"Illegal Immigration" is paranoia-speak for "Mexican-hating"

[Centexfarmer]

CenTex, do you think a guest worker visa would help control the situation, living in an impacted border state as you do?

Yes I do.

We have Mexican workers in the Rio Grande Valley who come into the U.S. to work everyday, and return to Mexico once their shift is over.

That's one way to handle it, but another would be a "Guest Worker" program. Much like a "temp" job. Once the job is completed, you can reapply or return to your country of origin.

 

[SantaCBear]

the only people who side with the law, is the only people that benefit from it.

Yeap, that's why "we" like Hate Speech laws... (I'm not a big fan of)

 

[LaloGS]

I think some of the people posting to this thread have not understood what it is really about.

Of course any one entering the US illegally is breaking the US laws, but if you look at US foreign policy about immigration legally form Mexico and other Central and South American countries, you quickly see that the poorest people are the ones trying to get to America to find work. It is not the rich foreign people having the problems.

Why should any relatively wealthy individual who is successful in his own country try to enter the US illegally? It doesn't make sense, yet according to State Department rules, it is only the individuals who can show they can support themselves in the US who are even considered for visas. A 30 day tourist even has to show they can support themselves.

The people doing their damnedest to enter the US by any means are not given the opportunity to do so legally, because they can't show they can support themselves without working while they are in the US.

The majority of people entering the US illegally would do it legally if given the chance.

BTW, the real irony in all this, is that if you can show the State Department you have money enough to visit or even live in the US it doesn't matter if your funds are ill gotten from the drug trade, or people smuggling, or any other criminal activity. Even the late Pablo Escobar was able to have his photo taken with his son standing in front of the south lawn of the White House, even as the war against him and his cocaine cartel was being waged by the US in Colombia.

This is such a short sighted rule the State Department uses, it has become a laughing stock in countries south of the border, and elsewhere.

I once asked a State Department employee who lived in Ft. Lauderdale but was responsible for staffing the US Embassy in Colombia, why it is so many poor people are rejected for visas when mules, (drug carriers) seem to be able to come and go as they please. The woman laughed out loud, and said: "It's the economy stupid!"

This needs to be fixed.

 

[SantaCBear]

^^ Me too

Surprising, if the laws already in place would just be enforced much of the problem would be "fixed"

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Well according to former Mexican President, Vicente Fox in his book 'Revolution of Hope' it goes deeper than just fixing the most recent laws.

It goes deeper than that, an excerpt:

Immigration
Texas lawmakers passed a bill giving in-state tuition to the children of undocumented workers. Utah gave them driver's licenses. American banks began accepting the matrícula, the consular ID card issued by the Mexican government to our citizens abroad. While the undocumented immigrant cannot prove that he is a citizen or legal resident of the United States, the matrícula is vital, because it at least enables immigrants to prove that they are who they say they are. This card certifies that an immigrant is a law-abiding, job-holding, taxpaying worker with a name and this spouse or that child, capable of renting an apartment, opening a bank account, driving a car, getting insurance, repaying a loan, even buying a home. The Mexican haters in the United States despise the matrícula, considering it a backdoor trick of our government to help "illegal aliens" beat the law. In fact, it is the opposite: The consular ID merely provides the immigrant with the means of declaring that he or she exists as a human being, ready to comply with the laws and rules of the United States and Canada. ...

The saddest legacy of this bracero program [a 1942-64 guest-worker program criticized as exploitative] is the terrible precedent it set for the new, more enlightened program of temporary employment that George W. Bush and I would pursue in our presidencies, based on the modern European model, where an immigrant's human rights are respected and social needs met. South of the border, we encountered great skepticism from a society that still remembers the tragedy of the braceros. North of the border, Mexicans are seen only as migrant crop pickers who have too many babies in the hospitals of California and Texas, expecting border-state taxpayers to pick up the tab. It is this bleak pattern of mutual misunderstanding that dominates the debate on immigration. On one side of the Rio Grande, the poorer nation, fearful of domination and exploitation; on the other side the wealthy country, fearful of losing its economic advantages, personal security and cultural integrity to a flood of unskilled farmhands who live six to a room and work cheap. Immigration, say the xenophobes to the south, will destroy our Mexican way of life. Immigration, say the xenophobes to the north, will destroy our American way of life."

Source: The Dallas Morning News

What bothers me is the "human rights" issue that the Mexican Government, and many undocumented workers make, "I have a right as a human being to provide for my family."

I can understand an individual making such a claim, but for a former leader of Mexico to make such a claim on their behalf is absurd when he himself could have done something about it.

 

[SantaCBear]

^^ Vicente Fox has his agenda and when it's not in the best interest of USA he can go to hell

The flow of gringo $$$ into Mexico's economy sent by illegals to their needy families mean there is more $$$ for folks like El Presidente to steal.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^^ Vicente Fox has his agenda and when it's not in the best interest of USA he can go to hell

The flow of gringo $$$ into Mexico's economy sent by illegals to their needy families mean there is more $$$ for folks like El Presidente to steal.

I agree with this.

It's not in the best interest of the politicos in Mexico to find a solution to this problem, or to cooperate.

As much as Vicente Fox complains about our laws, I honestly believe that he and his predecessor don't want to see any changes at all in our immigration laws. As far as they're concerned everything is just fine, and if you disagree then you're a "Mexican Hater."

 

[LaloGS]

Lalo, I see your point of view, but I don't think you fully understand the other side.

I'll give you an analogy:

You're working in a bank. A poor, homeless man with children walks in the building, then walks in the back of the bank where the money is.

He says,"But my children are hungry." Does it matter? He would be escorted out immediately.

We might have compassion for him because he's poor, but he's in a place where he's not supposed to be. There's no way you can rationalize this, Lalo; he's not supposed to be in the back of the bank, no matter what. Period. End of story.

Laws have a purpose, Lalo. If we have a bad law, we change it. I agree with you that the best solution to this whole mess is a Guest Worker Program, where our man would be invited, would have permission to be in the back of that bank.

Of Course the poor homeless man wouldn't be allowed into the back of the bank where the money is kept, but neither would you or I.

Your analogy does not hold water in my opinion. Consider this: A friend (an illegal Irish man) married an illegal girl from Guatemala, and they lived in a small town in Eastern PA. The local Merchants Bank hired her as a teller, because they were getting several dozen non English speaking (read Spanish speaking) people coming to the bank from New York and Philadelphia to deposit $9,999 every day. Until they hired Rosa, they had no Spanish speakers in the bank to take advantage of this flow of money. They knew it was illegal money most likely from the drug trade in the cities, but did they do anything about stemming the tide? No, they welcomed the opportunity to serve these people, by hiring an illegal Guatemalan woman..

So you see, there are different ways into the back of the bank where the money is kept.

Here where I live, (Bogotá, Colombia) there is only one bank that allows American citizens to have an account with more than $5,000 deposited and it is Citibank. All other Colombian banks are forbidden by law to have accounts by Americans with more than $5,000. What country passed such a law? Hint, hint, it was not Colombia.

Citibank, on the other hand, has no restrictions as to the amount an American can have in an account here. What possible reason would America pass such a banking law for it's citizens choosing to live in another country, but allow a world wide banking institution headquartered in New York to not be held accountable by the same law?

Something stinks in all this.

And back to the point of the thread, a guest worker program would at the very least give the States and Federal Government some oversight to the problem. As I've said elsewhere, IF given the opportunity to apply for a legal visa to work in the US, were possible, the majority of current illegals would do just that. The butter would be on their side of the bread if it was available, and they would abide by the rules. As it is today, there is nothing left to them but to keep trying to enter the US in hope of finding work without getting caught, and the US has no legitimate way to control this flood of people. I HATE to say it, but Bush is right on this one.

 

[wanderer]

i read the comment about the mexican family man feeling that he has a right to work hard and feed his family, which everyone technically has, but it is not really a right, it is more of an obligation to your family.

by calling it a "right", it makes it deniable in some sense, which brings my point.

by trying to keep out the illegals, it makes it seems that the United states is denying men their right to feed their family.

to me, it is subtle statements like this that contribute to the large confusiton of the issues.

and its strange to read about the illegals having such a hard time getting services they need or want, and trying to live easier, but yet complain because they are tired of the difficulty trying to get these things accomplished. dont they understand it is not the result of a broken system of laws, but actually a working system of laws and policies designed to discourage exactly what they are doing, which is being in this country without the legal right?

i dont think illegally entering a country's border and then demanding services from that society works, and i dont think you can successfully do that in any other country.

 

[xyzguy]

Illegal immigration is wrong.

 

[kallipolis]

I need to remind some of our friends that the issue under discussion is not just one of illegal immigration and the consequences that arise.

To focus on the obvious and ignore the incentives that act as a magnet for so many Mexican people, is to elect to view the problem as being purely of Mexican origin.

Our board friends have been reminded on numerous occasions that the solution to this problem, remains squarely in the hands of the United States authorities.

Penalise and/or imprison those American employers who invite cheap labour into the United States in order to lower the cost of their payroll account, and avoid paying their obligatory contributions to the government.

Until the United States authorities choose to enforce the law of the land in an impartial manner, we can expect the invasion of large numbers of Mexican illegal immigrants to continue.

 

[cityboy-stl]

babies born in usa to illegals are not really citizens as mushy liberals say

I respectfully disagree with this comment. Babies born in the U.S. to illegals are in fact citizens as the 14th Amendment says. I guess that makes me a mushy liberal but other than that I'm pretty hard-line on illegal immigration.

I am so sick of the race baiting going on over this issue. Illegal is illegal...period. An invasion of 20 million pure whites from the north would still be an invasion. Trespassing is trespassing. It has nothing to do with hating Mexicans. Mexicans who come here legally are welcome. Mexicans, Swedes, French, Brazilians or anyone else of any nationality who break our laws and enter illegally are trespassing at the very least. It's about legality...not race. Which is why I say children born here of illegals are citizens even if their parents are not - because the law and the Constitution say so.

We first need to completely secure the borders and the ports - priority ONE!
Then we need to crack down hard on illegal employers.
Then we need to identify as many people who aren't supposed to be here as we can.
If we can do that and we have trespassing controlled...THEN come talk to us about another guest worker program....a program properly administered and controlled for the benefit of the citizens and the workers of both countries...not the benefit of morbidly obese corporations importing economic slaves.

 

[cityboy-stl]

you interpret 14th ademndemnet wrongly-mexico etc wont do that; make babies instant citizens and we shouldn't

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I do not disagree with you about the culture clash. But I do not see how the 14th amendment can be interpreted any other way. Whether Mexico or any other country makes babies instant citizens is not relevant. Whether the U.S. should or shouldn't is also not relevant in my opinion. What is relevant is that the Constitution is the law of the land and looks to me to say, if you're born here you're a citizen, regardless. There is no qualification about the citizenship status of the parents. My point is that if I'm going to argue that legality is the issue then I have to support citizenship for children born here of illegals because that appears to me to be the law. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite. Citizenship for the parents who came here illegally however, is an entirely different subject. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the 14th amendment however, someone please explain. I'm only a computer programmer, not a legal scholar.

I think we pretty much agree on one thing though, the primary goal should be to secure the borders so this doesn't happen in the first place.

.

 

[RandomAccess]

-snip-
you interpret 14th ademndemnet wrongly-mexico etc wont do that; make babies instant citizens and we shouldn't -snip-

Which part of the 14th amendment don't you understand?

Read entire text here

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing here to "interpret" my friend. . . it's black & white.

 

[SantaCBear]

^^ "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Interesting...

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185957

 

[Kurn]

Just deal with Mexico's problems by being better than everyone else involved; not more evil.

 

[wanderer]

american indians were born here and didnt become citizens until 1924

explain that one -legal honchos

thats easy to explain.....history is full of hypocrits, and you might as well mention the blacks at that time as well, and even before then they were 3/5 of a person.

BUT, your statement itself needs it own explaination as to why you think it applies to the subject we are talking about here.

this is 2007 now, and things have changed, and we are talking about walking across a border where it is known to be illegal, and then trying to stay here while avoiding getting arrested. that is illegal, if you look up the law, where it says you need ID to cross, or you must have permission to cross the border, you will see that it is without any identification to race. if any other person does it, they too are in violation of the law. what is the problem of enforcing a law that is already on the books?? the law is not rediculous, what is rediculous is the fact that politicians are actually arguing about the enforcement of the law, and Los Angeles has a bylaw that doesnt allow its officers to ask a person their legal status. its a federal law, so why cant they ask? if they are breaking the law, they need to be taken care off, end of story.

 

[chimere]

american indians were born here and didnt become citizens until 1924

explain that one -legal honchos

What was legal then is not legal now. Unless you're trying to make an argument for retroactive jurisdiction, I don't see how this has any relevance considering developments in constitutional conventions (and judicial review/discretion and interpretation) since 1924. The ethics and morality may be challenged, but the legality is fairly solid given American conquest of "American Indians" (i.e. Aboriginals) was done so on the principle of terra nullius.

 

[Kurn]

thats easy to explain.....history is full of hypocrits, and you might as well mention the blacks at that time as well, and even before then they were 3/5 of a person.

BUT, your statement itself needs it own explaination as to why you think it applies to the subject we are talking about here.

this is 2007 now, and things have changed, and we are talking about walking across a border where it is known to be illegal, and then trying to stay here while avoiding getting arrested. that is illegal, if you look up the law, where it says you need ID to cross, or you must have permission to cross the border, you will see that it is without any identification to race. if any other person does it, they too are in violation of the law. what is the problem of enforcing a law that is already on the books?? the law is not rediculous, what is rediculous is the fact that politicians are actually arguing about the enforcement of the law, and Los Angeles has a bylaw that doesnt allow its officers to ask a person their legal status. its a federal law, so why cant they ask? if they are breaking the law, they need to be taken care off, end of story.

So...if a law incites us to dishonorable, disadvantageous, impractical, expensive measures, just do it anyway instead of something moderate, humane, that sets a good example that the rest of the world needs to see.
Our own American self-interest should counsel us to demand that the law be changed for Mexicans and Canadians who simply decide to mosey over the border to see if they can get some work.

 

[chimere]

So...if a law incites us to dishonorable, disadvantageous, impractical, expensive measures, just do it anyway instead of something moderate, humane, that sets an example that the rest of the world needs to see.

Yes, because law always reflects what's right, and therefore it is clear that these illegal immigrants are wrong and judges who don't agree are "activist judges" and liberals