigration.

[Blasphemer]

148. I agree with you

And I say this as a child of immigrants who grew up around many people (friends of family, neighbors) who were in the country illegally and working. Yes, there are a lot of jobs (i.e. in the health care sector) that most Americans do not seek out but there are certainly those that people obtain (usually with false credentials) that someone here legally would take. Of all of our issues, immigration is the one I am least likely to debate conservatives on. Overall, I'm glad my family legally immigrated to this country but after having spent several years in my country of birth (a "developing" country that's not doing much developing), I also know that if for some reason they could not or did, life would have went on. I understand that for some immigration is (literally) life and death and sadly, they are not generally the ones able to legally immigrate but that speaks to a global crisis that we all (especially those of us in the developed world) need to address. I also don't support draconian immigration policies but I also don't have any problem with laws intended to curb legal and illegal immigration.

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. +100.

[nomb]

197. Why do you think Repug Big-Business is such a huge Immigration backer - and Unions oppose?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow that money trail....

One leads to your pocket, they other to theirs.

[pampango]

201. "“Immigrants are not the cause of America’s problems,” Trumka said."

“And S.B. 1070 is not the answer.”

The problem is that privileged and powerful people are using the same old dirty tricks of division, diversion and distraction to make people blame the least among us in order to keep us from seeing and solving our real problems.

Our wisest leaders have always understood that, here in America, on these shores, we must not fall for hate and fear and divisiveness—we must stand together for justice, unity and opportunity."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/05/29/tens-of-thousands-protest-arizonas-immigrant-law

Unions and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are behind the concept of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants ("amnesty" to teabaggers).

AFL-CIO, SEIU, UFCW Urge Senate Leaders to Move Comprehensive Immigration Reform Forward

http://www.seiu.org/2010/03/afl-cio-seiu-ufcw-urge-senate-leaders-to-move-comprehensive-immigration-reform-forward.php

I'm not sure what unions' official position on immigration is, but they seem to believe that immigrants are not the problem and support a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration which teabaggers and other repubs do not support.

[Union Scribe]

229. Yes

The posters pretending this doesn't happen aren't doing anyone any favors.

[yellowwood]

139. The Problem Would Disappear

If employers were forced to pay minimum wage to all employees.

[MikeMc]

143. I'm a democratic party stalwart, and I say 'the more, the merrier'.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. It's not helped by population "activists" who want Middle Class Americans to stop having kids

we don't have a population problem in this country, and what problem there is is driven largely by immigration. That's a fact.

[hughee99]

150. Which repukes? The ones who "hate brown people" or those who love cheap labor? n/t

[B Calm]

153. Since when do Republicans want to go after illegal employers?

[personman]

154. Poor Americans vs Poor Mexicans

Crazy radical idea time:

Maybe the poor Americans could realize some day that they have far more in common with the poor Mexicans who immigrate undocumented, than they do with the rich pricks capitalizing on their labor.

Maybe they could team up and fight the real enemy which is wealth disparity. When the poor American fights the poor Mexican it is the capitalist power structure that wins. It's pretty simple really. If you are rich and those whose interests conflict with yours are too busy quarreling amongst each other, you really have nothing to worry about.

It's sort of interesting that we choose to globalize economy, mega corporations, etc, but the people themselves must be nationalized and kept within their stupid-ass borders.

To me, the nationalism that pervades much of the anti-immigrant sentiment, has about as much place in civilized discourse as your favorite sports team. People born here have won the "lucky sperm contest" because it happened to fertilize an egg behind certain imaginary lines.

I personally consider myself a citizen of the world. A position I've adopted from Bruce Lee (who happened to be born in the US) oddly enough.

Chomsky has stated that we have "Socialism and protectionism for the rich, and markets for the poor." I think we also have globalization for the rich and powerful, and nationalism for the poor and weak.

I'll probably make this an OP as well, because I'm more likely to get feedback if I'm not 12 pages down a thread. I don't expect my ideas to be extremely popular right now, just logical, to me at least.

"No human-being is illegal." - Howard Zinn quoting immigrant-rights protestors

-Andy

[libmom74]

164. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. What they DON'T have in common;

They don't have the same country responsible for their wellbeing.

[MikeW]

214. conveniently overlooked point at DU

[proud patriot]

172. I work w/ one

grrrrr she's pretty liberal otherwise. but she buys into a lot of the BS

[Derechos]

183. I love how people are so generous while giving away the rights of others

Anti-immigrant bills such as the one passed in Alabama will engourage rampant racial profiling impacting the rights of all those who "look" or "seem" foreign inclduing US citizens (funny how "white people" are not considered foreign,some tea-partier on the Washington Mall during Memorial Day Weekend had a sign that called Obama half white, half foreign), likely deter parents from registering their children at local schools severly impacting their futures and lead to the criminalization of whole groups of people who seek to help their fellow man like religious and social justice leaders. Laws like these would never pass if every American citizen faced the threat of detention for the crime of leaving their I.D. at home. And if you think US citizens have not already been detained, think again.

U.S. citizens wrongly detained, deported by ICE - http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-27/news/17218849_1_judy-rabinovitz-immigration-laws-illegal-immigrant

Immigration officials detaining, deporting American citizens - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/24/25392/immigration-officials-detaining.html

Citizen wrongly held as illegal immigrant gets $400,000 - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014325563_detained25m.html

And concerning the jobs question, immigrant workers helped build northern Virginia where I live. The rapid growth here would not have happened without them. They pick our fruits and vegetable, very hard work for very low wages, Napa Valley is actually working to make their lives easier to ensure that they stay http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27bcjames.html - and all we do is demonize them.

And what about our foreign trade policies that displace farmers and urban workers alike?

"While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'

NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.

Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China's even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm

And if you think removing low-wage immigrants from our local economies would have no negative impacts, see "the political and economic impact of immigration state by state" put out by the Immigration Policy Center - http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-by-state

Some hightlights:

■If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New Jersey, the state would lose $24.2 billion in economic activity, $10.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 103,898 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.

■If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the state would lose $69.3 billion in economic activity, $30.8 billion in gross state product, and approximately 403,174 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.

■If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $164.2 billion in economic activity, $72.9 billion in gross state product, and approximately 717,352 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.

Do we need to fix our broken immigration system? Yes, it is unhealthy to have so many people living in the shadows, subject to abuses and crime. But the current tone of debate that seems to describes all undocumented immigrants as criminals, dangerous, job-takers, parasites on our society, is not only unhelpful, it is dead wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. Their jobs, more accurately.

Setting aside the racial profiling issue (which arguably may have a disproportionate impact) what rights of illegal immigrants are being infringed?

Better to simply do a sweep of everyone using a bogus SSN.

I'm sensitive to the profiling argument, but as your post demonstrates, it's mostly a head fake. "Don't racially profile people. Besides, all of the ones who are here illegally bring candy."

One last thing. The Perryman group is in the business of giving big business such as the Texas Farm Bureau the economic analysis they want to hear.

http://www.perrymangroup.com/

[Derechos]

192. Here in northern Virginia was almost near zero during the beginning of the

last decade. And now that the development boom exploded, the message is get out. Who cares if you got married, had children. Who cares if we blow their lives apart right? Well I do. I think that is a terrible way to treat people. Undocumented immigrants are human beings who have always provided and continue to provide an important labor force whether people like or not, often resulting in severe abuses against them. Google "wage theft."

See also, Twin immigration laws create labor crisis for American farmers - http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110606/ts_yblog_thelookout/twin-immigration-laws-create-labor-crisis-for-american-farmers. Perhaps the only positive thing to come out of these horrible laws, if such a thing could be called positive, is that any resulting labor shortage and impact to state economies will bring a moment of clarity to this debate.

And I don't really understand your head fake argument. How is the threat of police harrassment while walking, driving, existing, as an individual who "is reasonably determined" to be an undocumented immigrant not a huge violation of a person's civil liberties. Maybe that is not an concern for you but it is for others including myself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. head fake defined

"There's nothing important happening at school today. Besides, everyone's going to the big kegger."
"Elizabeth Warren might not have the experience needed to head this agency. Besides, credit card company profits are an essential part of the economy."
"Immigration crackdowns are just an excuse to round up brown people. Besides, think of how much we have come to count on cheap lettuce/construction/gardening/meat/fish/timber."

The former statement is a sympathetic sounding argument used in defense of the latter true intent.

[Derechos]

194. I agree, we all have come to rely on the cheap work of immigrants.

That is my point. We benefit from cheap labor often to the detriment of immigrants. So to demonize them is grossly unfair. That is why I want them to have a path to citizenship. So that they can come out of the shadows and better defend their rights. And I think it is hypocritical of the anti-undocumented immigrant crowd to call for laws that criminalize their presence while enjoying the fruits of their labor including cheaper fruits and vegetables at their local grocery stores. Do we need reform, yes. But one the recongizes the contributions of immigrants to this country as well as the lives they have built here. One that is human and humane.

And the fact that agriculture and others want to keep cheap sources of labor does not negate the threat these bills pose to civil liberties.

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. No, no, no. Many of us have long been dependent on the jobs they now hold. n/t

[Derechos]

200. OK, explain this

"The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association told CNN that after Gov. Nathan Deal signed a law modeled after Arizona's SB1070 in May, farm workers have fled the area. Some farmers lost as much as 50 percent of their workforce, they say.

Fifth-generation Georgia farmer Gary Paulk told local paper The Daily Journal that he has only been able to find half of the 300 workers he needs to pick his blueberry fields, and that's after hiking wages 20 percent. Another farmer said he had to switch to (less efficient) machines when he couldn't find enough workers for his fields this spring.

"A lot of migrant workers who may have migrated to Georgia are avoiding the place," says Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform Chair Craig Regelbrugge. "The field reports are pointing to significant loss of crops."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110606/ts_yblog_thelookout/twin-immigration-laws-create-labor-crisis-for-american-farmers

If you are right, than out of work citizens and permanent residents should fill these jobs. Maybe they will over time. But I don't think that is likely to happen. Not that I advocate for cheap exploitable labor. That is why their should have a path to citizenship where immigrants can come out of the shadows and join other workers in defense of their employment and labor rights. Why do you think SEIU is fighting for immigration reform?

"Since our founding by immigrant janitors in 1921, SEIU has been committed to building a powerful, diverse and inclusive labor movement that raises the standards of living for all workers and helps millions achieve the American Dream."

http://www.seiu.org/2010/01/seiu-immigration-reform-kicks-off-week-of-action.php

[Romulox]

205. The OP's position on immigration is identical to the US Chamber of Commerce, George W. Bush, and

Agriprocessor's. :shrug:

[RB TexLa]

223. The NeoKnowNothings have viberant Right and Left wings. Both are equally disgusting human beings

[ej510]

224. The darker the skin the more you are hated.

[leftygolfer]

225. ding ding ding

we have a winner. the crux of the whole debate. right here.