PeterDavid.net

Did you hear the one about they legalized 'small amounts' of heroin, marijuana, cocain, lsd and several others in Mexico?.. No really they did.

What it proved is that if they put as much energy into cleaning up their own country, they'd have no reason to illegally come here.

I'm a liberal but on this subject I go the other way from the Dems who are pandering to their illegal votes. Deport them back over the border. There are legal ways to enter the country!

Yes. Because the random illegal immigrant is personally responsible for the lack of energy in cleaning up his or her country, and thus needs to face the consequences.

A draconian immigration policy punishes the people for the failings of the government.

So today...they went away.

Yeah, but they're still here. They're not back across the border where they belong, where they should so they can get in line like everybody else.

So this proved...what, exactly?

Not a lot, really.

This isn't an issue I consider 'liberal' or 'conservative' (which goes back to my post in the other thread), because both sides of Congress are just trying to play it to their advantage.

Meanwhile, the people organizing these protests have no care whatsoever for our legal system, because they want amnesty for +10 million people who have already broken the law.

And yeah, Brian Peter, I saw the article about that. Freaking insane stuff. Pot I can understand, but I don't think their logic regarding heroin and the others really flies, that they want to bust the sellers, not the people using it for personal use. Some of that stuff is just awful, regardless of the amount, and NOBODY should have it.

I'm not quite sure why people were pulling their kids out of school- I'm assuming it was a gesture to demonstrate solidarity. But the boycott itself (not showing for work, and not buying anything) was to demonstrate the economic force that immigrants are (particularly in California). The main argument against illegal aliens is that they are an economic burden. Today's action was a demonstration of the contrary. Judging from the reports, it looks like there was, in fact, a huge economic impact.

As far as the kids fighting, smoking, and getting into trouble- that's what poor kids do. Where I'm from its mostly black kids that are causing the problems you described- and they are all legal. As long as poverty is around, the animal behavior associated with it will be around- kicking aliens out of the country, or putting them behind bars, only makes room for new poor people to start causing problems.

Methinks they lent credence to a point completely contrary to the one they were trying to make.

-Rex Hondo-

A draconian immigration policy punishes the people for the failings of the government.

What, exactly, is so draconian about requiring people to get into this country legally? Or enforcing the laws we already have?

It sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.

Personally, I'm not against deporting many of our politicians while we're at it for failing to act sooner.

Yep. The exact same thing happened at my school.

These are some of my favorite kids but it was really great having a day where I didn't feel like I was in the middle of a riot when the bell rings.

Hey, if the black or caucasion kids want to protest next Monday they have my blessing.

The main argument against illegal aliens is that they are an economic burden.

They are, but also not in ways that would be visible by today's protests.

Where we're really getting nailed by the ever-growing problem with illegals, imo, is in the schools and hospitals, many of which struggle in areas where illegal immigration isn't a problem.

Not enough teachers, not enough doctors, and somebody has to foot the bill when large groups of people (like illegals) are not.

What it proved is that if they put as much energy into cleaning up their own country, they'd have no reason to illegally come here.

I'm not really picking sides on the issue, but you might have a point. They've proven that they can get organized when they are passionate about something, so what's stopping them from taking that energy and transforming their own country for the better?

On the other hand, if things are so bad down there that people are fleeing the country... shouldn't somebody, you know... help them?

I know what we should do. We should invade Mexico. For lebensraum.

>Because the random illegal immigrant is personally responsible for the lack of energy in cleaning up his or her country

I don't call 10 million random or small! In fact revolutions have been won by fewer. 10 million people putting that much energy into cleaning up the Mexican system, could, no not could would do something to improve their own country. Instead they try to prove to us what a disaster it would be for them to return to their legal country. Well except for causing some traffic jams, everything around here went along just fine.

In fact my favorite restaurant who I have suspected of hiring illegal buss boys was flowing along smoother than ever tonight. No buss boys and the waitresses actually got their tables cleaned off in a timely manner and there wasn't nearly the wait there usually is. When the bussboys are standing in the corner talking spanish and ignoring the dirty tables.

I'm expected to live by the laws of this country so should anyone who wants to enter it from the outside. The whole lot who did not show for their jobs should be fired. I would be, but I have a feeling tomorrow will be business as usual because the companies won't want to be labeled as racist against law breakers.

>>shouldn't somebody, you know... help them?

Sure in their own country! I have no problem sending aid into Mexico to try and turn around their own coutry, if it actually goes for that. But don't send your citizens into our country to alieve your problems.

But what drives me nuts is who created their mess? It sure wasn't us, it was themselves. 10 million people can put a stop to the corruption. 10 million can kick the trouble makers out of the government. They allowed the disaster to be created and while their government sits and fiddles looking for ways to get rid of more citizens, instead of looking for ways to fix their own problems, they come here and put more energy into whineing about why they should be allowed to stay here while they could put that energy into their own country.

It's like a child who's trashed his room and is old enough to know better walking into mommy and daddy's bedroom demanding they allow him to sleep in their bed. My parents would grab my ear and drag me back to my room and tell me to clean up my own mess. And if I didn't clean, I just had to sleep in the mess, but they'd lend a hand if I actually started doing the work.

>We should invade Mexico.

hmm, don't give shrub any ideas.

But what drives me nuts is who created their mess? It sure wasn't us, it was themselves. 10 million people can put a stop to the corruption. 10 million can kick the trouble makers out of the government.

And that works so well here in the US....

There are two things that are amusing me about today:

1) The assumption, so widespread both around these here parts and around this thread, that all of the illegals are from Mexico. In point of fact, a sizeable fraction of them are from point south - Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador... Many of them were fleeing to Mexico in the first place, because even Mexico is better than were they started off, and ran to the US to flee the Mexican government's draconian border-control measures. Deporting them to Mexico would solve nothing in Mexico...

2) The point of the Day Without an Immigrant was supposed to be to let us see what our lives would be like without Hispanic immigrants, right? So how do those big-ass rallies in LA and SanFran factor in? I mean, if y'all weren't here, you wouldn't be holding huge rallies and blocking traffic, would you??

I think immigrant workers are critical for maintaining a flexible economy. The issue of jobs is overblown, the only real issue should be security.

The Daily Show already made this point today, except it was funnier.

Heh. You should refer to this whenever someone nominates you for unreasonable leftist of the year.

>On the other hand, if things are so bad down there that people are fleeing the country... shouldn't somebody, you know... help them?

Except many aren't "fleeing" Mexico. They are going somewhere where they feel they might be able to provide a better income for their family. You don't see many professionals 'fleeing' Mexico, for example. They are quite happy where they are.

Some of you guys don;t get it. Unfortunately, it's hard to be for some sort of immigration reform without looking over your shoulder and seeing some anti-spanish nut who goes crazy because there's a second or even third language offered on their ATM machine. It's an issue that needs to be addressed because we need to encourage Mexico to improve as a govt (things are not good down there) and as an economy, because for better or for worse they are our neighbor and you don't want to live next door to a crack house, for example.

At the same time, I wonder about the argument that illegals run people out of jobs that would otherwise have to to americans at higher pay. It seems to me that many people who, for example, have their garden redone by an illegal, simply wouldn't get it done at all if they had to pay for an american to do it. So really, it's not money out of an american's pocket at all.

And frankly, I'm kind of shocked that people get into such an uproar about mexicans working on a roof, and don't seem to care that their clothes are made by underpaid and underfed children (immigrants who just happen to still be over in another country). The question then is, are you willing to pay another 5-10 per article of clothing to have it made in the US or at least by foreigners being paid a decent wage. Now go try and find those clothes.

Oh and Brianpeter, should we have just told the italians and the irish that they should go fix THEIR country and sent them back? People wanted to, I'm sure. Funny how we can always identify wrong thinking in the past, but can't see it in the now.

The issue of immigration is a complicated one. Both sides present legitimate claims. There are similar problems in Europe and Australia.

Immigrants are poor people who are willing to work hard in societies that need hard workers. Most of them have no ill will. They are not against the culture of the host country, but they take pride in their own culture.

On the other hand western countries are reasonably not very enthusiastic about importing the poverty of other countries, and although they respect the cultures of other countries, they also want to maintain their own culture in their own country. In tthe past immigrants were more likely to assimilate. It seems that now the process is not working as well, although Americans should not discount the ability of their country to assimilate masses. They have done so in the past.

The Europeans are very concerned because many of their immigrants are Muslim, but on the other hand they need workers, and their own population growth is negative. Maybe they should encourage immigration of Mexicans?

Maybe another solution is to make illegal immigration less profitable by punishing harshly the smugglers and employers instead of the immigrants themselves?

I wonder if the founding fathers woke up today they would find America too Irish or too Catholic?

It seems that America as an immigration state presupposes a stage of immigration involving poverty, crime and isolation, followed by assimilation + multiculturalism. It has worked so far. But is it working now? Is it because more welfare demands ar made on the state? an absence of open country? That the process of assimilation doesn't work as well as it idid in the past? Modern communication, multiculturalism the shared hispanic culture. and the geographic proximity puts less pressure on hispanics to assimilate than it did on previous waves of immigrants. But still, it seems that a lot of hispanics do assimilate quite well. Is there a threshold in which a country no longer can assimilate? Maybe the Us should encourage immigrants from non-hispanic countries in order to make a more heterogenuous mix?

There is a risk in deporting masses of immigrants. It just makes it easier for employers and smugglers to make money importing a new more desperate batch.

Guest workers has risks too. Germany has second and third generation Turkish guest workers, very assimilated in German society, who still don't have citizenship.

I can see that this is an issue that elicits a lot of strong feelings. I also realize I am about to stick my head into the lion's mouth. Nevertheless, here goes...

Folks, any of you here who think you could easily organize 10 million people to do something as a collective, go to it. C'mon. I'm serious. There are problems in this country that need to be solved.

Any takers?

Didn't think so.

It's easy to criticize. But, when you talk about getting something done, somehow the crowd always seems to thin out.

Oh, and Mexico may ostensibly be a democracy, but their government makes ours look squeaky clean. I think organizing the masses over there would be even harder than it would be over here.

And, y'know, if I were a poor Mexican with a family to feed, and I was faced with a choice between breaking U.S. law for a chance at a better life, or staying put, well, I'd be sorely tempted to do the former. I'm not saying I condone it, okay? I'm just saying it's not hard to imagine what I'd do in someone else's shoes.

Oh, and regarding the security issue: the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally. I believe some of them had expired visas at the time they carried out the attacks, but they were legal when they got here. Tighter border controls wouldn't have stopped those bastards. Better cooperation between the various law-enforcement and intelligence gathering operations, on the other hand, might well have done the trick.

Also, I'm not sure all of the immigrants that have come here from Europe were legal. I know someone who swears his grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Czechoslavakia.

Oh, and colonists that founded this country didn't bother with the proper paperwork, nor do I think they respected the rights and traditions of the people who were already here. What goes around comes around, y'know?

That said, the U.S. exists and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There's no practical way for us to dismantle ourselves and give the nation back to the native peoples. And a nation this size has an obligation to itself and to the rest of the world to run itself wisely.

And illegal immigration is a problem, no doubt. It places an undue burden on our society, and it leaves the illegals vulnerable to exploitation that citizenship might protect them against.

I think the real solution is to step up pressure on the Mexican government to clean up its own act. That's something that would take a long time, no doubt, and the success is by no means guaranteed. But I think it's the only viable solution in the long term. Because, y'know, I don't like the idea of a national I.D. card -- can you say "Orwellian?" -- and I don't think a big wall with death-ray-beams aimed at would-be illegal immigrants is all that practical.

1) Illegal immigrants are here illegally. Laws have been broken. Laws need to be enforced.

2) We need to accept more legal immigration. We are too restrictive for a nation founded on immigrants.

3) This English-Only crap is that - crap. For the record, the French government commissioned an English translation of their national anthem. You can look it up.

4) Dems who are pandering to their illegal votes

Wait a minute. Since when have the illegals started to vote? I believed citizenship was a requirement...

Interesting that this is an issue that seems to cut across the usual Democrat/Republican divide.

A third party candidate who presented a tough but fair approach to the problem could potentially throw the election into doubt. You'd think that it would cost the Republicans more votes but I'm a bit surprised at how many Democrats have told me they are angry about this.

Mexico has zero, ZERO, reason to do a damn thing about it. They have it pretty sweet; they get rid of potential problems by exporting their poor and these people (who work like Trojans) semd lots of the money they make back to Mexico. Some have suggested that Mexico could not stay afloat without this income (and we have to be careful that shutting it off doesn't just increase the poverty which would lead to more desperation and more illegal immigration).

One thing does stick in my craw--the Mexican government treats illegal immigrants in that country in a way that only Pat Buchanan would think appropriate for us, yet they have not been shy in telling us how to deal with their citizens who have entered here illegally.

I personally find it infuriating that almost everyone is referring to the anti-immigration-policy protests as being attended solely by illegal immigrants.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 2, 2006 09:12 AM

Mexico has zero, ZERO, reason to do a damn thing about it.

But we could give them some reasons. I mean, they depend on aid from and trade with us. Could we possibly pull the entire rug out from underneath them? Hell, no. But we could certainly start making some of the aid we give to them contingent upon certain concessions from them. President Clinton was actually quite brilliant at dangling a carrot in front of corrupt regimes and then, when they got to salivating over it, telling them, "Fine. Y'want this? Do this in return."

I think it would take time, and we'd have to be satisfied with small incremental steps for awhile. But nothing worthwhile comes with out patience or hard work.

The other thing that bothers me about this issue is that I think it's something W. and his cronies are using as a smokescreen behind which to hide from their current problems. I mean, if we really did get a handle on illegal immigration, and the price of produce went way up because American workers have to be paid higher wages to pick the stuff, I guarantee you'd be hearing everyone howling about that, too.

dantheman -
Oh and Brianpeter, should we have just told the italians and the irish that they should go fix THEIR country and sent them back?

I'm not Brianpeter, but if there were several million illegal Irish and several million illegal Italians in the country, I'd be more than happy to.

But we're dealing with several million illegal Mexicans and a Swiss cheese border that nobody wants to fix.

Yeah, the 9/11 attackers were here legally, but it's pretty naive to think that, should the next 9/11-wannabes fail to get here legally, they won't then try other methods. And right now, the easiest is crossing over from Mexico.

I also think it's pretty ridiculous that Mexico can sit there and say "here, they're your problem now", and we're supposed to accept it.

Micha -
Immigrants are poor people who are willing to work hard in societies that need hard workers.

Maybe you should rephrase that, preferrably with some sort of qualifier to show that you're not working under the assumption that all immigrants are poor, because they're not.

Micha -
It just makes it easier for employers and smugglers to make money importing a new more desperate batch.

No, having ignored the problem for years and years is what has made it easier for employers and smugglers.

Some US companies are outright opening recruiting illegals in Mexico. And then the Mexican government encourages it.

John -
This English-Only crap is that - crap.

No, it isn't crap, because nobody is saying "English only".

They're saying "English should be primary".

Every country needs a language to use as common ground. It always has been English in this country, and making English the official language will help guarantee it remains that way.

If you're coming here and don't want to learn English, then you really don't belong here, because none of us are going to the home countries of these immigrants, illegal or otherwise, with the notion that we won't bother to learn the local language if we expect to live and work there.

Bill Myers -
Also, I'm not sure all of the immigrants that have come here from Europe were legal.

See above.

Bill Myers -
What goes around comes around, y'know?

Well, that's a non-starter if I ever heard one.

Just because we've had serious fuckups in our nation's past doesn't make it right for others to do the same now.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

John -
For the record, the French government commissioned an English translation of their national anthem.

And there are plenty of good reasons why this is America, not France.

I suppose the difference here is that the French government actually, as you say, commissioned it.

Nobody commissioned this Spanish-language version of our national anthem. Hell, it was done by a Brit, and while I like Brits, I question whether this guy has any respect for us in the first place.

The fact that it's called "Our Anthem" is even more ridiculous, because I sure as hell don't approve of it.

Of course, the French are starting to get pissy that theirs is not the language of the world that it used to be. I'm surprised that the Olympics still uses French, in fact, when other, more prevalent languages (such as Chinese or Spanish) would probably work just the same.

Elayne Riggs -
I personally find it infuriating that almost everyone is referring to the anti-immigration-policy protests as being attended solely by illegal immigrants.

Well, I haven't intentionally worded it that way - I know that there were people who aren't illegals that were at the protests, or even immigrants at all.

But these protests aren't being organized for the sake of the handfuls of illegals coming from places other than North/Central America, nor is it for the immigrants that are here legally.

It's all about demanding rights that haven't been earned for the vast majority of the illegals: those from Mexico.

So, it infuriates me to no end that anybody who supports these protests think that the US government, and by extension us, the people, owe illegals ANYTHING when they couldn't be bothered to follow our laws to begin with.

"This English-Only crap is that - crap. For the record, the French government commissioned an English translation of their national anthem. You can look it up.

This is taking things way out of context. I don't know about this specific case, but (a) the French do not exactly have a large English speaking minority nor English speaking immigrants; (b) the french are much less multicultural than Americans, and take the hegemony of French language and culture very seriously. If you want to give somebody French a heartattack suggest making learning Arabic mandatory in schools. Look what they did about Muslim headscarfs.

I really don't understand what's the big deal with the national ID card. I have one.

I usually stay far, far away from immigration issues because, well, I am against illegal immigration. I also thought that the whole boycott idea was stupid, for what is worth.
Oh, btw, I'm Mexican.
The thing is, we've tried to change our goverment. But as someone said, organizing 10 million people to do something (And I believe that just our capital city has around that many people living on it) is not easy. We've got marchs and riots as often as three times a week, and the most they manage to do is... block traffic. We do not want a violent uprising because the last time we did that we ended up with a corrupt goverment that lasted more than 70 years AND a period of history so confusing that most schools preffer to gloss over it as fast as they can. Elections are coming next July. Our candidates? A man from said corrupt goverment whose only clear campaing is 'the other guys suck', a man from the current ruling party (Our Republicans, to simplify things) whose campaing is 'the other guys suck', a woman who everybody knows won't win because her campaing basically is 'men suck, I'm a woman', and... the guy who everyone else says he sucks (And whose campaing can be summarized in 'they say I suck, therefore I don't'). Oh, and the owner of a pharmacy chain. I am not kidding.
Our immigrant policy is complicated, I won't deny that. But entering legaly is fairly easy. Most countries do not need a special visa issued, and most Mexicans are amazingly friendly with turists and legal immigrants alike (notice I said most. Unfortunately, since the Bush administration began, the anti-usa feelings can get a little too much). And in the same way that one shouldn't judge all american citizens on basis of what the goverment does, our laws might be harsh with illegal immigrants, but just last week a group of citizens (mexican, legal citizens) defended a group of illegal immigrants from the police during a raid. The whole thing ended in blood, but I think it shows that the people is not exactly against immigrants.
Getting legally to the USA is a nightmare. I know because as press, I have to go every year to renew my visa, pay 100 dlls, and pray that the consul is in a good mood, bringing all the paperwork I can think off, from my birth certificate and my passport to whatever they think of asking. I've seen people being asked for the rent contract of their houses. All that doesn't guarantee a visa. And the 100 dlls are not returned if you don't get one. You just have to do it all over again (And I have it easy, even if it's a yearly thing. Turist visas require even more paperwork, and let's not talk about work or student visas). Being there as a turist is not exactly pleasant either. I've had luck, and the times I've been up there everyone has been nice to me. But I've also seen friends being denied services, even when they are legally in the country, only because they hear us speaking spanish, and I've read enough anti-Mexican rants to understand why some of my colleagues hate the mere idea of getting into a plane and passing through the USA.
Oh, and the drug thing? Most people I know are wondering what the hell is that too. Legalizing drugs is idiotic, no matter how one wants to spin it.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 2, 2006 09:37 AM

Well, that's a non-starter if I ever heard one.

Just because we've had serious fuckups in our nation's past doesn't make it right for others to do the same now.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Never said that it was, Craig. That passage in my post was meant to be taken in the context of the entire post, where I acknowledged that regardless of our past sins, it's impossible for us to dismantle ourselves and give ourselves back to the native peoples. And I also acknowledged that illegal immigration is a problem we're going to have to solve. You and I may have different ideas about how to solve it, but I think we can agree that it can't be allowed to go unchecked.

My point was, and still is, that it's a bit unseemly for people like us who enjoy a level of prosperity that is partly founded in taking land -- often by force -- from other people to be moralizing about illegal immigrants. It's a bit like a family made wealthy from grandpa's jewel-thievery complaining that someone broke into their house.

Let's address the problem of illegal immigration, by all means. But let's do it without the indignation that rings so hollow in light of our history, please.

That said, I agree that it's sickening that the Mexican government has had the temerity to complain about our treatment of illegal immigrants from their country. If the Mexican politicos had their act together, we wouldn't have this problem.

"Maybe you should rephrase that, preferrably with some sort of qualifier to show that you're not working under the assumption that all immigrants are poor, because they're not."

I was refering to a global phenomenon: people from third world countries emigratingto first world countries. This is happening all over the world.

"No, having ignored the problem for years and years is what has made it easier for employers and smugglers.

Some US companies are outright opening recruiting illegals in Mexico. And then the Mexican government encourages it."

In Israel there are legal and illegal immigrants from China, Africa, the Phillipines, Thailand and Eastern Europe (as well as Palestinians which is a different story). They are treated badly, often in a criminal way, and if they complain their employers hand them to the immigration authorities. Throwing them out then creates more demand which the companies that brought them in are happy to oblige. In this way they get cheap labor + profit from smuggling. The question of immigration should not be treated as a law-enforcement issue but as a global social phenomenon.

Posted by: Adalisa at May 2, 2006 09:50 AM

I usually stay far, far away from immigration issues...

Well, I'm glad you chose to go near the issues today. Your post was well-articulated and very enlightening. When emotions get whipped up, it's easy to tar "the other guys" with a broad brush. But Mexico is a large country with lots of people who exist as individuals, not as a monolithic group. And the U.S. news media isn't great about covering international stories, so even though we share a border, many of us don't understand Mexico as well as we should. Thanks for helping to bridge that gap and allow me to understand Mexico a little better.

Micha -
I really don't understand what's the big deal with the national ID card. I have one.

You are Israeli iirc, yes?

You guys have districts, but they're not really the same as our states set up, from what I can see.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see that we're really unique in that regard, where each of our states does it's own identification & licensing, instead of on the federal level.

And because this sort of thing has always rested with the states, there's alot of resistance to it on the federal level.

Bill Myers -
My point was, and still is, that it's a bit unseemly for people like us who enjoy a level of prosperity that is partly founded in taking land -- often by force -- from other people to be moralizing about illegal immigrants.

Bill, the problem I still find with this argument is that you're expecting me to, more or less, pay for the sins of our forefathers.

I don't agree with that.

I wasn't alive 150-200 years ago, so while I sympathize with Native Americans as well as African-Americans and what happened to them, that wasn't my fault, I had nothing to do with it, and so I fail to see this as 'moralizing' it, as you termed it.

That all said, I've said for years that I consider the illegal immigration problem as a "passive invasion", and now there are more comments coming out from some quarters from folks who support illegals and are calling for the "reconquering" of the southwest, even though after Mexico got those land from Spain, few Mexicans actually lived here before the US took it following the US-Mexican War.

I'd like to know how many posters are Native North Americans. How many of your families actually originated in North America? How many of the vast majority whose forefathers are not Native Americans (injuns) know if those same forefathers entered America with a Visa?

Also, if your ancestry is Italian, do you agree that all Italian-Americans should be deported because without Italian-Americans there would be no mafia? And without any Russian-Americans there would be no Russian mobsters. Should all Russian immigrants and descendants be deported?

Just because some Latino immigrants behave inappropriately is no reason to deport an entire segment of American society.

There is a valid and just argument against every anti-immigration opinion. The bottom line is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If America was a dangerous, poverty-ridden country with an astronomical unemployment rate, many Americans would go elsewhere to look for work. Wouldn't you want other countries to allow you to go there to work?

They are treated badly, often in a criminal way, and if they complain their employers hand them to the immigration authorities. Throwing them out then creates more demand which the companies that brought them in are happy to oblige. In this way they get cheap labor + profit from smuggling.

Which is pretty much the same way that a lot of US companies treat illegal immigrants here.

Oddly enough, I didn't notice much difference yesterday. Traffic around my town was actually heavier, in fact. I guess I didn't frequent the right businesses.

Craig, there was one terrorist caught sneaking a weapon into the US, back in '02. He crossed into our territory at Blaine, WA, from Canada. Shall we build a heavily-armed wall there, too, and piss off our other neighbors, on the off-chance that another terrorist might try to repeat the attempt?

Shall we build a heavily-armed wall there, too, and piss off our other neighbors, on the off-chance that another terrorist might try to repeat the attempt?

How does that begin to relate to the situation with Mexico, seeing as how the individual was caught?

It sounds like something is working somewhere, doesn't it?

Just because some Latino immigrants behave inappropriately is no reason to deport an entire segment of American society.

I'm not sure that anyone but the most insane fringe groups are calling for the deportation of legal immigrants and citizens of Hispanic descent. All most people want is enforcement of the current laws.

Does anyone have any statistics on hate crimes against Hispanic-Americans? Has there been a backlash since the immigration debate moved to the forefront of American polity?

With that said, since the economic factors which drive people to try to come to America are not going to go away anytime soon, I think we do need to look realistically at our immigration policy and make it easier for people to come to the US legally. As someone else noted, guestworker programs have been a disaster in Europe. We need a system that says up front that the end result of immigration is to become an American citizen. And that means not only obeying our laws, but also swearing allegiance to our country and renouncing loyalties to the government of your country of origin.

And yes, learning English would necessarily be part of the equation, too.

Also, if your ancestry is Italian, do you agree that all Italian-Americans should be deported because without Italian-Americans there would be no mafia? And without any Russian-Americans there would be no Russian mobsters. Should all Russian immigrants and descendants be deported?

I don't think that anyone here has suggested anything analagous to what you're suggesting. Straw-man argument all the way.

The other thing that bothers me about this issue is that I think it's something W. and his cronies are using as a smokescreen behind which to hide from their current problems.

Bill, the problem with that is that GW is not getting ANY love on this. Most conservatives are very unhappy with his position. Some are livid. And I've yet to see any liberal who agrees with his position give him credit for sticking to his guns. So it's a poor smokescreen.

On an interesting side note, here in NJ, they arested a Hispanic man on counts of running a prostitution ring - made up of ,wait, Illegal Immigrants....They were marched into custody, instead of in solidarity with their fellow Hispanics...

Oh its absolutely clear that this was meant to be an issue conservatives could get on when they don't want to talk about Iraq. It's just not going to work.

So it's a poor smokescreen.

That it is, but that doesn't mean that many in the administration thought that they could use the issue to get bad news about Iraq off the front page. The flip side of this is that if Bush's poll numbers had been higher, he'd probably be getting a lot more love from the GOP in Congress on this issue.

I have a feeling that his guestworker program appeals to many of his major supporters who are looking for legalized cheap, temporary labor. But it isn't playing well with the average voter, so the GOP pols are buying into it either.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 2, 2006 10:31 AM

Bill, the problem I still find with this argument is that you're expecting me to, more or less, pay for the sins of our forefathers.

No, I'm sorry, but that's false. I never said that. I did say that we should address the problem of illegal immigration, but that it's unseemly for us to moralize about it. I'm sorry if that confuses you, but it's not a contradictory stance.

By the way, I understand you weren't around when the injustices in question were committed. But if you live in the U.S. and are prospering to even the smallest degree, you are benefitting from those injustices. Does that mean I think you should have to "pay" for it in some way? No. I don't think that and I never said I did. But I stand by the assertion that it puts us in a position where getting preachy is hypocritical.

Again, we have a right to establish laws controlling immigration, and a right to enforce those laws. But there are so many reasons not to get preachy. We took land from the natives. Many Mexicans are just trying to find a better life and don't intend to hurt anyone. And I don't know of anyone who's clamoring for a job picking fruit at below-minimum-wage pay.

Feel free to disagree with me, okay? It's perfectly cool. But please don't ascribe views to me that I haven't expressed. That's not cool.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 2, 2006 11:15 AM

Bill, the problem with that is that GW is not getting ANY love on this. Most conservatives are very unhappy with his position. Some are livid. And I've yet to see any liberal who agrees with his position give him credit for sticking to his guns. So it's a poor smokescreen.

Point taken. But it's possible the president miscalculated the public's reaction. And he's been known to stubbornly "stick to his guns" even when all available evidence indicates he was wrong. Sticking to your guns isn't always a virtue. There's a virtue in being willing to reflect, and make adjustments, as well.

But if you live in the U.S. and are prospering to even the smallest degree, you are benefitting from those injustices.

The problem with this canard is that human history if filled with instances of injustices between two peoples. Any time two technological or economically unequal cultures have come into contact, one side has gotten decimated. Everyone on earth is descended from people who both screwed and got screwed by other people. Rehashing centuries old grievances leads to disaster like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, genocide in Darfur, "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, and countless other pointless conflicts.

People need to acknowledge the past but move on.

But please don't ascribe views to me that I haven't expressed.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's the impression I received from your post.

I don't feel in the least hypocritical because of something that happened hundreds of years ago, nor do I feel that it's merely an effort on my part to 'moralize' the situation.

No, you didn't outright say we should pay, but you seem to have taken the stance where we have no right to complain about illegals because of our nation's history, when in fact we have every right.

But Den summed things up nicely.

Posted by: Den at May 2, 2006 12:01 PM

People need to acknowledge the past but move on.

Sigh... really, that's pretty much what I'm saying, Den. I'm saying we should acknowledge that we're a country of immigrants, and that most of us have no problem reaping the benefits of a past injustice, so we should get off our high horse. At the same time, illegal immigration is a problem, and rather than just throw our borders wide open in order to cleanse our guilt over past injustices, we should enforce our laws.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but I don't think those are mutually contradictory ideas. I don't think you can get up on a soapbox and criticize illegal immigrants without ignoring history -- and he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. That's all I'm saying.

I'd like to know how many posters are Native North Americans. How many of your families actually originated in North America?

Oooh Me! And, unlike most of the white folks who have the old standby "My great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Princess" (eye roll), my Mother was Pawnee, my Father Apache/Prussian (what a mix, e?).

Anyway, the way to address the problem with illegal immigration is to take away the temptation. People are flooding our borders, risking life and limb during the crossing, because of the great riches that America affords them - picking fruit, cleaning toilets, making beds, digging ditches. If we would actually attack the corporations that are hiring them, for slave wages that seem like a fortune to them, and make the fines so great that there is no incentive to hire illegals, then there would be no reward in crossing the border illegally.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 2, 2006 12:14 PM

No, you didn't outright say we should pay, but you seem to have taken the stance where we have no right to complain about illegals because of our nation's history, when in fact we have every right.

I've said repeatedly that illegal immigration is a problem that we have a right and a responsibility to address. I've acknowledged that illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal, and we have a right to enforce our laws.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a straw man. I'm not sure why you'd waste the time and energy. Because it seems to me that on some core issues, you and I agree.

But Den summed things up nicely.

Kinda. But, again, he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. So, even as we enforce our laws, I think it behooves us not to get up on a high horse, because the only way you can get up on that high horse is to ignore history. And there's no benefit to ignoring history, and it's impact on how we live today.

Acknowledging history is not tantamount to "white guilt," okay? Acknowledging history is just... acknowledging history.

And for the millionth time, I agree that we need to do something about illegal immigration. But I still have some compassion for people trying to eke out a better existence. I'm not saying they're necessarily "right" to do what they do. I'm just saying I can understand. It costs me nothing to try to empathize with them.

The context of one's actions matter. Let's say one man kills another in a blind rage. A second man is a member of the U.S. Army, and kills a terrorist as part of an operation to protect this country. Are you really going to tell me those actions are morally equivalent???

Admittedly, illegal immigrants aren't inherently entitled to be here. But given that many of them just want a better life, I find it hard to join you in your chest-thumping. I'm sorry.

I am not against immigration, in fact my 2 grandfathers came here from Canada and Sweeden. My 2 grandmothers could trace their existance in the states back to 1700's. However my forefathers entered the country legally. Both grandfathers applied for immigration and were granted passage and then citizenship. They obeyed the law. No one snuck over the border, no one worked without paying taxes, no one broke the law.

That is all I want, obey the law, I'm expected to obey the law, pay my taxes and as a business owner cross the Ts and dot the Is on all of my subcontractors. And I do and I expect other businesses to do the same. It's not a case where these companies can't find a citizen to do the job, they can't find a citizen to do the job for below legal pay rates!

I worked at a restaurant in college. We had a learning disability dish washer. Nicest guy and most eager person you could ever work with. He did his job impeccably without complaint. The owner was being paid a tax break to employee the guy. Well one day he lost his job a legal immigrant employeed there one day showed up with his 2 cousins, no green cards, no nothing, but they were willing to work under the table and even with the tax breaks it was cheaper to hire these two illegals than to continue employing the guy who wanted to work.

From there it was down hill the two were deported but the owner had learned there were plenty out there and when one vanished suddenly another one was there to replace him. When I stormed off the job I was replaced by one. This went on for years and by the time the place went out of business the wait staff couldn't even communicate with the back of the store staff.

These employeers need to be fined and fined heavily. If suddenly they were paying in fines as much as they would a citizen for every fine then there would be no reason to hire an illegal.

Because it seems to me that on some core issues, you and I agree.

Yes, this is true. But I don't think there's a straw man involved in my argument.

But, again, he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.

What history are we repeating, exactly?

Nothing in US history really applies directly to this situation with illegals.

The only repeating history I see here is the notion of amnesty for illegals: whether Reagan wanted it or not 20 years ago, an increase in the flow of illegals is what happened after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

And if the right steps aren't taken by our government now, whether through inaction or the wrong action, that flow will increase yet again.

But given that many of them just want a better life, I find it hard to join you in your chest-thumping.

I can understand that.

I just happen to think that it's going to take chest-thumping to get anything useful accomplished at this point. If not for Arizona and New Mexico, among others, moving forward on their own initiatives to help stem the tide of illegals, the federal government would've continue to ignore the problem.

Blah blah immigrant blah blah illegal. It's all horseshit. Illegal workers come here because there's people who will employ them, just as drug mules carry heroin across the border because there's a market for it. If anyone seriously wanted to 'fix' this 'problem' they'd do what anyone with the most marginal understanding of capitalism and markets realizes is ONLY way you can attack this kind of thing: stop the demand so the supply will go away on its own.

'Illegal workers' are a business regulation enforcement problem, not a border problem. You could wall the entire US and launch anti-Mexican satellites that laser them from orbit and the jobs would just move over to some other marginalized group like teenagers, under-aged workers or the mentally-ill. Anyone who an employer willing to flout the law by not doing SSI contributions, tax withholding and other W-4 types of paperwork can convince to work under the table.

But nobody's interested in shouldering the real costs that would pass on to all of us so the pols let people who should know better scream at each other over the placement of the deck chairs.

I agree completely with everyone here who said the corporations/employers who hire illegal immigrants should be fined. I also happen to think that something should be done about outsourcing, but anyway...
I wonder how likely it is that the current administration would actually take such steps

Don wrote: "Anyone who an employer willing to flout the law by not doing SSI contributions, tax withholding and other W-4 types of paperwork can convince to work under the table."

There are plenty of businesses following the requirements you list that still have many illegal aliens working for them. If a worker presents a business with a seemingly valid Social Security Card, the business hires the person and fills out the required tax forms.

However, fake Social Security cards are rampant in this country. It's so bad that people I know who hire a lot of seasonal workers are always talking about strange SSN inconsistencies that keep popping up, including at least one instance when two workers at a business with totally different names had the same Social Security number.

Most smaller businesses don't have the budget or just aren't staffed to investigate Social Security Card fraud FOR the government, and until there is a Social Security Card designed that is difficult to counterfeit and easy to verify as authentic, the problem isn't going to go away.

I'm as liberal as gets most of the time. This one though, I think I agree, is not about right-or left wing. I mean, there have to be some type of rules and laws in place for immigration, right? Doesn't everyone agree on that? Then why are these the only laws that are apparently okay to break? That somehow 'should not really be enforced'? When's the last time anyone saw a crowd of tax-dodgers or credit card fraud-committers in the streets, protesting for their rights? Illegal is illegal.

Seriously, why are so many people on both sides of this divide in the US acting like there is no difference between legal and illegal immigrants anymore? "Anti-immigrant laws", "Immigrants want their rights". No...ILLEGAL immigrants! Isn't that a vital difference? And yes, of course the companies that employ these people for under minimum wage are criminals too, and yes of course they should be cracked down on. That doesn't change anything about the points about the illegal immigrants. If you break the law, you're a criminal, even if someone else breaks the law too. That's how it works.

That is all I want, obey the law, I'm expected to obey the law, pay my taxes and as a business owner cross the Ts and dot the Is on all of my subcontractors. And I do and I expect other businesses to do the same.

Well said. Hell, *I'm* an immigrant. I'm originally from Holland. I've been living in LA for 4 years now. And yes, I did it legally. Or rather, am still doing it legally. The latest batch of forms went out last week. that's 5 years and going. And it went well even. So yes, it's hard, a lot of work and hassle and traveling and money.(And I wasn't rich to begin with either) But I think it's only normal that when I come to a different country, and I ask it to accept me as one of its residents, that I OBEY THE LAWS! And yes, I speak english. If I'd moved to Russia, I'd have learned russian. That's not only polite to the country that you move to, it's smart for you. There is no excuse for living in a country for 20 years (as some do) and still barely speak it's language.

So no, I'm not 'anti-immigrant'. I do however find it odd that you can say apparently "Hey, I want better economic opportunities, so I'll enter your country illegally. My first act here, is a criminal one. Then I'll stay here illegally, work illegally, mostly not pay my taxes, obviously showing that I don't care about your laws, and place myself outside of your system wherever it suits me.....Oh, and now I'm marching in the streets because I want that same system to give me my RIGHTS. And I want what the legal immigrants have, that I didn't bother to try and get, except I want it handed to me on a silver platter. And everything illegal I've done must be forgotten. I demand it. Or else!"

Really, what am I missing about this? How on earth can that be considered right and just on any level?

We need to get away from the terminology they have tried to foist on this issue. We are not speaking about illegal immigrants, but illegal aliens. When we take away the word control the situation takes on a new light. They are illegal aliens, not immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, but illegal aliens.

Posted by Timewalker at May 2, 2006 12:30 PM

I'd like to know how many posters are Native North Americans. How many of your families actually originated in North America?

Now there's a point I can agree with. How asinine is it to arrest people working illegally but not those that hire illegally? How can people justify going after the poor immigrant worker stirring hog feces in a waste lagoon, but not arrest the billionaire businessman who owns the string of hog farms?

It's the same as W Bush saying he's making every effort to weed out the mom-and-pop gas station owners who are engaging in price gouging, but he won't even entertain the possibility of wrongdoing with oil corporations who are experiencing record profits. It boggles the mind.

You're right, you can't arrest one without charging the other.

They are illegal aliens, not immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, but illegal aliens.

Superman is an illegal alien.

E.T. is an illegal alien.

Norrin Radd is an illegal alien.

Keith Richards is an alien who has performed illegal acts in many countries.

Latinos in America without visas are undocuments immigrants. They have immigrated to another country without the proper documentation.

Don't try to dehumanize them by engaging in word play. You're better than that, kind sir.

The question of the illegality of immigration is hiding the real questions:

1) Obviously there are more people wanting to emigrate froom South America than there are green cards offered. This is a question of policy. During the great waves of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries there was also many people wanting to emigrate. They were able to do so legally until a certain point in time, when the policy changed (I'm not sure when countries actually started asking for visas. Passports and visas are relatively modern). In the same time period the US did curtail the immigration from China and Japan.

2) Are there economic incentives to prefer illegal over legal immigrants, or is it that there are incentives to use immigrants as opposed to non immigrants?

3) Is this a cultural problem? Is it a problem of the ability of american culture to assimilate immigrants?

4) There is also the humanitarian issue -- poor people, refugees coming to the US to find a better life.

5) The relevant historical fact is that the US was built by immigrants who came to the US to improve the life or to escape persecution The issue of the Indians is irreelevant, that was an issue of conquest not immigration. It is only relevant in so far that the masses of immigrants made the conquest easier. The immigrants from Europe or China did not care whether they were coming legally or illegaly. The first generation after their arrival was characterized by poverty, friction and cultural differences. Afterwards things seem to have turned out well. Is there a difference between that period and now? and if so what is it, and how things should be handled?

6) The whole issues of immigration, outsourcing, globalisation, world poverty, global-warming, drug smuggling, multi-culturalism, and terrorism are global issues that affect the whole world on an economic and cultural level that need to be addressed.
(It seems to me that no single country can legalize drugs without drawing crime to it. But globally it might be better to legalize drugs.)

Actually, I think Superman was granted a special world citizenship many years ago. :P

As for terminology, I'm goint to stick with illegal immigrants, because these are people who are immigrated to this country illegally.

Simple enough.

And I forgot the question of security. Is immigration or illegal immigration actually threatening america in any way/ And if so how to address the threat? I'm not trying to be ironic. Sometimes there are real threats, sometimes there are threats that are just part of political rhetoric. Real threats should be distinguished from manufactured threats and treated seriously.

Overworm -
Don't try to dehumanize them by engaging in word play.

Uhoh, it's the PC Police.

"Undocumented workers" is nothing more than a phrase that came about in the last few years from those people trying to protect illegal aliens.

Call it like it is: they're here illegally, thus they are illegal aliens.

In a similar vein, can we start calling companies that knowlingly hire illegal immigrants illegal companies?

Regarding security: I'd say anything that relates to the security of our borders could have a potential our risks of suffering another major terrorist attack. How serious that issue is, though, I'm not sure. As others have noted, the 9/11 hijackers entered the US legally and the one time we know of that a terrorist did try to sneak in with an explosive device, he came in through Canada and was caught.

Primarily, though, I think our major issue with illegal immigration is economics: Are they taking jobs away from Americans or doing work no one else wants? Are they a net gain to our economy or a net drain?

That sort of thing.

I'm not trying to protect them, just trying to respect them.

What's wrong with "illegal immigrants". Being an immigrant does not indicate one necessarily has a visa. At least not in any dictionary I've seen. It simply means one who has left one country for another, usually to take up residence. By all logical accounts, that word fits this use perfectly.

On the other hand, alien means, "different to the point of being incompatible." Using the word alien when the term immigrant is obviously a much better fit indicates someone has an ulterior motive. Or maybe one simply doesn't have a full grasp of the two definitions. Which is it?

Illegal immigrant? That works. Undocumented immigrant? That works. Alien? Not a proper use of the term.

immigrants is better than aliens, since is addresses the fact that they came and not only that they are foreign. Illegal is better than undocumented since we are talking about law not about a clerical error.

Posted by: Den at May 2, 2006 02:00 PM

Actually, I think Superman was granted a special world citizenship many years ago. :P

Well, even if he wasn't, good luck trying to deport him without a healthy dose of kryptonite.

Even if you have kryptonite, watch out. Superman is bad-ass.

Overworm -
Alien? Not a proper use of the term.

alien

adj:
Owing political allegiance to another country or government

noun:
An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.

Heh. "Noncitizen", more of that PC Police there.

Anyways, 'alien' seems pretty appropriate to me. And since they are here illegally, they are "illegal aliens".

"Owing political allegiance to another country or government"

This seems to imply that the problem with them is that they don't hold alligiance to the Us but to another (enemy?) country. Is that really the problem?

"An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country"
In the US any person born on US soil is a citizen. Other countries have unnaturalized residents who were born in the host country. Some legal immigrants living in the Us do not apply for citizenship. The term immigrant is better to address the fact the active fact of coming to the US.

Craig, how do you know if they "owe" or feel a political allegiance to another country? You don't. The fact that many undocumented immigrants spend their entire life savings and/or risk their lives to get to America suggests their country of origin let them down. That suggests they would feel less of a political allegiance to that country. I know of many Latino immigrants who send money home to support their families. I don't know of any who send money back to the government of their country of origin.

Still, if it makes you feel better to utilize words that kind of sort of, you know, in a your-own kind of way, get your points across, that's fine with me. Just don't act surprised when someone doesn't quite understand you.

Or if someone completely understands where you're coming from.

heres something i dont get
a lot of the illeagal immigrants
say all they wanto do is work here
so they drive that point home by not working for a day?
that doesnt make sense to me

Your comments are all quite interesting. For what it's worth, I actually ran across the border from Mexico illegally. I was undocumented for many years before I obtained permanent residency - which eventually allowed me to become a medical student at Harvard.

I just want to say - I'm not blind to the idea that immigration flow across a nation's border has to be regulated somehow. The idea of a terrorist entering the States to destroy civilians is horrible to all of us. I cannot argue for open borders, as did many of my peers at the protests yesterday. But there is a range of solutions ranging from open borders to criminalization of illegal aliens.

What strikes me as particularly unrealistic is the argument that anyone could stop the flow of migrant workers from Mexico when it's so clear that despite the politicians' rants, so many facets of America work perfectly in order to accommodate us. There are jobs here and so many people willing to employ us (don't ask, don't tell). There are so many good people that welcome us and befriend us and marry us and are happy to work with us. We are allowed to fight for America (the majority of foreign nationals that have died in Iraq, fighting for the States, are from Mexico). Some of us will become doctors or lawyers. Sure, we take up some space in Ariel's bus, but we might eventually help her somehow too. Some of us already have, buying her father’s fantastic work for over ten years.

But it's the "illegal," not the "immigrant" part that bothers so many of you, isn't it? Sure your father was an immigrant, but he was legal. Sure, you're from Mexico, but you came here legally. Fair enough. One problem with the first argument, though: I bet that the primary reason your ancestors were "legal" aliens was that historically, it has been much easier to migrate legally into the United States than it is now. Waitlists to get into the U.S. from Mexico can be 15-years long. There's a lottery for immigrants to get into the States every year, except, of course, Mexicans are automatically excluded from this lottery. That was just on CNN. In fact, for *most* Mexican migrants (not all, as the above legal Mexican migrant shows), despite all the dangers and the negative aspects of the means of their arrival, being an illegal alien is the only realistic way to get a shot at a better way of life.

But it's not our shot to a better way of life, you might be thinking. We have no inherent right for it. We're from Mexico. We should stay there and...well, clean things up, y'know? Make it better.

Well, maybe some people are smart enough and have the right amount of connections and luck to make some kind of change in the Mexican government. Yet to see it. But look, let's be realistic. Most people are not lucky enough to possess the insight and the means to do it. They just want to feed their families, for crying out loud, and you can either do so by changing the historically-corrupt government of one of the largest countries in the world, or you can pay a coyote $600-1000 to guide you into the States. You can keep your head down and work for a while. You can feed your family. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll find a way to become legal, then you'll pay $1000 to the INS (the added cost for filing for residency if you arrived illegally) and pay back your adoptive land, in every way you can, for the opportunities it has granted you - and for the controversial means by which you arrived.

I have a question, though, and whoever thinks of him/herself as most objective in this argument, please answer it for me...in learning to discuss the fine points of the need for border control and the inescapable flow of Mexican migrants, is there a non-sensationalist, non-nativist source of policy and economics I could consult?

Got an error the first time I went to post this, so I don't know if this'll show up twice or not.

Craig, how do you know if they "owe" or feel a political allegiance to another country? You don't.

The billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico from the US seems to tell me otherwise because, either way, that money tends to end up in the hands of the government they supposedly left behind.

The Mexican flags being waved around at these protests seem to tell me otherwise.

The fact that Cinco de Mayo celebrations tend to get as large as 4th of July celebrations here seem to tell me otherwise.

It may not be purely political, but there is an alliegence to Mexico there that far surpasses any such alliegence to the US.

Just don't act surprised when someone doesn't quite understand you.

I doubt that will be an issue.

People know what illegal aliens are, and, for the most part, I think the words 'alien' and 'immigrant' when it comes to discussing illegals really are interchangeable.

But don't expect those of us who do understand to sit back and watch as you try and play PC-Cop becuase it's supposed to make everybody feel better about the situation, because it doesn't.

Waitlists to get into the U.S. from Mexico can be 15-years long.

And you have to wonder why that is, when the Mexican government does nothing to help the situation with people crossing the border at will.

But that doesn't change the situation: it's still illegal. It's still not fair to anybody else who wants to come here from the rest of the world legally and has to wait in line and pay the proper fees and such.

Just because the US shares a border with Mexico doesn't make it right.

Just because you think it's merely about feeding your family doesn't make it right.

Hell, much of Africa is far worse off than Mexico ever has been, yet I don't see you suggesting we build a bridge to Africa and let as many of them walk into the country that want to.

So, is it the 'illegal' part I have a problem with? Yes, and rightfully so, because when I go to New Zealand later this year, it will be done in a legal manner. If I ever move to another country, it will be done in a legal manner, so I don't see why some think it's so unreasonable to epxect the same of others, no matter who they are or where they're from.

But it's the "illegal," not the "immigrant" part that bothers so many of you, isn't it?

Absolutely. Like it or not, there has to be some regulation of the movement of people from one country to another.

That said, I agree that the waitlists and other obstacles you mentioned that limit legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries need to be reformed. People want to come to this country and companies here want to hire them. And their native lands have clearly failed to create enough jobs to support their populations. So long as this economic and social reality exists, people will try to come here. Bush is at least acknowledging this reality with proposing a guestworker program, but the policy needs to treat all immigrants as potential citizens, not commodities to be shuttled back and forth across the border.

But I think a lot of companies that hire illegal immigrants aren't going to be keen on any system that increases legal immigration because if legal immigrants displace the illegal ones in the job market, then the companies will have to start paying minimum wage and following worker safety regulations, etc.

"Craig, how do you know if they "owe" or feel a political allegiance to another country? You don't.

The billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico from the US seems to tell me otherwise because, either way, that money tends to end up in the hands of the government they supposedly left behind.

The Mexican flags being waved around at these protests seem to tell me otherwise.

The fact that Cinco de Mayo celebrations tend to get as large as 4th of July celebrations here seem to tell me otherwise.

It may not be purely political, but there is an alliegence to Mexico there that far surpasses any such alliegence to the US."

Generations of immigrants to the Us have sent money to their families, and had their St Patrick parades, and St Genero etc. When I was a kid in israel we didn't money from my relatives but action figures.

I have to echo Micha's statement: Sending money back to ones relatives in the "old country" is a longstanding practice of immigrants from just about every corner of the world. In fact, it was one of the primary reasons many families sent there sons to America.

And still is.

And from what I've observed, both St. Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo have become excuses for people in this country who are of neither Irish nor Mexican heritage to get shitfaced, so I wouldn't use the size of either holiday celebration as a gauge of subversiveness.

Generations of immigrants to the Us have sent money to their families,

But never on this scale.

BILLIONS of dollars on an annual basis are involved here.

and had their St Patrick parades

I'm not sure St. Patrick's Day has ever really been on the same level as Cinco de Mayo.

Most people now celebrate it as a special day to get drunk... which is funny, because they can get drunk every other day of the year if they want. And I don't think that's what St. Patrick was about, being a saint and all.

In a way, the meaning behind it has become as twisted from it's origin (although in a different manner) as Christmas in many parts of the world and to be honest, I'm not sure why St. Patrick's Day has the notority it has.

Although I suppose the fact that Cinco de Mayo actually has to do with the Mexican army beating the crap out of a small French army is enough to make many Americans cheer in ignorance just the same.

You know, here in Denver, they actually make an exception for Cinco de Mayo that they make for no other group, holiday, or whatever: 'cruising' is actually banned here. But they allow it on May 5th.

Now, if only they'd exempt the 4th of July from all the fireworks bans around here, I could get back to doing all the really cool stuff with firecrackers I could do when I was younger. *sigh*

Are they taking jobs away from Americans or doing work no one else wants?

That's a good question. The answer may well be yes...but with the caveat that the reason the jobs are unacceptable to Americans is because hiring illegals has driven the wages down to an unacceptable level. Meat cutters once made a pretty good salery in Chicago but now get paid chump change. An argument could be made that without the cheap labor of illegals, the pay for unskilled labor would be forced to rise until it met the demands of the laborers.

Another argument I've heard that drives me nuts (haven't heard it here but we are a smarter than average group); if we double the wages of the lettuce pickers it will double the price of lettuce. Uh, no, no it won't. If Juan Valdez picks 100 head of lettuce an hour and gets paid $5 by the grower, it's comes out to 5 cents per lettuce. Lettuce costs me $1.89, 5 whole cents of which went to Juan. If the grower had the decency to pay Juan $15 dollars an hour it would add a whopping 10 cents to my cost. So I'd pay $1.99, a far cry from doubling or tripling the price. This ain't calculus.

And here are 2 more factors to chew on. Given affirmitive action and the fact that recent immigrants tend to be from what we consider to be minority groups, isn't it possible that non-citizens are being given preferential treatment over citizens, at least in some situations?

And I know for a fact that skilled workers from other countries have to jump through freaking hoops to get to stay. I've known doctors who were treated like they were vectors for a new strain of tuberculosis when they tried to extend their temporary visas or whatever they had to do to keep working in a hospital. Good grief, anyone who comes here and earns a 6 figure slaery ought to get a free pass--his or her taxes will help to pay for the schooling and social services of many of those who came here illegally.

But ultimately I have to listen to what folks like MrPonceman say and take it to heart. I just can't work up too much passion to punish people who are merely trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. The tragedy of the recent protests is that it has been a major turnoff to a lot of people who, like me, have a natural inclination to extend a helping hand to people in need. Marching around on May Day with signs and posters that essentially say "give us what we want...or else" ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 2, 2006 04:34 PM

Another argument I've heard that drives me nuts (haven't heard it here but we are a smarter than average group); if we double the wages of the lettuce pickers it will double the price of lettuce.

Uhm, I kinda sorta made that argument. Oops.

I'm going to go hide now...

It proved that after decades of sitting on their butts and simply whining about every damn issue that comes along a group of people in this country in this country finally feels passionate enough to become activists. Funny how it's foreign born Americans but, hey, I'm just glad to see some folks out on the street making themselves heard.

Well I didn't mean you. I meant those OTHER guys. I LIKE you.

But don't feel bad--I just read a columist who said the same thing, only about the price of gas. "If gas prices double so will the price of goods transported to market!"

Now HE'S an idiot!

Thanks for helping to bridge that gap and allow me to understand Mexico a little better.

You're welcome Bill. The reason why I preffer to stay away is because I understand it must be frustrating for everyone involved when it seems that no one down here is doing anything.

In another forum, I saw the infamous 'manual' to cross the border linked, as a 'guide' created by our goverment to teach people how to cross illegaly, when in fact it was created exactly with the opposite in mind (Almost every page tells you 'if you try, you will die'), in Mexican news, the news is not that americans are against 'illegal' immigrants but against Mexicans (and the plight of the illegal immigrants is played up a lot. You can imagine I'm not exactly popular at college for being against them). It's very hard to have the two sides of the coin.

And of course, there's the cultural barrier. As for instance:
Although I suppose the fact that Cinco de Mayo actually has to do with the Mexican army beating the crap out of a small French army

Which is totally false, since it's not about 'beating the crap out of a small French army' but about the ONLY battle in the history of the Mexican army that we won.

Yes. Our army is pathetic. We know. Want to hear about how our independence was managed by the Spain army? Or our time as part of the French empire? Or even better, how in September 13 we celebrate how the American army effectively killed a bunch of defensless kids?

Yes. Our army is pathetic. We know.

In fairness, the 300 Spartans probably would not have looked all that great if they'd been led by Antonio López de Santa Anna.

My only question is why they kept bringing him back. That guy demonstrated the Peter Principle like few others.

A side comment about the number of Mexican flags in the protests. As one of the protesters, let me offer this: they are not proof that our allegiance is to another country. They are proof that we love and honor our motherland, even though she might have...failed us, in some ways. But we also love and honor our adoptive land - and that's why you see American flags at the protests as well. You are allowed to honor both your father *and* your mother. Asking us to "choose" one or the other is completely unnecessary.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 2, 2006 05:12 PM

Well I didn't mean you. I meant those OTHER guys. I LIKE you.

I like you as well. But, if I put my foot in it, someone ought to call me on it. Fair's fair. If I can't stand the heat, I have no business in the kitchen.

But don't feel bad--I just read a columist who said the same thing, only about the price of gas. "If gas prices double so will the price of goods transported to market!"

Now HE'S an idiot!

That reminds me of a network television news report a few years ago where the correspondent described what you would pay if you drove your car to the gas station with an empty tank.

I remember thinking, "If I could drive my car on an empty tank, the gas station is the last place I'd go!!!!!"

Posted by: Adalisa at May 2, 2006 05:53 PM

Yes. Our army is pathetic. We know. Want to hear about how our independence was managed by the Spain army? Or our time as part of the French empire? Or even better, how in September 13 we celebrate how the American army effectively killed a bunch of defensless kids?

Well, sure, but not so I can laugh at you. I like learning as much as I can about other countries, the better to understand the world in which I live.

I've bookmarked your comics-related blog. Feel free to e-mail me via my Web site if the mood strikes you. I've enjoyed learning from you and would welcome the opportunity to learn more.

To deal with the economic aspects of illegal immigration would require Americans to enforce labor laws, which seems to me a capitalist country like America would find objectionable.

"It's very hard to have the two sides of the coin."

Tell me about it.

today is Israel's independence day. We won more battles than we lost, but some feel bad about that. I guess you can't win.

Even in Israel, a Jewish country, some people celebrate St. Patrick's day, at least in bars.

I suspect that in states where there are more Irish than mexicans St Patrick days is bigger than Cinco de Mayo.

I suppose with any national group that emigrated to the US except WASPs there is or was a question of double loyalty, since they all tend or tended to maintain connection with their old country (although nowadays modern communication makes it even easier), and since most of them did not come to the US because of a love for the country as much as for economic reasons. Surprisingly, with few exceptions, this does not seem to have ever been an actual problem for the US. Even the Japanese were apparently not really a threat during WWII. Somehow, immigrants seem to develop an American patriotism despite everything.

Overworm: Also, if your ancestry is Italian, do you agree that all Italian-Americans should be deported because without Italian-Americans there would be no mafia?
Luigi Novi: No, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some Italian-Americans deported. Y'know, like, those who made that piece-of-shit show The Sopranos the hit.

And while yer at it, deport the non-Italians who watch that show and say that it's a "realistic" at Italian-Americans living in New Jersey. :-)

You know, some of you are going to want to throw rocks at me for what I'm about to write: Let them come and work. But don't let them get screwed over and not get paid a decent wage or get health care.
Also don't let them send the money back to Mexico or China (Ah, some of you forgot about China, didn't you?) Let them bring the whole fmaily over here.
See this is the catch we're all missing: Fox (Not the network, the Il President) WANTS these people to come here and work and send money BACK to Mexico so their familes will buy Mexican goods or goods sold in Mexico. This will give him the tax money to build the infrastructure that wil make Mexico a world power, while at the same time keeping his best and brightest in Mexico.
On the flip side, Bush and pals want this cheep, undocumented work force so they can explote them, not pay taxes on them, and just screw them over. Their the one's really breaking the laws and they KNOW it, but will the get punished? NO!!!
So let's not let them divide us, people.
Oh and PS: "I'm tired of people saying this administration (BUSH) is resuffiling the deck chairs on the Titanic. That implies that their sinking. This administration is soaring, so really their resuffling the deck chairs on the Hendinberg."- Stephen Colbert.

Josh, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

If there's any president more incompentent than Bush, it is Chente Fox. The man (and his cabinet) wouldn't be able to think that far away, especially when he's so busy trying to cater to Bush's whims (Except for one. The one that made me respect Fox a little bit).

Mexican people don't usually buy Mexican goods. We (and yes, I'm guilty of that too) buy in Walmart, drink at Starbucks, eat at McDonalds. Even Mexican stores carry Coca-cola, Kellogs, and american brands.

Which are a lot more expensive, because we have to pay taxes to the USA to get them here (The TLC -Free Commerce Treaty- kind of screwed us) and the funny thing? Many are done with raw materials produced here. Only that we (the country) never see that money. (Also, our presidents have a curious habit of never leaving money to create an infrastructure. We don't call Carlos Salinas 'He who most not be named' just for kicks)

Bill, thanks. I'll be emailing you. I'm always a bit shy on my first... two years and a half in any internet forum, so thank you so much for the warm welcome.

Adalisa -
Which is totally false, since it's not about 'beating the crap out of a small French army' but about the ONLY battle in the history of the Mexican army that we won.

Well, to be fair, the Mexican army won at the Alamo, too.

But it was more about my attempt to show that if Americans knew that Cinco de Mayo was about beating the snot out of the French, more Americans would probably join in the celebrations.

I guess I didn't get that across very well. :)

Adalisa -
Josh, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'd have to agree.

Billions of dollars are being sent back to Mexico every year, money which, even in the short term, should be making a difference.

But nothing has changed; Vicente Fox is as corrupt as ever.

MrPonceMan -
Asking us to "choose" one or the other is completely unnecessary.

If you're going to come here, work here, live here, and expect to stay here for the rest of your life, then I'd say that, yes, in the long run it is certainly necessary, whether you strive for citizenship or not.

But then, that's exactly what citizenship does anyways: it asks you to choose your new country over your home land.

Shall we build a heavily-armed wall there, too, and piss off our other neighbors, on the off-chance that another terrorist might try to repeat the attempt?

How does that begin to relate to the situation with Mexico, seeing as how the individual was caught?

He was caught almost a hundred miles south of the border, when he was pulled over for speeding. A drug dog hit on his car, but it turned out the dog was reacting to the unusual smell of the TNT he was carrying. (Apparently, his plan was to blow up the Space Needle during the '03 New Year celebration. It wouldn't have worked, though - don't think he was aware of how thoroughly the spire is covered in pyrotechnics experts just before New Year's Eve...)

Incidentally, from my observations here just north of the border with Mexico, the big difference between Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day is that instead of the beer being green, it's called "cerveza".

I may be dangerously close to going off on a tangent here, but I, personally, am more concerned with pinheads still flying the confederate flag than anybody waving the Mexican flag around at a rally.

Granted, it doesn't exactly help their cause any, but I figure it's a relatively minor concern...

-Rex Hondo-

It was a mile back in the conversation, but...

Craig said

John -
This English-Only crap is that - crap.

No, it isn't crap, because nobody is saying "English only".

They're saying "English should be primary".

Bush has said that no one should sing the national anthem in any language except English. That is not English primary. That is English only. He is the President, and the assumed leader of the GOP, so unless any Republicans prominently speak out and say they disagree with them, I have to assume the entire GOP are on his side on that.

If you're coming here and don't want to learn English, then you really don't belong here,

It is a simple fact, that after a certain age, it is extremely difficult to learn a new language. This has nothing to do with desire, or love of a country. Our brains just aren't as receptive to learning new languages as an adult.

Why insist someone doesn't belong here just because they are too old to learn a new language?

There's also an issue of the length of time it takes to learn a language. Even if a new American is learning the language, they may not be proficient in it enough. If English is the "official" language, and documents need to be filled out in English, etc etc, this penalizes the New Americans in that period of time before they know the language.

John -
For the record, the French government commissioned an English translation of their national anthem.

And there are plenty of good reasons why this is America, not France.

Some leader of some Conservataive Think Tank came up with the brilliant quote regarding the Spanish National Anthem, "You don't think the French would allow an English version of their anthem, do you, of course not, neither should we!" That was what I was referencing. The French not only allowed an English version, they commissioned one.

I suppose the difference here is that the French government actually, as you say, commissioned it.

Nobody commissioned this Spanish-language version of our national anthem.

Something tells me that our current government has no desire to commission one. As I mentioned above, Bush has said the anthem should only be sung in English. So, no, that isn't the difference. The difference is that our current government is opposed to any foreign language versions of the anthem, whether it is written by a Brit, or by an American, by a Democrat, or a Republican. English Only.

Bush has said that no one should sing the national anthem in any language except English. That is not English primary. That is English only. He is the President, and the assumed leader of the GOP, so unless any Republicans prominently speak out and say they disagree with them, I have to assume the entire GOP are on his side on that.

That's a big assumption. The ENTIRE GOP? Please. Does Condi Rice count as prominent enough? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000467.html) I don't think even BUSH believes that, since Jon Secada sang the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish at the 2001 presidential inaugural.

Note that this was the actual anthem, not the one being played now with additional lyrics ("Nuestro Himno").

"I think the National Anthem ought to be sung in English." He might not believe it, but he did say it. No he didn't say 'only', but since it was in reference to the Spanish version, and his response wasn't "I don't think this versioin is appropriate." Or something similar. One must conclude that he feels any translations are in poor taste.

Yes, Condi Rice is a member of the GOP. And that quote distances herself from Bush's statement.

I did phrase my statement poorly. I don't assume all the GOP agree with all of Bush's statements. But I do assume that silence=agreement on any issue that is controversial enough to get this play in the newspapers. This rule of thumb goes for any president of any political party.

It should also be noted that any translation of any national anthem, if it manages to stay in tune, is going to take liberties with the text. I can't imagine that the Spanish national anthem you refer to is a perfect translation. if it is, it's a work of genius.

"In a similar vein, can we start calling companies that knowlingly hire illegal immigrants illegal companies?"

How about "company operating illegally"?

"I'm not trying to protect them, just trying to respect them."

To mean something, respect must be earned. And you don't earn it by breaking the law right off the bat.

"What's wrong with 'illegal immigrants'."

That implies an immigration process. But in their case, it is one which they have willfully ignored or deliberately avoided. I know about immigration. My girlfriend is a foreigner and the immigration process is a royal PAIN. But we also know that it's the LAW and we don't ignore it merely because it is inconvenient. We can work to change it, but not just pretend it doesn't exist for us. If we did then we'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. Illegal aliens break the law getting in, and then complain when they are caught and penalized for it.

When someone steals because welfare payments isn't enpough to feed their kids, does the system 'forgive' them? Not usually. Why should illegals be treated any differently?

"I think the National Anthem ought to be sung in English." He might not believe it, but he did say it.

So did Ted Kennedy on Hardball.

Peter, me lad, you are right. I agree, there are legal ways to enter your country, or mine, for that matter. However, since most of the jobs the illegals take are the ones that everyone else turns their noses up at, and the "legal" ways usually require some demonstration of a marketable skill, and well, strawberry picker just don't cut it.

Up here in the Great White North (not Minnesota) we just deported a whole bunch of Portuguese illegals who were working the construction trades. Since we have created a society that seems to deem any profession not invlving university degrees, stock options and golden parachutes as somehow undignified, we may have done this to ourselves.

I will retract the above statement when 20 people can tell me they actively encourage their kids to become construction workers, mechanics, loggers, unskilled farm labour....

I'm waiting.

The illegals take the jobs we think we are to good for, then we complain about the economic impact.

Still waiting.

Bill Mulligan -
I don't think even BUSH believes that, since Jon Secada sang the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish at the 2001 presidential inaugural.

I was thinking of bringing this up, until I found out that Secada did NOT sing our National Anthem.

He sang America the Beautiful in Spanish.

I'm not sure if I believe Bush either way, but when I first read the story, I gave it a digital thumbs up.

Manny -
However, since most of the jobs the illegals take are the ones that everyone else turns their noses up at

This is the biggest pile of bullshit in the entire debate over illegals.

When I was 14, I worked at a grocery store for minimum wage. I've also worked paper routes, which pay crap also.

Don't tell me these jobs are beneath Americans.

What is beneath Americans is getting paid slave wages for less than desireable jobs, jobs that should be getting paid much better because they are so undesireable.

Don't tell me that no Americans want to be roofers or other construction jobs, when those jobs deserve better pay, but the illegals get paid next to nothing under the table for the work.

I knew somebody who, after he finished high school, had a roofing company in town. He used to employ kids like my brothers.

But he was driven out of business by a company from another town who brought in illegals.

So please, spare us the usual garbage about these supposed millions of jobs out there that Americans won't do.

They would do them if they too would willingly become slaves.

It proved...

1. ...that the "backbone" of the nation's economy can disappear for a day and no one will notice.

2. ...that the grass can always wait one more day before being mowed.

3. ...that we'll still go out and whoop it up on Cinco de Mayo, regardless.

1 well hopefully your daughter has enough sense to realize that it's not illegal immigrants that make up all of the people that smoke or fight in front of the school. Nor was it only illegal immigrants that left school to show support.

Pleasedon't oretend that the argument is about commissioned or non commissioned translations of the anthem, Mexican flags, Cinco de Mayo, or even immigrants who haven't mastered English. It's unfair to either side of the argument.

It isn't that Ariel or PAD or anyone else thinks that the fact that all the illegals were gone was the only reason that the schools ran so well that day. In fact, the fighters, smokers, etc were probably just looking for a good excuse to skip school. Since some schools actually encouraged kids to participate they may have even thought that it would not be penalized (big mistake--just because Caesar Cavez High in California does something doesn't mean that Stonewall Jackson Middle school in North Carolina will do the same).

The point is that this could have been predicted. And the result could have been predicted. When you are trying to prove how indispensable you are you DON'T want to create a situation that makes you look, well, dispensable. You don't want to create even the illusion that your absence would be a good thing.

I would hazard a guess that the country is significantly more anti-immigration today than it was a week ago. Not exactly the mark of success--assuming we are correctly understanding the actual goals of the protest organizers.

"1 well hopefully your daughter has enough sense to realize that it's not illegal immigrants that make up all of the people that smoke or fight in front of the school. Nor was it only illegal immigrants that left school to show support."

I don't think she thought about it one way or the other. I asked her how school was and she commented about how much less crowded it was and how many of the conspicuous troublemakers--the Usual Suspects, if you will--had evaporated. I'm not even sure she was aware that there was an organized ethnocentric boycott going on.

PAD

Lots (although not as many as are Hispanic) of illegals are from Africa and Asia. They get here the same way a lot of the Mexicans do - they are endentured servants to the people who get them into this country. The only difference between those immigrants and the ones, say 150 years ago, is that a lot of these illegals nowadays will never free themselves of their indebtedness.
JMHO, of course.

I can confirm Micha's speculation about the varying regional degrees of Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day celebrations. I lived in the Metro Denver area a while ago, so I can remember when the day was a big deal... vaguely. Here in the Syracuse area, it's a total non-event. I've had May 5ths where it didn't occur to me that it was "Cinco de Mayo" until the end of the day (if even then, actually). Meanwhile, St. Patrick's Day is a relatively major holiday, which you hear about in advertisements (example: Dunk and Bright Furniture annually becomes "O'Dunk and O'Bright" from about the middle of February on) for weeks before the event. Now, it's said that Syracuse has one of the larger St. Patrick's Day parades in the country, so I wouldn't be surprised if the extent of the celebration here is greater than in other areas. But, I do think there are regional variences in the significance of both holidays, and agree that those are probably at least partially based on varying ethnic make-ups.

As far as the May 1st marches (just the marches themselves, not the question of illegal immigrants or the need for reform of legal immigration)... personally, I was left impressed both by the show of numbers and, more importantly, by the completely peaceful nature of things. If anything, for me, at least, it left a positive impression.

However, since most of the jobs the illegals take are the ones that everyone else turns their noses up at
Chris J. Ries said to that:
"This is the biggest pile of bullshit in the entire debate over illegals.

When I was 14, I worked at a grocery store for minimum wage. I've also worked paper routes, which pay crap also."

OK Chris. Do you bag groceries now? Deliver papers? Do you tell your kids that picking lettuce in Salinas CA for slave wages is OK?

I don't think so.

Nor would you pump gas for minimum wage, unless it meant the difference between eating and not eating.

I wasn't talking about skilled trades (plumbers, framers etc.), I was talking about the guys who dig the footings, clean up the site, do the scut work for cash end of the day.

As for your friend driven out of business by companies using low paid illegals, blame the other companies as well as the illegals. INS anyone?

So we go right back to CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses while laying off entire plants and moving the work to (horrors!) Mexico. Those jobs would probably keep more illegals south of the Rio Grande for a while, until they realize they should be making more.

The irony will be in 50 years when we hear Mexicans complaining about illegal "yanquis" who are stealing their jobs, and can't cut the grass just right.

1I'd like to add one more thing: This whole debate is dividing us and giving fuel to Bush and his party to take back the Congress in November. I agree something must be done about this issue, but we have bigger problems like health care, gas prices and the war. Also I think we should change the national anthem to Margretaville, it's less violent.
I'd like to add, this country has been Spanish longer than it's been Anglo-Saxon.

I'd like to add one more thing: This whole debate is dividing us and giving fuel to Bush and his party to take back the Congress in November.

Er, hate to be the one to break the bad, but they already have the Congress.

And if you think that EVERYTHING not directly related to Bush is someohow secretly designed to keep people from being focused on Bush...dude, this too shall pass. What are you going to do on January 2009? If you aren't careful you'll end up like those guys who STILL see Bill Clinton in every shadow.

I'd like to add, this country has been Spanish longer than it's been Anglo-Saxon.

Only if you think it automatically turned Spanish when the first Spaniard touched its soil. Which some Native Americans might have issues with. Was there ever a time when the majority of people in North America spoke Spanish?

Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 3, 2006 09:30 PM

If you aren't careful you'll end up like those guys who STILL see Bill Clinton in every shadow.

AAAAHHHH!!! It's Bill Clinton!

Huh? Oh. It was just an old sock.

Never mind.

AAAAHHHHH!!!!! It's Bill Clinton!

Huh? Oh. It was just a bottle cap on the floor.

Never mind.

Laugh all you want Myers, you weren't there when I passed what i thought was a lawn gnome and it turned out to be Paul Begala.

OK Chris.

I'm sorry, was there a Chris posting on this thread? Especially one sharing the same last name as me?

If you're going to quote somebody, at least TRY and get their name right. Especially when my post is right there for you to actually read and reread. And reread again until you get it right.

Do you bag groceries now? Deliver papers? Do you tell your kids that picking lettuce in Salinas CA for slave wages is OK?

It's not ok for ANYBODY to be paid slave wages - it's time for the minimum wage to be raised again anyways.

But I see nothing wrong with other teenagers getting their first taste of life, responsibility, and earning a paycheck by way of doing minimum wage jobs, the same as people have done for decades.

But those opportunities are being ripped away by illegals who will work for wages less than the government mandates as it is.

I don't think so.

Well, I'd say that's more of an issue of the fact you don't seem to be thinking at all.

I wasn't talking about skilled trades (plumbers, framers etc.),

Of course you weren't, because now you're not even addressing my argument, but trying to create your own little reality from which to work in.

Delivering papers, cashier at a McDonalds, or bagging groceries aren't skilled trades either. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people here who aren't willing to do those jobs, just because the rock you're living under tells you so.

For those of you who state that the use of the word alien when refering to this issue is incorrect, take a look at dictionary.com. Look up alien and read the first definition under the noun heading.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alien

Craig-
Well, to be fair, the Mexican army won at the Alamo, too.

But it was more about my attempt to show that if Americans knew that Cinco de Mayo was about beating the snot out of the French, more Americans would probably join in the celebrations.

I guess I didn't get that across very well. :)

See? that's what I meant with cultural differences. I have no idea why Americans seem to hate French people.

And there's a funny thing about the Alamo...

It's not taught at our schools. For a long time, everytime I saw a 'remember the Alamo' reference? I had no idea of what they were talking about. By the time I hit Highschool, I had a vague idea that it had been a battle during our Revolution, where a lot of americans had been killed, and that Pancho Villa, considered a thief back then, had been the one leading the army. But then, huge chuncks of our history is not taught at school (the whole time we were a Spain colony? It's taught as '300 years after the conquest, we fought for our Independece), and that particular period of time (The Revolution Wars) are so confusing that you don't get to study it fully until College, and then only if you're majoring in history.

Sorry Craig, dyxlesia bitch a is.(Yes I am).But my question remains. Would you encourage you're children to bag groceries til retirement?

I agree that minimum wage is slave wages at the best of times. I see no problem with teens having either. If they decide to work up the Mickey D corporate ladder, cool.

I don't believe, however, that anyone looks at a 35 year old high school drop out flipping Big Macs and tells their child to view them as a fine example.

Further, if you were not aware, produce pickers are paid piece work, not by the hour. The big Agri-corps have everyone convinced paying a living wage will destroy the economy. The people who load the trailers in CA are paid by the box they load. I have not only been thinking, I have dealt with the situation.

I drive a truck. By Choice. After trying my hands at other proffessional endevours. I haul produce out of CA into Canada. And, by the by, I live in an apartment, not under a rock. Let's not lower ourselves to personal attacks to prove a point, please. The only point made down that road is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It seems we both agree that there is a problem with the level of minimum wage. Therefore, I submit that arguing about who is to blame is a waste of time.

If the root issue is minimum wage, that is where to focus efforts at reform. The next step would be, I think, a reform of immigration policy to make it easier for those wishing to enter the US legally.

Up here, under my rock, the much bally hooed problem is immigrants from India and Pakistan "taking over" the taxi business in and out of Pearson Airport in Toronto. Most are starting family businesses, and cabs are fast way to go. But, since being a cabby pays shit, no one else wants to do the job unless they have to.

In closing, Craig, I do think. 12 hours in a truck 10 days at shot, there isn't much else I cando.

And I will still insist that you do not encourage you're children to be produce pickers or shit shovellers. Before you're next outraged assault on my character, I wouldn't encourage my kids to take those jobs either.

Would you encourage you're children to bag groceries til retirement?

That was never the issue.

Your argument was merely that nobody will take these jobs.

Not that Americans won't work these jobs until retirement.

There are plenty of kids out there to work any kind of jobs, and they don't need to spend their lives doing it before the next set of kids is ready to come along and do the same type of work.

And the notion that "shit shovellers" is automatically beneath every American is pretty damn preposterous as well.

And I will still insist that you do not encourage you're children to be produce pickers or shit shovellers.

Well, here's an idea: I don't tell your kids what to do you, and you don't presume to be able to tell my kids (if I had any) what to do.

As it is, if the pay was reasonable for the work, and they don't mind doing the work, why the hell does it matter what job somebody's kids do?

Maybe we should stop encouraging kids to become teachers. I mean, the pay is shit, the work is shit, and the students don't have to learn if they don't want to, so why bother, right?

But if shovelling shit paid the $25/hour with benefits it deserves, considering how disgusting a job it is, by all means, anybody that wants to do it should be allowed to.

Instead, we'll just tell people "well, some Mexican will come along and do that job, you don't have to".

Craig, the roots of the issue appear to be:

1)Minimum wage is to low to make the scutwork jobs most of the illegal/undocumented aliens take attractive to any one.

2)Companies willing to hire illegal/undocumented workers to do these jobs, in fact going out of their way in some cases to recruit them.

3)The Big Lie that paying a decent wage for these jobs will drive consumer prices sky high.

My argument, you are right, was that nobody will take these jobs. Low pay is a piece of the puzzle, however, social perception of the job is also in the mix.

Even if shit shovelling paid $25.00/hr., the social perception would be well paid shit shoveller (not Bill O'Reilly).

A proctologist makes more sticking his finger up peoples' asses. But, s/he's a doctor, so it's quite alright.

I did not mean to imply I should tell your potential progeny what to do, nor anyone else's for that matter.My choice of wording was unclear, for which I apologize.

My point is that I do not believe anyone presents the "scutwork" as an ambitious goal to aim for. This leads to the impression that the work is somehow "beneath" us. We teach our children to go for the best, that people in high places or with glamourous sounding professions are to be admired.

The attitude that "some Mexican will just come along" plays right into the perception that the work is somehow unworthy.