What part of 'illegal' is so hard to understand?

To allow a group of people blanket amnesty to become citizens and forgive them of their crimes is a slap in the face to every single person who legally immigrated into this country.

Since when did the rule of law become obsolete?

Why should money/profits/resources be able to cross borders without restrictions, but people can't? If we can take their money and resources then we can take their people too.

It obviously works.

Is that what this country has become?

If you don't like a law, you can feel free to ignore it at will?

Do you have any argument in favor of locking down the borders other than just because "the law says so?" Would you support any injustice if it is first codified into the law?

This country was founded by people who invaded and took over. It's hypocritical for their ancestors to have a society that claims moral righteousness about keeping people out.

If we're going to create poverty in other countries, then we have a responsibility to accept their people who are fleeing that poverty.

"creating poverty in other countries."

A link would be good, too.

How old are you?

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

favor of "the rule of law" would probably have supported slavery, especially after the Dred Scott decision came down.

they did not come here legally or illegally since there were no immigration laws.

We certainly violated the laws of Native Americans, as they were understood by Native Americans. We certainly can't claim they were lawless.

even before white Americans enacted the states.

the free movement of people in North Ameirca was contempl;ated in the agreement

I am still befuddled that an inmigration lawyer has not amde this case yet

that said, there are two sides to this ilegal coin, the other side are the employers

The gov't been's doing it for years.

The economy's good - we need workers - et voila - illegals come in without much problem.

The economy starts to sour - ooops - we don't "need you anymore" off you go.

We USE and generally ABUSE them.

And if you knew the conditions which they were fleeing, you would have just a tad more sympathy.

The "process" to legally migrate has been - especially since 9/11 - extremely arbitrary on top of being cumbersome, illogical, expensive, and just a plain pain in the @ss.

that's when.

Just exactly what the hell do people think "law" is anyway? Divine edict writ in miraculously in stone?

I heard some legal immigrant last week call in to a radio show and compare illegal immigration to bank robbery.

Given how broken the immigration system has been for more than a generation, I have a very difficult time getting too worked up about people who come to this country to work.

And my family entered the US illegally many many years ago so a relative wouldn't be quarantined. First they sailed to Upper Canada and then sailed across the the great lakes into Chicago.

You cannot be sent to prison for being in the US illegally. You can only be deported.

who are doing what they can to escape poverty conditions.

Notice nobody uses it to refer to (typically white) criminals who embezzle out of pure greed, like the Enron folks, even though their crime truly IS a slap in the face to people everywhere. We don't use it to describe individuals who commit hate crimes, we don't use it to describe those who attack patients at women's clinics.

Trying to feed your family is NOT a slap in anyone's face. It's an attempt to survive.

Hope that helps clarify it for you.

criminals.

Big difference.

They did something illegal, right? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a criminal?

(edited title to avoid confusion!)

Why do we single out one group of (nonwhite) people who haven't complied with a law for a derogatory term that characterizes their entire being as "illegal" when we don't use that same term for other criminals?

Drunk drivers are illegal, but we don't call them "illegals." Nor do we call WHITE collar criminals illegal.

I thought from the post that you were suggesting mexicans be called "illegals."

I'm suggesting we - as a nation - have the ugly habit of using the word "illegal" to refer to immigrants but not other people who break the law because we know being openly racist is bad, but sometimes we can't help ourselves - we just feel the need to refer to those nonwhite folks as The Other with whatever justifications we can dredge up.

I edited my previous subject line - I think out of context it was misleading. Sorry for that!

"Criminal" has the connotation that someone DID something illegal. "Illegal Immigrant" has the connotation that someone IS illegal.

Edited to remove snark.

My goodness.

Skilled tradesmen who were brought over here from Belfast on ships to work in the Foundry to do work that Americans wouldn't or couldn't.

The Foundry owner built them houses, churches, and educated their children. My great-great-grandfather went to that school until he was 16 years old and then took another rich man's kid's place in the Civil War under the Conscription Act. His father died in that Foundry making ammunitions for the Civil War. How much more can we ask?

Our country was founded and thrived with illegal immigrants and their children.

Americans wouldn't for what the owner wanted to pay. It was a crime then, it is a crime now, and had/has nothing to do with the immigrants.

If we have to pay more for a head of lettuce (the time honored, false, example) than we do now, it is because the work of producing the head of lettuce is worth more than we are paying.

The age of American industrial exploitation was founded and thrived on illegal immigrants, but it was not what the country was founded on, quite the contrary.

The Irish that were used to construct the Erie canal were used because slaves were assets thought too valuable to use in such a dangerous way, whereas you could get a mick for a dollar a day and when they were killed, there was always another to take his place.

All these crocodile tears shed for the poor illegal immigrants are just a way for the owners to steal the work of other people for their own benefit. If you really feel so sympathetic for them, start sending them money directly. It will be greatly appreciated and put to good use.

What do you think should be done with dildo users in georgia?

"good laws"? Should they be allowed to violate the law and carry machine guns anyway?

Maybe they would, but they should face the consequences for doing so.

office in January 2001.

that doesn't make it true.

they kept saying undocumented workers instead of illegals.
It sounds like both sides want to legalize them, but for different reasons.
Sent the illegals home and pay a reasonable wage and our own unemployed will then take the job. We have more than enough unemployed thanks to the criminals running the country.

All 12 million of them?

But do it with some common sense.
Set up an independent system to decide who has to go an never come back on one end, to those that get to stay for humanitarian reasons. I don't thing everyone hast to go.
But we need to get a handle on this.
The ruling class is destroying this country by using under paid illegals to take jobs away from American citizens.

the systematic elimination of 12 million people most of whom are the members of a specific ethnicity.

Hmm.

So, your solution is to punish the "illegals instead of the ruling class?

It would be far more ethical, and practical, to punish the thousands of corporate executives who benefit instead of the millions of workers to are already getting used harshly.

of declaring the law 'unjust' and therefore refusing to follow it. What justification do you have for punishing them then?

I never said anything about a ruling class having that exclusive right. In fact, they'd probably never need that right because they make the laws to begin with.

If you think we don't have that right then you obviously don't think much of the civil rights movement.

as you or I do?

I think quite a lot of the civil rights movement. They were morally correct in breaking the law, but they faced the punishment for it. You can disobey all the laws you want as long as you are willing to face the consequences.

and the problem is going to get worse, MUCH worse.

cheap labor is far more beneficial, and has much greater influence than any law. It kind of reminds me of the War on Drugs. The government enables the market to be flooded with cocaine to fund another illegal war, and then turns around and arrests those buying the product. They allow all these people to 'sneak' across the border..and whatever 'extras' they don't need they incarcerate...It's a win-win.

They're coming into this country because they can't make a living in northern Mexico. If a starving man steals a loaf of bread, he's breaking the law; but to be angry against that man is a bit ridiculous.

The issue here is not the "rule of law" because you would be singing the same anti-immigration tune, probably, if the law said that anyone can move in. It's disingenuous to use "rule of law" as the central argument against immigration.

How about we instead talk about how an exodus of the poor from Mexico contributed to Felipe Calderon's victory, about how it depresses wages in the US, and about how the immigration bill is set up so that there's a higher labor supply (pushing wages downward) but with limited possibilities of US naturalization, which might offset wage depression by giving a greater voice to the downtrodden. Or how about the immigration bill grants preferences to the well-to-do with college degrees ahead of those who want to reunite with their families.

and a nice post.

:D

if one had a voice playback toy instead of a brain.

One could also consider the economic necessity of cheap labor (and the overwhelming force on both the supply and demand side, which will blow down whatever pretenses to border control may exist), as well as the social and human impacts any course of action may take.

We can easily absorb 12 mil who have in effect been absorbed already...

They are simply coming here to get a job, which we (the U.S.) practically told them to do...companies "inviting" them up here to take low wage jobs, U.S. policies which help keep them poor...

Address the systemic issues and there won't be a problem, because there will be less incentive to come here...

They are not criminals in the way you are describing them...they are victims of a system they have no control over...

the US economy is stronger than Mexico's, I'm not really sure how you fix that. There are always going to be regions with stronger economies than other regions. Unless you allow for absolutely crushing levels of state control, you'll never fix that.

Employers like immigration because it lets them sell goods more competitively.
Consumers like immigration, even if they don't know it, because it lets them buy cheaper goods.
Undocumented workers like immigration because it gives them higher-paying jobs than exist back home, allowing them to better support their families.

The only "problem" is that supply and demand exists regardless of borders, and supply is crossing artificial political boundaries to meet demand.

We would be flooded with immigrants from Costa Rica too...

It is possible to correct the inequities in Mexico's economy, of which U.S. is a willing participant, which would drastically reduce the inflow...hopefully drying up that supply...

I'm not saying laws should not be enforced, but applying only punitive measures is not going to solve the problem...it needs to be tempered with compassion, and coupled with more systemic, long term solutions...

does not border the United States. People move to the best work environment within range, which varies from person to person. (The various Latin American nations indeed often do have illegal immigration problems, as people cross borders to find better work environments)

All the illegals from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras...

people are willing to endure for better work prospects depends on the quality of the labor environment in their current location and quality in their intended destination. I'm not really seeing a disconnect.

We don't have a flood of immigrants from Costa Rica because they have a relatively prosperous economy so there is less incentive for workers to hazard coming here for jobs...it isn't proximity but motivation...

I'm getting a finger-wagging vibe, but I can't see where our points conflict.

And lets see if we agree...

I don't think simply viewing illegals as criminals and applying punitive measures is going to solve the problem. I view illegals as a symptom of a larger economic problem. We practically invite them up here through our policies, and then are horrified when they actually show up.

Trying to round up everyone and expelling them, building fences, hiring hundreds of INF agents is not going to work...

Larger systemic changes need to take place. Inequities in the Mexican economy, inequities which we are complicit in, can be solved which will dry up the supply of immigrants....

I'm not saying not to enforce existing laws, but that will not be the ultimate solution to the problem...

And I think since we are at least partially to blame for the situation these people find themselves in, a little compassion is in order...I see nothing wrong with a program that will eventually give those who are here a path to citizenship...

Good thoughts all around. The Mexican economy has to improve, and not by lifting the top half higher. The problem isn't the GDP per person, it's the situation at the absolute floor. Improve that, and our problem vanishes.

Illegal immigration is a godsend for corporate America, who now have an underclass of cheap labor that they can exploit, and use to depress wages.

Just because many illegal immigrants are from Mexico doesn't mean it is racist to ask that people follow the law. Why isn't it racist to advocate the exploitation of Mexican illegal immigrant labor by corporations by tolerating illegal immigration.

Illegal immmigration: It is bad for american workers, it is bad for the illegal immigrant, but is GOOD for George Bush and his corporate cronies.

Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. And it's not terrible for most Americans, as it lowers the costs of quite a few products. Really, the only people it hurts are those unskilled American laborers who are looking for agriculture/hospitality-industry work.

they might THINK it's good for them, but it doesn't mean that it is. People outside the country don't think of America as a place of exploitation. But illegal immigrants can't get the benefits that make work and life in America great (minimum wage laws, social security, etc) because they aren't here legally.

get a better life than they have back home. Illegal immigration improves their quality of life. Legal immigration would improve it even more.

thats why they should go through the legal immigration process.

There are comparatively very few work visas issued each year. Signing on for the legal immigration process is a long-shot gamble--higher rewards, and lower risk of death in transit, but at the same time overwhelming odds of never even being allowed admittance to America.

he didn't sneak in on a boat.

If you think that immigration laws need to be loosened to let more unskilled workers in (or if you are opposed to immigration laws), then ok, but illegal immigration is not good for anyone except corporate America.

The difference is the number of prospective immigrants and the number of work visas offered. This is not 1930 any longer. The overwhelming majority of people who want to come to America are not allowed to.

Most impoverished potential immigrants have two options:
1. Languish in abject poverty in Mexico.
2. Work in America, and lift your family out of poverty.

How on Earth is #2 better than #1?

is NOT going to lift your family out of poverty. Working for slave wages and without the protections offered by our labor laws is not going to put you in the middle class.

We also need, as a country, to promote entrepreneurship and labor rights in general in Mexico. I recognize their situation is desperate and they believe America is better, but America can hardly be the land of opportunity for an illegal immigrant.

if you want to increase the inflow of labor from other countries, thats fine, but I'm worried about US citizens and legal immigrants already here.

then explain to me why they do it. Seriously. They all come here and stay here based on faulty information? They don't come here blinded by optimism and then get tricked into a $4/hr job picking crops. They come here specifically to get paid $4/hr picking crops. They know what they're getting into. Often their potential employers advertise work and arrange for travel. And as much as you find it distasteful, it's better than the situation they face at home.

Again: they do it willingly because it's the best option they have. You cannot possibly call that "bad for them," when every other option is either worse or nonexistent.

(If you want to ensure that all immigrants are paid minimum wage, well, the only way to realistically do that is to legalize and register them all and make them pay taxes, which will immediately clear up that problem. I would be in favor of this, though not via immediate blanket amnesty, of course)

must one of those options be "good" becuase it is better than the other????

You're setting up an unrealistic situation, which of course is rejected--there's no conceivable situation in which you'd really have an either-or choice. For a slightly-more-appropriate analogy, consider this:

You are a prisoner in a work camp in the Soviet Union under Stalin. There is an Official Release program allowing legal release of 1 prisoner per month. There are 5,000 prisoners; your odds aren't good. However, through a stroke of luck, you manage to find a workable escape route. You now two options: stay and be worked to a miserable and quick death (while hoping you get picked), or sneak out, escape, and eke out a living performing odd jobs in the nearby village. Now, neither are good options; certainly you'd be poor and overworked in the village. However, you'd be a damned fool to say, "Illegally escaping to the village wouldn't be good for me."

I agree with you on your main point.

It sure seems that way.

eom

pride. A law declaring everyone with blue eyes a criminal would be OK with you, I suppose, since, after all, it would be the law. You are one strange dude.

He sure doesn't seem to understand... Everything he does is illegal. I think illegal is not a good term in this instance though. Maybe unauthorized. These people are not criminals, they are just desperate people truying to better themselves without breaking the law. They don't steal or cheat or rob anyone. They just want a chance at a decent life for themselves and their families..

The current "solution" seems to be to pass another law that can't be enforced, and then give amnesty to all the violators of the previous law. And then try to re-define the word "amnesty," to claim the current Z-visa amnesty provision is not really amnesty.