The Estrada thread got kind of wrapped up in legal and illegal immigration and the Tancredo situation in Colorado, so I figured we might start a thread on that, just to keep things more organized.

For what it's worth, I support restrictions on immigration, and believe that assimilating immigrants into our culture - having them know our history and learn our language - is key to any immigration policy. America is a great country. Proof of that is that all these immigrants want to come here. So they should want to really be Americans. Also, people who refuse to learn the language should not be allowed to make things more difficult for people who were born here or who have learned English. You can speak pig latin in your home, as far as I'm concerned, but learn English if you're working with the public.

I also think illegal immigration is a huge problem and oppose amnesties for illegal aliens, especially since it is not fair to legal immigrants who wait along time to get in here to give illegals an advantage.

But hey, that's just me.

Que?

asher

Good one.

Okay, here goes. I am all for immigration. I strongly support allowing the admission of as many immigrants as we can bear, so long as they are not here to train or recruit terrorists or conduct terrorist attacks on this country or its people, our allies and other nations. We are a nation of immigrants, and immigrants from all over the world have enriched our society, our culture, our language.

I also feel the nation should be a refuge for those fleeing social, ethnic, racial, religious and political persecution in their home countries. Again, the U.S. has served as a refuge for its entire history, and though things have not been perfect, we should welcome with open arms those who are fleeing mistreatment (unless it is for slaughtering or planning the slaughter of their fellow citizens) elsewhere.

In terms of restrictions, we should have some way to screen out people who want to destroy our country; we should hvae a way of identifying people whose goal is terrorism. The INS and the (soon-to-be) Homeland Security Department should do their jobs by screening legal immigrants carefully, but if someone has come here under non-legal means, and s/he is contributing and is NOT a terrorist, a terrorist recruitor, or somehow assisting terrorists, s/he should have some means of entering a rotating lottery for possible permanent resident status or citizenship rather than being deported.

I also believe that there should be no national preferences for immigrants, as there are now, but that if certain industries need skilled workers in a given area, the nation should continue to allow individuals who can satisfy those skills to immigrate.

Finally, I agree with William that all immigrants should receive training in English, since this is the common (though not official) language of the United States, and an international lingua franca. This should be a priority for both legal and non-legal immigrants. We should also have revamped citizenship and U.S. history classes, in public and private schools, for children and adults--for ALL Americans.

President Bush and Mexico's President Fox were going to sign a treaty allowing all Mexicans legal citicens here! After 9/11 that never happened! It may still! I have a lot of Mexican friends, my ancestors are of Italian and Irish decent, Our Country is the melting pot! Should these people learn English? Of Course, but wouldn't it be nice to learn Spanish too? (Latin American Spanish, which is not taught here in NJ) I went to Mexico last year, and was not ridiculed for not knowing "their" language, why shouldn't it be the same here?

[quote]Originally posted by LAKERSRDABOMB:
I went to Mexico last year, and was not ridiculed for not knowing "their" language, why shouldn't it be the same here?

---

Did you go to Mexico to live and work? I think there's a difference between going visiting a country and actually moving there.

[quote]Originally posted by LAKERSRDABOMB:
Of Course, but wouldn't it be nice to learn Spanish too? (Latin American Spanish, which is not taught here in NJ) I went to Mexico last year, and was not ridiculed for not knowing "their" language, why shouldn't it be the same here?

---

Lakersrdabomb, I agree with you that all Americans who aren't immigrants from somewhere else should learn at least one other foreign language. Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Russian, French, German, Yoruba, you name it. But what are you talking about when you say, "Latin American Spanish, which is not taught here in NJ?" There is no *one* type of Latin American Spanish, but in Hudson County (Jersey City, Union City, Secaucus, Bayonne, North Bergen, etc.) there are Boricuas, Cubans, Dominicans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Panamanians, Hondurans, Argentinians, Peruvians, Guatemalans, and possibly other Latin Americans. You could learn the national idiomatic form of Spanish of any of these countries, and at many of New Jersey's universities (Rutgers, College of NJ, Princeton, NJCU, etc.) you also could learn American-idiomatic versions of Spanish, not just Castilian Spanish. And then there's New York, just across the river. THe same is probably true at local community centers and adult education programs. At NYU alone, I know there are a number of Caribbean and South American professors who speak those versions of Spanish. Buena suerte!

It should be up to the immigrant whether to learn English or not, it's not really any of our business. Obviously, life will be difficult in many ways if you can't speak English. But it's their choice.

While yes, it's nice for new immigrants to "blend" into the American culture, I think it's equally (if not more) important for immigrants to preserve their own cultures and heritages and yes, languages. This society never has been and never will be homogenous - it is comprised of many different cultural, ethnic, and religious groups that live and work together and (hopefully) get along. And that's the way it should be.

It is difficult to imagine how immigrants could fully participate in the political process without learning functional English.

I would not feel capable of being fully involved in a hispanic country if I did not understand Spanish. I don't think it is necessary to teach or learn a dialect or local idiom. While in the Peace Corps I learned "Castilian Spanish" from my tutors and "Dominican" from my in-country friends . I, and all of the Dominicans I spoke to, thought that learning proper Spanish was more important. Variations you can pick up.

I have yet to visit a country where I was not immediately treated more positively when I showed an interest in trying to learn the formal version of their language.

The only negative reaction I've ever recieved to expressing interest in a local language was when I wanted to buy a Basque dictionary while touring northern Spain. Though I was purely interested in the culture and fascinatingly unique language structure, the salesman responded with obvious ridicule bordering on contempt..with an obviously forced smile. I suspect the reaction would have been different had I requested a dictionary of early Spanish.

My BF teaches English as a foreign language. The sudents are generally very good and very enthusiastic. Given the opportunity I suspect the vast majority of immigrants would want to learn English. I don't think forcing them is necessary. Making it easier for them is.

A lot of these classes for Spanish speaking Students are taught by teachers who don't know Spanish! So questions are ignored, or the student is told to look in a "Spanish/English" dictonary to ask the question! However the dictionaries are usually European Spanish, which is diferent from Latin American Spanish! I want to go to school and learn how to properly teach ESL, just waiting for the credits to transfer from my college, or find a college where a new schools credits will be accepted! I was a Health and Physical Education major, and have about 116 credits towards a degree, so this isn't just BS I really am looking into it! Of Course I realize as an ESL teacher other languages like French would be nice to know, but right now i am focusing on Latin American Spanish! Wish me Luck!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Okay, here goes. I am all for immigration. I strongly support allowing the admission of as many immigrants as we can bear, so long as they are not here to train or recruit terrorists or conduct terrorist attacks on this country or its people, our allies and other nations. We are a nation of immigrants, and immigrants from all over the world have enriched our society, our culture, our language....

---

Fantomas - I totally agree - you stated it well!

I hate the whole "we are a nation of immigrants" argument. It's just a self-righteous cliche that avoids any real debate about the real implications of unlimited immigration. I'm not an immigrant. I was born here. I think about 90% of the population was born here. We're descendants of immigrants, but that doesn't make us immigrants. I'm a descendant of Germans from way back when, but that doesn't make me a German citizen. Theoretically anybody in any part of the world is a descendant of someone who was born somewhere else. That makes every country a nation of immigrants. We're a universe of immigrants! I suspect if Earth is every invaded by martians, you guys will be sitting around saying, "How can we fight them? I mean, really, we're a planet of space aliens."

Good points, William. The argument IS a simplistic one and ignores the legal issue involved, i.e., the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. There's also the assimilation factor. Immigration should be allowed only to the extent that immigrants can and do successfully assimilate into American society, including the basic skill of speaking its language. After all, immigrants come here to enjoy the benefits of our society, not to impose the ills of their old countries upon the citizens of the new.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I hate the whole "we are a nation of immigrants" argument. It's just a self-righteous cliche that avoids any real debate about the real implications of unlimited immigration.

---

However, you are dramatically oversimplifying our arguments by restating them that way. No one simply said "we are a nation of immigrants". There are valid arguments on both sides, certainly, and you're just ignoring ours.

I completely disagree with you, for instance, that we should force immigrants to "assimilate", including requiring them to learn the language.

Fantomas wrote: "Okay, here goes. I am all for immigration. I strongly support allowing the admission of as many immigrants as we can bear, so long as they are not here to train or recruit terrorists or conduct terrorist attacks on this country or its people, our allies and other nations. We are a nation of immigrants, and immigrants from all over the world have enriched our society, our culture, our language....

Copman, responding specifically to this portion of what FT wrote, replied: "I totally agree - you stated it well!"

I wrote: "I hate this whole 'we are a nation of immigrants' argument." It was a direct quote of what FT wrote and Copman seconded. I don't know how I oversimplified anything. I did not address every other argument Fantomas made, but, you'll notice, I did not say, "I hate everything Fantomas said." I just focused on that one particular line that I felt distracted from his other arguments.

Yet, if you read FT's argument, you'll note it is pretty simple. He supports as much immigration as we can bear, with the exclusion of terrorists. So this wasn't rocket science to begin with.

Immigration in this country has always been welcome as long as the new immigrants were similar enough to the existing population not to cause controversy. Then, as soon as a group that looked, spoke, believed, or ate differently started coming in, the backlash against immigration started. That's how we got the anti-Irish Know-Nothings in the 1800's, the anti-Chinese and anti-Japanese laws in the West, the attacks on Southern European immigrants at the turn of the century (when the Titanic sank, one newspaper even reported on the "good" Swedish and other Northern Europen immigrants who were lost). Now we have the backlash against Hispanic and Islamic immigrants.

If we are to truly live out the experiment in democracy that our Founding Fathers began, we must continue to work to accept and adapt to new kinds of immigrants. Does this mean losing our American character? No - it means understanding that assimilation is more difficult for some, and figuring out how to best deal with the challenges of each immigrant group.

Crap. I hate it when I agree with W1865 (re: his "We're a nation of immigrants" rant). It throws my world off of its axis.

Ah, this is a very complex issue. Background: I live in a part of Los Angeles called Westlake (though I prefer to call it McArthur Park, which is across the street from my apartment, due to the song) that really should be called Little Guatemala. The Mexican consulate is two blocks away. As a gringo, I'm definitely in the minority here.

In California, illegal immigration is such a hot-button issue that it leads to knee-jerk reactions, i.e. if a white person is against it, they're obviously racist. Etc. etc. There's also the flip-side that both sides of the fence see positives to it: the US gets cheap labor for shitty jobs and Mexico has potential political unrest exported across the border. The economic impact studies I've seen are ambiguous certainly; while there is undoubtedly huge drains on social services, who can say how much illegal's pump back in to the economy since there's a CA sales tax?

Frankly, just from the little slice of the world where I live, I don't see an overwhelming desire to assimilate on the part of the people around me. Why should they? They have Spanish language shops, papers, social services etc.

So, being the bleeding-heart liberal I am, I'm not happy that these people are exploited economically but I also take umbrage at the idea of Gray Davis thinking of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It would send the message that "Sure! Roll on up! We'll actually make it easier for you to live here if you're illegal than if you go through the proper bureaucratic channels".

And I'm a hypocrite on any anti-immigration stand I might take because if I had a chance to be an illegal immigrant in England, I'd do it faster than you could say "American football is pants".

These are the other paragraphs that I did not quote originally ........................... [quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
I also feel the nation should be a refuge for those fleeing social, ethnic, racial, religious and political persecution in their home countries. Again, the U.S. has served as a refuge for its entire history, and though things have not been perfect, we should welcome with open arms those who are fleeing mistreatment (unless it is for slaughtering or planning the slaughter of their fellow citizens) elsewhere.

In terms of restrictions, we should have some way to screen out people who want to destroy our country; we should hvae a way of identifying people whose goal is terrorism. The INS and the (soon-to-be) Homeland Security Department should do their jobs by screening legal immigrants carefully, but if someone has come here under non-legal means, and s/he is contributing and is NOT a terrorist, a terrorist recruitor, or somehow assisting terrorists, s/he should have some means of entering a rotating lottery for possible permanent resident status or citizenship rather than being deported.

I also believe that there should be no national preferences for immigrants, as there are now, but that if certain industries need skilled workers in a given area, the nation should continue to allow individuals who can satisfy those skills to immigrate.

Finally, I agree with William that all immigrants should receive training in English, since this is the common (though not official) language of the United States, and an international lingua franca. This should be a priority for both legal and non-legal immigrants. We should also have revamped citizenship and U.S. history classes, in public and private schools, for children and adults--for ALL Americans.

---

William ---I also liked Fantomas's other idea's - English training - consideration to those fleeing persecution ( gays also ) - I didn't want to quote the whole several paragraphs for brevity's sake but those clarify the conditions of the first paragraph.--- I do think that is pretty selfish since we are "children of immigrants " to assume that the immigration door should close once we (or our parents or grandparents) stepped across the threshold. I think that there should be SOME limits to immigration, of course - but I do have to admit that I am no expert on the subject.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I hate the whole "we are a nation of immigrants" argument. It's just a self-righteous cliche that avoids any real debate about the real implications of unlimited immigration. I'm not an immigrant. I was born here. I think about 90% of the population was born here. We're descendants of immigrants, but that doesn't make us immigrants. I'm a descendant of Germans from way back when, but that doesn't make me a German citizen. Theoretically anybody in any part of the world is a descendant of someone who was born somewhere else. That makes every country a nation of immigrants. We're a universe of immigrants! I suspect if Earth is every invaded by martians, you guys will be sitting around saying, "How can we fight them? I mean, really, we're a planet of space aliens."

---

As Copman said, if you read most of what I said, it was not as your commentary defines it, and it's hardly "self righteous." What's "righteous" about what I'm saying? I think you're the one who's on the "righteous" kick. Yes, most of the nations in the world, especially those in the Americas, consist of the descendents of immigrants. That has not stopped nationalistic fervor or distinctive racial-ethnic self-regard one bit. Japan, for example, can trace some of its early culture to Korea and China--in fact the Emperor recently acknowledged Korean ancestry--yet Japanese continue to see themselves as different, as special, and quite apart from other nearby Asian countries, and when they attacked Korea and other Asian nations during World War II, they did so with a savagery saved for peoples they saw not as somehow related, but as distinct, different and inferior.

The British are descended from Celts, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, Romans, Normans (themselves descended from Roman, Celtic and Germanic elements), Irish, as well as other immigrants over the years (German Jews, etc.). The Irish are descendents of the Celts, Romans, Vikings, Normans (sound familiar?), and Britons, but that never stopped the British from viewing the Irish as utterly different--and unfortunately, inferior. Spain's population is primarily Celtic, Roman, Arab (both Berber and Moorish-African), Sephardic-Jewish, Greek, and Basque in heritage, yet Spain continues to see itself as separate from these groups. Simon Bolívar once remarked on the supposed racial purity of the Spanish, who of course consider themselves quite distinct from not only other Latin groups (Catalonians, Portuguese, French, Italians, Romanians), but also from Latin Americans, with whom they share obvious bloodlines. And on and on.

Yes, all nations as we know them are the results of forms of immigration, but that still does not mean that they don't see themselves as somehow distinct racial-ethnic entities. The United States, however, is one of the few nations, like Canada, that has celebrated its immigrant origins--or at least some aspects of those origins, not all of which were from Jolly Old Englande, not even in the 1600s--and it is not merely a cliché, as you say, but very much an aspect of our nation character to welcome immigration and to build upon it. We even celebrate a national holiday that consecrates the arrival of a certain group of immigrants (Thanksgiving) to these shores....

Speaking of Germans, people of German descent constitute the largest percentage of people of European descent in the U.S., and Germans (and Austrians and Germanophone Swiss and Bohemians, etc.) began arriving here in the 1600s, though the largest wave arrived after the failed Revolution of 1848. One of the consequences of that was the population of much of the Midwest with Catholic and Lutheran farmers, artisans, educators, and merchants, most all of whom were opposed to the enslavement of blacks. Many of these Germans (like Franz Sigel, for example) volunteered for and fought for the Union Army against the Confederacy. THANK GOD for all those Germans. More Germans arrived after the Civil War, and it wasn't until World War II that many Germans ceased speaking German (or many German Jews changed the pronunciation of their last names from the Germanic "stine" to "steen"), as a result of the anti-German war hysteria.

The percentage of foreign-born Americans is right at 10.4% for the nation as a whole according to the 2000 census, and if you add in the children of immigrants, it rises to 20% of the population. The percentage is higher in some places (Missouri, Wyoming) than others (New York, New Jersey, California, Texas).

We should admit immigrants who want to contribute to this country--Canada is begging for people right now--but bar terrorists. We already have adequate laws for American citizens who are terrorists or who aid terrorism, on our shores or elsewhere.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The United States does not have an "official" language. There are now more Spanish speakers in the U.S. than in Chile or Peru. There are as many Spanish speakers in the Northeastern U.S. as in all of Puerto Rico. I do believe that we should offer free and accessible English classes to *all* non-English-speaking immigrants (many of whom learn English in their native countries, whether Pakistan or Sweden or Israel), but since we do not now have an "official" national language, we cannot and should not force people to speak English. If they do not and if it is not a requirement, it may be to their detriment. Many nations do have official languages but the U.S. does not. Some states and municipalities do, but the nation does not. If you think it should, then lead the national fight for it.

One final point: I taught American-born native English speakers and non-English-speaking immigrant students for several years in New York. I have to say that many of the foreign students (especially from Russia and some of the former Soviet Republics, like Uzbekistan, Moldova, and Belarus) wrote better idiomatic American English than many American-born students. Their command of English was often impressive and they were able to write with a complexity and persuasiveness--in English--that sometimes astonished me. One Russian woman often complained that her superb English was not up to the standards of her Russian, which made me comment that her Russian would probably win her various Russian literary prizes. I wish that one of the emphases of our educational fixation were better command of our beautiful and rich language, rather than the current obsessions with "testing."

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Crap. I hate it when I agree with W1865 (re: his "We're a nation of immigrants" rant). It throws my world off of its axis.

Ah, this is a very complex issue. Background: I live in a part of Los Angeles called Westlake (though I prefer to call it McArthur Park, which is across the street from my apartment, due to the song) that really should be called Little Guatemala. The Mexican consulate is two blocks away. As a gringo, I'm definitely in the minority here.

In California, illegal immigration is such a hot-button issue that it leads to knee-jerk reactions, i.e. if a white person is against it, they're obviously racist. Etc. etc. There's also the flip-side that both sides of the fence see positives to it: the US gets cheap labor for shitty jobs and Mexico has potential political unrest exported across the border. The economic impact studies I've seen are ambiguous certainly; while there is undoubtedly huge drains on social services, who can say how much illegal's pump back in to the economy since there's a CA sales tax?

Frankly, just from the little slice of the world where I live, I don't see an overwhelming desire to assimilate on the part of the people around me. Why should they? They have Spanish language shops, papers, social services etc.

So, being the bleeding-heart liberal I am, I'm not happy that these people are exploited economically but I also take umbrage at the idea of Gray Davis thinking of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It would send the message that "Sure! Roll on up! We'll actually make it easier for you to live here if you're illegal than if you go through the proper bureaucratic channels".

And I'm a hypocrite on any anti-immigration stand I might take because if I had a chance to be an illegal immigrant in England, I'd do it faster than you could say "American football is pants".

---

Hi Jim, I hear what you're saying, but think about this. First, California, like much of the southwest, was originally part of Mexico. We don't have incentives (or laws) mandating that people learn English, and if there's a large enough enclave and if the immigrants in their home countries are not learning English (as is the case in some countries), then there's no reason why they should if they are still able to function speaking Spanish. My partner went to high school in New York City, and his high school was about 80% English-speakers when he was a student. (In the late 1930s and 1940s before it had been a predominantly German and Yiddish-speaking population.) He went back a few years ago, and he said that no one was speaking English--all he heard in the hallways was Spanish! But most of the students (like fellow alumnus Manny Ramirez) come from NY neighborhoods that are predominantly Spanish-speaking. When he was in a class, however, he heard the students speaking decent English (actually it was probably closer to Black vernacular English with a New York flavor). At any rate, the students *were* speaking English in class, but in the hallways, as if they were at home or in the streets, they were speaking Spanish. Until New York City (or the state) mandates that English is the official language, the Spanish-speaking will continue--that is, until a new set of immigrants arrive at the school and start speaking Albanian or Yoruba or Quecha or whatever is predominant.

Also, would you rather that the illegal immigrants drove around with *no* drivers licenses? I'm not saying that we should give illegal immigrants drivers licenses, but I ask, what is the alternative? What about temporary driving certifications for non-citizens? The U.S. business community and wealthy Americans benefit from these workers--their low-cost labor benefits at least some aspects of our society, though some illegal (and legal) immigrants are exploited and grossly so. Still many, like their native countries, benefit from being here. When they purchase anything in many stores, they pay sales taxes, which often fund generally beneficial state activities. They often purchase lottery tickets, they may buy property, etc., and if they are paying these taxes, they again are contributing to society. But I hear you--I mean, if they remain under the radar screen, they can be exploited, but if not, they can be easily deported. What the U.S. needs to do is figure out what it wants with immigration. The haphazard policies of the last 10 years, especially under--you're hearing me say it--Clinton were not the way to go. But it should not be political, with one nation (the Irish by Teddy Kennedy, Mexicans by W.) being favored. That also is highly unacceptable.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Also, would you rather that the illegal immigrants drove around with *no* drivers licenses? I'm not saying that we should give illegal immigrants drivers licenses, but I ask, what is the alternative? What about temporary driving certifications for non-citizens? The U.S. business community and wealthy Americans benefit from these workers--their low-cost labor benefits at least some aspects of our society, though some illegal (and legal) immigrants are exploited and grossly so. Still many, like their native countries, benefit from being here. When they purchase anything in many stores, they pay sales taxes, which often fund generally beneficial state activities. They often purchase lottery tickets, they may buy property, etc., and if they are paying these taxes, they again are contributing to society.

---

I am all for as much legal immigration as is feasible, and for making things as easy as possible for someone to get assimilated once lawfully admitted. But I cannot in any way support illegal immigrants being able to get driver's licenses or buying property or anything that can give them a quasi-legal status...a foot in the door, so to speak.

Paying sales tax or buying lottery tickets isn't enough of a contribution to society to justify being here illegally, and buying lottery tickets isn't like paying a tax at all, unless lottery purchases suddenly became mandatory overnight.

Since this is one of the most salient domestic issues right now, with the Republicans in the House fighting the president's "guest worker" policy on this issue, and the neither side wanting to compromise as the McCain-Kennedy bill would, I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the issue. The rally in Los Angeles mobilized over 100,000 people, and there have also been huge rallies in Chicago (where some businesses let their illegal workers off to march), Atlanta, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Thoughts?

President Bush said this weekend that those folks here illegally are doing jobs that Americans don't want. Maybe it is time for him to ask why Americans allegedly do not want these jobs. Is it because the workers get dirty? That can't be it...I see how the men look when coming out of U.S. Steel in Gary...they look dirty coming out of the mill even AFTER they shower. Is it because of low pay? BINGO! Maybe if we didn't have an army of illegal people willing to do the work, the rate of pay would increase, and Americans could take these jobs and support their families. I am not of Native American heritage, so my entire family had to climb aboard a boat at some point and enter this country legally. I still remember the stories from my Great-great grandparents, of the signs that greeted them when first arriving in Chicago, that "Irish Need Not Apply". They were here legally, yet refused employment due to their heritage. There was no EEOC, no Jesse Jackson, no nobody to help them. Somehow, they made it. They WANTED to be Americans, they wanted to lose their affiliation with Ireland. The same stories happened to the other side of my family, except they also had to learn English, as they were from Germany. There were no special night classes for folks to learn English. There were no choices for which language you would like to conduct business. It was English, and that was it, buddy. If you didn't learn English, you went hungry. You better believe folks learned English, and pronto.

This is what irks me about the latest wave of immigration into this country. It seems as if they want all laws changed to their convenience, along with our customs and language. So we now have a large number of protesters. What are they protesting? People that already broke the law regarding immigration. I feel sorry for them, as it must be pretty damned bad in their home nation for them to go through what they did to get here, but they still broke the law via their actions. Am I perfect? Have I never broken a law? No and no. But I don't go out and start a protest over a $95 traffic ticket I received, nor do I hold a protest because I didn't get a job that I applied for...Mom said it best...life is not fair. Maybe some of the laws are not fair, but until they are changed, they should be obeyed. I actually have a much better idea. Since most of this current controversy concerns our neighbor to the south, why don't we simply annex the nation of Mexico. That should solve everything, right? Apparently, we could do a lot better at running Mexico than Mexican officials can, this has been proven over the last four or five decades. I'll just bet every Mexican on this planet would be protesting if America decided to annex Mexico. Even though we have a large wave of immigrants coming from this nation, there would be no way in hell they would want to give up their nation. What ever happened to the amnesty granted illegal immigrants back in the late 1980's? I thought that was suppose to solve all this mess...what happened with that? Those are just some of my thoughts on this subject.

Many of the people out there bitching and whining (i.e., conservatives) about illegal immigrants would be the first ones to bitch and complain when the price of goods skyrocketed because of increased labor costs. I mean, come on...we can't expect to have continued low prices AND American workers who demand higher pay. It just doesn't work that way...

This way of thinking reminds me of Wal-Mart. People who shop at Wal-Mart should never bitch about something not made in America...obviously, they buy stuff there because it's cheap...why is it cheap? Because it's made outside of our borders...by people who have no minimum wage.

I'm willing to pay higher prices, if it means effective control of the immigration problem. The hypocrisy of many out there is what I can't stand.

The Republicans in the Senate failed to pass a bill, surprise, surprise. They're damned if they do, and certainly will be damned because they won't do their job. I guess it'll require Majority Flipflopper Frist to figure out where he stands so that he can reposition himself for the 10th time in order to run for the presidency in 2008 and lose badly in the primaries. Several sites I've checked out are suggesting that Colorado Republican Congressperson Tom Tancredo, whose stand against illegal immigrants has been one of the most extreme, is gaining lots of traction as a potential presidential candidate among the far right in the GOP. I guess the Republicans could stand to run a real conservative, even an ultraconservative, rather than the the person who now sits in the White House.

I'm very disappointed by what BOTH parties have failed to do in the Senate: pass a bill that does not reward illegal immigrants and contains real incentives for those who want to legitimize their status here to do so. Where's the provision for making English the official language of the US and cutting all federal funding for any form of multilingualism? Where's the requirement that illegal immigrants reimburse the government for any social services they've taken advantage of to date? Where's the requirement for a national ID card for all citizens? Where are the provisions putting some pressure on Mexico to guard its northern border as jealously as it does its southern one? There are a lot of missed opportunities here that would provide the necessary incentives to make illegals follow through on what they claim they're willing to do but never quite get around to doing.

The immigrants can reimburse state governments and the Fed when the people who EMPLOY them, who keep drawing them here and giving them jobs, pay taxes and penalties for aiding and abetting the breaking of laws. As Molly Ivins said, if you made a few of the business people who hire the illegals, as well as middle-class housewives (she racialized it, but I won't), serve two years in jail with no relief for employing illegal immigrants, the flow would stop tomorrow. On a dime. We wouldn't even need a wall. Instead, Bush wants to create an unassimilable underclass like Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries who have "Gastarbeiter." He's talking 500,000 slots, but Mexico alone can send that many people in half a year without breaking a sweat, and it doesn't even address the immigration from Canada, the EU, and other overpopulated but low-job countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and on and on. Where are the other millions going to go after Mexicans alone fill the guest-worker/slave slots? Because they're going to keep coming if businesses and US citizens hire them despite whatever the law says. It's a prescription for abuse and yet more disaster. The illegals who are here are not leaving. So give them amnesty after years worked and passing tough English and American history tests, tighten up the damned borders FIVE YEARS after 9/11, penalize businesses harshly if they won't follow the law, don't allow foreign IDs (and we don't need a US ID), help Mexico create jobs even if it means repealing some of the NAFTA provisions, and the problem won't be a problem any more.

[ April 07, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Mexico is a big country now, it can (should be able to?) take care of its own problems. Besides, we're not our brother's keeper, lest we be labeled "paternalistic." But I agree that some of the NAFTA provisions bear scrutiny - and we can start by banning unsafe and polluting Mexican big rigs from our highways. Where are the Teamsters on this one? C'mon Demos, let your people go!

Although Bush has done a lot on his own to stir up a culture of fear in this country post 9/11, I can't blame him for this one. He never wanted to make much of the illegal immigration issue, and, I think, understood the consequences of doing so....I hope the parties, and the legislative and executive branches of government, can unite to solve this one. I just don't understand what forces were unleashed to stir this up, and why? There seems to be NO political gain in it. What am I missing?

Try this:

Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.

Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.

Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.

Demand free bilingual government forms, bulletins, etc.

Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window, or on your car bumper.

Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.

Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

Demand a Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal presence in Mexico.

Drive around with no liability insurance.

Insist that Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck!

Good luck is right. The Mexican authorities wouldn't put up with that kind of behavior for a second. As they shouldn't. As we shouldn't. And yet we do. In this one way, it would be nice if we were a little more like Mexico.


Never mind Mexico, try pulling a stunt like this in any other country in the world.

I'm a big fan of American exceptionalism as a general rule, but this is taking things too far.

Who says we can't deport 12 million interlopers? I bet we could if we set our minds to it. That open border is open in both directions.

[ April 10, 2006, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

MIB

Immigrant (documented or not) is not equal to "Spanish speaker." The largest community of illegal immigrants when I was growing up were Irish.

More importantly "Spanish-speaking" does not equal "illegal immigrant." Amazingly enough, the First Amendment guarantees the right to speech, not just English speech, and immigrants have always had issues in learning the language here. Certainly it makes sense to have literature about basic government services in various languages of the immigrant communities in this country. In my office building, for instance, there is an extended family of Southeast Asian immigrants that run the deli. I know not all of them can read and understand English, but I guess you would prefer they not know about the Social Security benefits they are earning, or their right to fair wages as workers in this country.

Your hypothetical seems to ignore, firstly, the fact that very few Americans would want to immigrate, legally, or illegally, to Mexico. Secondly, that Americans NEED the vast majority of Mexican immigrants here. Your shopping list of "benefits" accorded those immigrants is nothing in economic terms, compared to what Mexican workers ADD to the economy. The only thing you didn't mention is "border security." Turth is that there are very few Mexicans in the country who are not contributing to the economy and none( or close to none) who are security/terror risks...Making mountains out of proverbial molehills when it comes to Arabs, Mexicans/Latinos, and Gays only divides us--one from another, in ultimately harmful ways...

But, it's true that no other country on earth would be as lax as we are regarding illegal immigrants. I think we're giving far more than we're getting.
Just because Mexican immigrants have been working heavily in certain industries (and working very hard) doesn't mean those jobs wouldn't get done by someone else if possible. I hate that argument that the jobs they take are the ones Americans don't want..that's such a joke. I've managed many restaurants and the job pool for all positions is always there...

[ April 10, 2006, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Getting back to solutions for the current problem of uncontrolled immigration, perhaps the only thing that could stop it is to penalize employers who hire them - make laws and enforce them.

That would stop illegal immigration almost in it's tracks. As for those already here, some type of amnesty is unavoidable, under whatever name suits you. That amnesty has to come with some conditions which can be quibbled about but not made draconian (i.e. forced temporary expulsion for a time period).

Also a higher minimum wage must be instituted and enforced, along with a a national single-payer health system paid for by progressive taxes on the wages of all workers - no opt outs - but availability of luxury care for those who can afford it. And without doubt the Bush tax cuts would have to be readjusted to something closer to what prevailed when the country had it's lowest trade deficit.

Maybe you could've said the same thing about my grandfather, when he immigrated from Sicily in the 1930's. Okay, it was "legal" And the US Steel industry he worked for was allowed to pay him a dollar a day and he lived in a one room apartment with two other Italian guys. The issue is not "immigration" or even "illegal immigration". IT'S the ECONOMY, STUPID--The world economy. That's the issue we should be talking about...

As emotional as that argument is, bukkakeman, the analogy is somewhat meaningless and not very well thought out. Immigration in the 30's in no way resembles immigration of today. I'm certainly not arguing against immigration but I am arguing against some aspects of the present discussion. You don't automatically get rights just because you've worked illegally for a while. You don't demand those around you suddenly know your language or should speak it.
Our own political correctness at times is what is screwing our economy...

[ April 10, 2006, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Actually, the immigration situation resembles the waves of immigration that occurred during the middle of the 19th century (large numbers of Irish Catholics and Germans, which sparked a backlash and led to the "Know Nothing Party") and then again at the turn of the century, when millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans immigrated, which again sparked a political, ethnic and racially-charged backlash. If you are unaware of how vicious the rhetoric is, I suggest doing a Google search or visiting the library. The Ku Klux Klan in particular attacked not only Blacks and Jews, but also White Catholics and Mexicans, and the immigration laws were changed in the 1920s to limit Catholic immigration.

We are not going to deport 12 million immigrants, illegal or legal. I don't think we should even if we could. They are here, most contribute to this society in multiple ways, and in fact some are even dying for this country over in Iraq (the first person to die on behalf of the US in AWOL Bush's war was José Gutiérrez, a Guatemalan immigrant). So create a process that weeds out any felons or criminals, and allow all the others a path to citizenship.

To SLOW the flow, because it will not stop unless the US economy collapses altogether, which is utterly unlikely, the government needs to

1) get serious about border security, which also includes at airports and other points of ingress, and also demand that the INS do its job.

2) get serious with the businesses and people who keep hiring undocumented immigrants and in some cases exploiting them.

3) revisit trade policies like NAFTA that devastate entire sectors in partner countries' economies (like agriculture in Mexico).

So long as the US economy is growing and businesses offer jobs to cheap, undocumented labor, and the borders are unsecured, and their home countries offer few opportunities, people are going to keep coming. They will come whether there is a guest-worker program or not.

[ April 10, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

FT, the one key difference between the "old immigration" of the mid-19th century and its pre-1920s revival, and the present situation is that the former, whatever its numbers, was legal and accounted for under the laws and procedures of the time, but the latter is neither. Most of us know our history on this topic - and know when it's being rewritten or abused. I wonder how many of us know about the language in the statutes requiring immigrants to have sponsors, designed to prevent immigrants from becoming "public charges?" I think I'm safe in assuming that most everyone knows that language is being ignored, but our immigrants, legal or otherwise, are only following some of our citizens' lead in that regard. Surely if they can "adapt to that pattern of our national culture," they can adapt to others.

Reasonable minds will differ on whether "we are ... going to deport 12 million immigrants, illegal or legal," although no one I know of is even considering deporting legal immigrants; that's a red herring. You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no need to conflate the two and cloud the issue; reasonable minds can, have and will continue to make the distinction between controlled, assimillated, and accounted-for legal immigration and the present situation, which has none of these hallmarks.

Add making English the official language of the US and denying federal funding for any multilingual and multicultural programs, to keep ALL "other languaged" immigrants true to their word to learn our language and assimilate into our culture; a national ID requirement for ALL people in the US (yes, I know you disagree, but I'm entitled to my opinion, too); and requiring illegals to reimburse any governmental entity or business from whom they received any form of benefits since they've been here to your list of ideas, and you've made a good start towards a workable solution that will accomplish the most important goals that need to be met now.

If 19th century immigration was legal and 20th/21st was not, that was because the law was changed. It's not like the immigration is somehow different.
And in the 19th and early 20th century we heard the same crap about Italians, Poles, Jews that we hear today about Mexicans and Guatemalans. That is why the law was changed, to exclude "inferiors". That is why the US closed, slammed and locked its doors to desperate victims of Hitler, refusing to even fill their immigration quotas, let alone lift them.

No other country on earth faces quite the same set of circumstances, however. Mexico and the US have the greatest disparity of incomes of any contiguous nations on earth. Any time you have such a disparity between "haves" and "wants", you will have migration.

Thank you, Ms. de Blazer. Gmg, not all past immigration was "legal," and as Ms. de Blazer points out, "Know Nothings," nativists, the Klan and others protested (and attacked and killed) immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Austria, Eastern Europe, Italy, and so on. As she also points out, the racism and nativism prevented legitimate refugees fromm the Holocaust from reaching these shores. I'd add that the Chinese Exclusion act was written into law in the 1880s to specifically halt Chinese immigration after it began during the Gold Rush days, while immigrants from Europe kept coming whether there were specific rules for admitting them or not.

Since you refuse to address the basic issue that the immigrants are coming because there are jobs here and US corporations and individuals are hiring and benefiting from their labor, I'm not sure what more I can say. But at the next GOP gathering you attend, if you can find someone who has the ear of the President, please pass on to him that his guest-worker plan that he cooked up with Vicente Fox and US big business is a non-starter, because the nativists in his and your party are more fixated on punishing immigrants than on making the borders secure and demanding that businesses stop hiring undocumented workers. They've written off several generations with their push, and until the latter two issues are dealt with, people will keep coming. Si, se puede!

FT, I have REPEATEDLY "addressed the issue" of how it is wrong for US businesses to import cheap illegal labor, and urged their strict prosecution, both on this board and in GOP circles, as I have publicly for the past 4 years. Do NOT ignore or misstate my statements to make your points! :mad:

More people than you or MdB seem to think/admit not only know about but regret the racist past of US immigration law, so we needn't keep dredging it up in efforts to liken it to the present chaos or to play the guilt or race cards, neither of which I set store by, however much those more interested in disuniting our society instead of seriously working to resolve its problems in a unified way may. Yes, the denial of refugee status to European Jews was wrong, and FDR, the AMA and others should have known better than to oppose it as they did. But that does not make that emergency refugee situation in any way similar to the present ongoing, non-refugee one, or change the fact that it's the law in effect at the time one decides to break it that makes something legal or not, not how it's rewritten or interpreted decades later. Anything else is silly sophistry that might sound good at marches that graphically display how serious the problem of ILLEGAL immigration has become, but it finds no place, thankfully, in the law itself.

Finally, you insist again on equating legal immigration with the illegal kind. Believe it or not, "punishing immigrants" is not the goal of most of us who want our borders secured and to return to controlled legal immigration. Just because people support maintenance of and respect for the law they are neither "nativists," Know-Nothings nor "racists," notwithstanding all your worn-out puffing to the contrary. "Yes, we can" see the difference between the two types of immigration - and we wish your side of the debate could/would do so as well without the tired appeals to either "compassion" or "racism" that mar the debate and keep it from going anywhere constructive.

Im sure the president you supported and the governor you supported will use some of their political capital to take care of this. You know, since they're both so popular in CA.

There is no way that you can guarantee this gmg, that is my biggest concern about this entire immigration issue. The issue is not simply about "illegal immigration." There is a barely-hidden hysteria over the attack of the brown people in a lot of the rhetoric you hear. Look over at WorldNutDaily sometime and you will see the true "conservatives" in the GOP going on about plots by Mexico to take back the Southwest.

As someone who has relatives who are hispanic, I worry very much about this zeal to force people to prove they are citizens - do you really think that will affect anyone with white skin? No, it will be people like my sister's mother-in-law, a lifelong American citizen from Puerto Rico (and even the Washington Post, in its coverage of yesterday's rally here, forgot that Puerto Rico is part of the US) who speaks with a strong accent. She already gets harassed about being an American - this can only make it worse.

I believe one of the big reasons we see so many people at these demonstrations is that the hispanic community knows, at its core, that the attitudes about illegal immigrants are simply the surface of significant bigotry and prejudice in this country.

I'm a little skeptical of you guys who somehow know what they were saying in the late 19th century. Comparison is useless as the times are obviously vastly different, and it wastes time when discussing an issue already muddled by emotional rhetoric. I support equal enforcement of the law for everyone. I support legal immigration. No one can intelligently deny that our borders have been abused. No one can intelligently deny that we're, in many many cases, getting worked by those who come here illegally. I think it's idiotic for the congress to suggest making those who help family members etc., felons but I believe that the existing laws, which include holding businesses responsible for using this cheap labor, need to be enforced far more vigorously.

And for those of us who live in California and have for years, the discussion is muddled by accusations of racism. Sure there will always be those morons irrationally afraid of anyone who's different but this is a legal and economic issue. I've been working closely with and managing legal hispanic immigrants for years and am never less than impressed with their work ethic and dedication to their families. But those who employ illegal immigrants and those who work "under the table" are not helping anyone.

[ April 11, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

CPT, true enough, which is why I said "most of us." Of course I recognize that there are a few nutcases - not all of whom are Minutemen, BTW - who are motivated by hatred on BOTH sides of this debate. But I think it equally false to suggest that all illegal immigration foes are so motivated.

As for La Reconquista del Aztlan, that expression comes from La Raza, MALDEF, and SEIU agitprop, not from the hard right. In light of the very real prospect that Germany offered Mexico of recovering substantial parts of the Southwest if she joined the Central Powers in WWI, that plays to a demonstrated history of legitimate fears, as much as men in white sheets play to other ones. It doesn't help when Latino activists, usually found on the faculties of lesser-known community colleges, add fuel to this fire by speaking of a so-called "Aztlan Nation."

I completely understand your anger and concern over extended family members being embarrassed, and mark that down as more of the boorish behavior that permeates our increasingly-confrontational society. No one in his right mind advocates or should even excuse anything like that, but the fact remains that in addition to those who come here to work there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming to this country who are wrongly taking advantage of our social largesse. It is not unreasonable to expect tax-paying citizens to object when their taxes go to support divisive notions like in-state tuition for illegals while out of state citizens pay more, free emergency room and ambulance care, and burgeoning welfare rolls at the expense of better roads, schools and services for which citizens pay taxes.

Behind all this you see racism; behind it all I see flagrant disregard of our national sovereignty and of the rule of law. How much better shape we'd be in on this issue, as in so many others, if the laws were simply applied STRICTLY and FAIRLY from their inception and not winked at in the name of either false compassion or equally false economic growth. For those who can't or won't read between the lines, that means deny illegal immigrants the rights and privileges of citizens and vigorously prosecute the businesses that hire them and multiply the problem by doing so.

[ April 11, 2006, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

I respect your point of view, Bryan. I just don't see the issue as a major catastrophe. As I said in another post, the culture of fear in our country has turned this into "us against them." Same thing happened with the Dubai Port deal. Okay, you and others claim not to be racist, or xenophopic, but that's exactly the perception you create. Any why? Becuase some hard working Mexicanos and other Latinos are here working? This whole thing has gotten way more attention than it needed to. And worse, instead of focusing on the bigger issues--border and port security--it's become an issue that divides Americans against "others." That, to me, is far worse in the long run...

I don't think anyone's calling it a major catastrophe, bucco, and how does my post in any way appear racist? How? While I respect your right to your opinion, that's a ridiculous and purposefully misleading assertion. The illegal immigration issue is inseperable from border security and You know that. Something about all this is pulling on you emotionally which is making you less than rational or reasonable in your arguments.

Not for nothing, but couldn't you reasonably apply the term "Hard working" to someone who obeys the law, goes through proper channels to EARN citizenship, becomes conversant in the common language, interviews for a job in a more selective manner than waiting outside a Home Depot for an empty flat bed to hop into, and pays taxes on what they earn? It might just be me, but maybe the reason America is constantly bailing out the Mexican economy is that their work ethic is vastly overrated.

[ April 11, 2006, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Falcon56 ]