Illegal immigration, from another perspective

Among the members of my extended family is a single black father living in a small town in a larger urban area. He owns a tiny but well kept older home on a large lot in an integrated riverfront neighborhood and, until a couple years ago, he and his family were very happy there. They have a number of very close friends living on both sides and across the street, who have greatly enriched their lives. But now he says that his block is being “overrun” and “ruined” by illegal Mexican immigrants.

Rather than jumping to the conclusion that he’d suddenly turned racist on me, I started listening to what he had to say. The small apartment building across the street, like many others in the neighborhood, is jammed with immigrants – 10-15 in a one-bedroom apartment. Because there aren’t enough bathrooms, the men go outside in the morning and line up next to the building to urinate.

Recently, my relative has had to kick sleeping drunks out of his front yard, and groups of men drinking beer and using his yard for a bathroom, and couples having sex. The problem is being worsened by a store on the block that’s owned by a legal immigrant who sells beer and liquor to anyone – no I.D.’s necessary. No complaints to the city have had any affect.

The owners of the rental buildings are all absentee – living in the more upscale cities of the state. They don’t care about what’s happening, as long as they get the rent checks. The city isn’t bothering to enforce its own building codes. Meanwhile, developers are chomping at the bit to come in and “clean up” the area.

Down the road, that’s probably exactly what will happen. Instead of enforcing the building codes and other laws that are on the books – that should be protecting this neighborhood -- the city and the developers will get together and, using the laws of eminent domain, declare that the area is blighted. Then they’ll force my relative to sell at whatever price they want to offer him. And maybe, if he’s lucky, he’ll be able to afford a little condo somewhere else. But he and the other families that had worked so hard to make their neighborhood a "home" will have to scatter.

It’s easy to be a liberal about immigration from our comfortable surburban neighborhoods, or our safe city apartments, or college dorms. It’s not so easy for everyone.

So the problem you describe is not 'illegal immigration' it is 'corrupt and ineffective law enforcement'. I'd fix the actual problem and not worry about the green cards.

But it's not working. Because the "powers that be" are going to benefit -- in the long run -- from this neighborhood's decline.

it angers me when a neighborhood is deliberately abandoned because a law enforcement officer or city councilman or other person of local power is taking a pay-off to let it be destroyed

i have a strong gut instinct that what you think is happening is EXACTLY what is happening

what to do about it, is a different matter, in a similar situation, we just ran for it, the powers that be were too corrupt

some of them still hold political office in our former town to this day going on two decades later

needless to say i don't believe in god or karma, all i can do is say i will light a candle and hope something happens for your relative to correct this injustice

they, and their neighbors, can use all the positive thoughts they can get

"....taking a pay-off to let it be destroyed..."
Why would this happen?
What would be the motive?

The answer is: to make money.

The developers of waterfront property make tons of money, and they do it by getting governments to take the property for them using the laws of eminent domain. In order to do that, they first have to say the property is "blighted." And they can hurry that process along by not enforcing their building codes and other laws. The neighborhood gradually deteriorates until things are bad enough that the government takes it away from the original owners and hands it over to developers who put up fancy waterfront condos where the neighborhood used to be.

And since the original owners are only paid for "blighted" property, they don't get enough money to even buy a condo in their old neighborhood.

I had never been too interested in politics until the Evil Chimperor came into office.

Thank you for answering my question!

Welcome to politics, quantessd.

Here's some more info about blighted properties. The problem is that eminent domain laws are increasingly being interpreted to allow governments to take property from one private owner and hand it over to another private (but richer, more well connected) owner. This site shows examples of some of the properties that the government has deemed "blighted" for the purpose of redevelopment.

www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/bogusblight/index.html

Groups get attention.

immigrant. I can imagine what your relative is going through. I live in a mobile home park. I own my home, but there are many Mexicans living here and there are a lot of homes that are housing illegals. The management has issued warnings against people living in the mobile homes that are not on the lot rental leases, but they are sneaky and manage to not be seen going in and out.

i suppose they are lazy too?

Would he be equally upset if those people weren't hispanic, maybe African American or white?

Doesn't the situation tell him something? Why would people crowd into an apartment unless they couldn't afford the rent any other way? Would your relative prefer that they were homeless and living on his street?

I don't know about your story anyway since it can't be confirmed and I have often found out that these ancedotal little stories are for the most part untrue and invented to foment hate against a certain demographic of immigrants.

The truth is that the immigrants even when crowded into apartments like that is they really try to keep a low profile so people won't notice them.

immediately after getting off the phone with my relative.

Whatever you may THINK you know about what "the truth is," these particular illegals don't need to keep a low profile because the city doesn't care about enforcing its laws.

My relative would be equally upset no matter what the background of the people is. He doesn't want people peeing in his yard or having sex in his bushes, no matter who they are. Would you?

And no, my relative wouldn't prefer that they were homeless and living on his street -- although the situation wouldn't be all that different, since their crowded apartments mean they spend so much time on the street anyway. But he would prefer that the U.S. enforce its immigration laws so that we wouldn't be taking more immigrants than we have the facilities to handle.

I don't doubt for a moment anything you have written in your OP.

It's easy for people who don't see it daily to look the other way and call people racist, as if we're making all of this up.

Did you see their papers? Or is it because they are Mexicans? What if they were Ecuatorians?

immigrants are illegal. (The census people say that the number of illegal Mexican immigrants is about half the number of legal immigrants from all countries combined.)

So you're right, it is just a educated guess that most of these people are illegal, since the large majority of Mexican immigrants are illegal.

??????


have you talked to them and inquired as to their citizenship status?

The point is that lower-income people like my relative strongly believe they are being hurt by illegal immigration. What should the Democratic party's answer be to them? If we're just going to call them racists and belittle them, then they're sitting ducks for the Republicans, who ARE taking their concerns seriously. We have to offer people like my relative the same sense that we understand their concerns, and that we have a better solution than the Republicans.

We won't get anywhere if we just attack them.

he's in the same boat WITH them (if he is a black man in the U.S.).

feel that they ARE being hurt. Are you going to tell them that you know better and that they are wrong? Is that all the Democratic party can offer them? I hope not.

i have no solutions for your anecdotal relative.

and this is NOT about the democratic party. the democratic party has always been strong on civil rights and helping the working/middle class.

maybe he needs to realize the social forces in play and decide what is best for himself.

the republican party is not the friend of minorities, the poor, the working poor.

is this anectdotal relative of yours braindead? does he need to be TOLD? does he not have the intelligence to ferret out the information himself?

often vote against what appears to be their obvious self-interest? It is because of situations like this. When the Democrats don't seem to "get" them -- but the Republicans do -- then we all lose.

No, he's not braindead. But you are if you think insults are the way to appeal to people.

Why would I make something like this up? I'm not posting this on a freeper board; I know plenty of people will hate hearing this.

But the fact is that the issue of illegal immigration is extremely complicated, and I was hoping that this example could help some people see why.

Also, I want our party to win in November, and beyond, and it won't if it has a blind spot on issues like this one.

I lived in San Francisco, CA, for several years. Urinating in alleys, urinating on street trees. Throwing dirty diapers in a gutter.
It's a cultural divide. These things are seen as disrespect for "American" culture.

But me, I urinate outdoors all the time! Nobody complains, because I live in the country.;-)

And urinating in someone ELSE'S front yard is clearly not the right context.

Men urinating on the sidewalk, that is.

15 people are sharing a bathroom, something has to give.

And the other issue, apparently, is all the drinking. People are hanging around outside drinking, and so they pee there, too.

I can't believe that in the Mexican culture it is normally considered okay to go over and pee in, or have sex in, your neighbor's front yard, but I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong.

in public throughout the entire history of this country?

have you ever been to a large american city?

have you ever seen the evidence of overcrowding, poverty, and white flight in non-white, non-latino areas?

have you ever read about immigrant history? the first "ghettoes" in this county were places like the lower east side in manhattan and pilsen in chicago. plenty of eastern european (WHITE) immigrants living in small rooms in shifts, 18 deep. yeah, shocking white immigrants living in overcrowded conditions. but you have to look for this information. in BOOKS.

and they drank too, they shot each other, they stole from each other.

it's the same thing you are describing and it has been going on for quite a few decades.

there is nothing new in this world, and all you are doing is making a truly pathetic attempt to spread some other form of racism.

no, nothing like this has been going on. Just because it has been mostly black doesn't make it a ghetto.

I hope you will read my post to you above. Democrats need the votes of lower-income people, which is the group which feels most strongly impacted by illegal immigration. What can we offer them besides insults and condescension? Or are you ready to cede all their votes to the Republicans who are speaking to their concerns?

each time you parrot their views, you only out yourself further.

the working class and poor have much more to worry about than immigration. there is NOT ONE FUCKING plank of the republican platform that speaks to the needs of the poor, the working class, and minorities. the republican misadventure seeks only to separate them more from the mainstream.

when are you going to think for yourself and stop buying into the disinformation stream?

people think. They're not getting it from me. What is the party going to offer them to address their concerns? Hint: a lecture on how wrong they are won't do it.

you truly do not get it.


wow.

i make a point not engage your type, i think i will renew that conviction. it is too disheartening to see a person so brainwashed.

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

The rest of us sure are.

I mean it was the disease infested European who threw his chamber pot's contents into the street and into the rivers where he also got his drinking water.

When Cortes and his men arrived at Tenochtitlán, one of their remarks was how amazed they were to find such a wonderful city and how clean it was kept. This is why all the Native peoples of the Americas suffered greatly from the diseased European. They kept themselves so clean that they never caused the diseases that the dirty European did.

So if its cultural as you imply, then it would probably be the mix of European blood in them.





Of course its not cultural!!! Its a matter of policies that cause "low income" conditions.

:eyes:

but usually also PRIVATE.

and savvy (for your purposes here) mexicans who somehow know the city doesn't enforce laws.

tell me about this magical city in the United States. this magical city in a country where even the smallest small town police force is FUCKING MILITARIZED. tell how a 911 call from ANYWHERE in this country does not result in L.E. investigation.

your post is entirely suspect.

Give me a break. In my city, we could get fined if we used 911 to report something that wasn't an emergency.

I have no idea what a L.E. investigation is, so I can't answer that one.

and yes, the police will respond to a person exposing their genitals for all the world to see.

L.E. means law enforcement

And, as I said, they have a lot more important things to do in most towns.

We'll see what you have to say then.

The only peeing in public I ever saw was from the homeless and most of them were white.

sharing one bathroom. That's why they're urinating outside. Even some women.

drunk WASPs who don't use the facilities inside the bars.

My experience with the informal rooming houses full of likely illegal immigrants has been that the occupants work hard to keep a low profile in the neighborhood. Some of the apartments themselves were stys and neighbors didn't like the constant sea of new faces but that was the biggest problem.

drunk WASPs and have them shipped out of the country.

:+
Actually, the cops have been on late night pee patrol and the city has threatened to yank a bunch of liquor licenses so the WASPY yellowing problem is under control for now.

However, there is always the latrine BS to make people you don't like seem dirty, from soiled diapers being dumped at the beach to urinating in the alley. I doubt if it happens. I personally have never seen it but if they say it then it must be true. :sarcasm: It just sounds so dirty though if you put it on a bulletin board on the internet for everyone to see to people who can't do anything about it like the proper authorities.

If this happened in front of me I would probably call law enforcement myself, but you can't stir up hatred that way, can you?

Get real. The police have plenty of other things to worry about in this town.

The fact that you personally haven't seen it is a sign that you haven't had to live in this kind of neighborhood. Not everyone is as lucky as you. I know my relative is telling the truth.

anytime you want to come up to the seattle area, do a ride along in my cop car

i can show you apartment complexes where you can't even enter the stairwells without being overpowered by the smell of urine

and spare me the "hatred" meme.

this is how ideologues try to limit real discussion and debate. if you are against illegal immigration, and/or you have a different idea about enfrocement or whatever,
all of a sudden it;s

RACISM

and HATRED

how about having an honest debate and disusion instead of accusing people with different pov's and experience as being RACISTS and HATERS

that's rhetorical rubbish

for the support

I'm just trying to get across how complicated it all is.

beautiful area of the country

i love it here myself

but to everybody else - IT RAINS ALL THE TIME AND IT SUX AND YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY :)

I've started to grow moss between my toes. Wouldn't want to be anywhere else. Especially one of those places with TOO MUCH SUN!

:hi:

(I'm considering relocating...because we have WAY TOO MUCH SUN here!)

what is this "sun" that you mention? can you provide defintive evidence that it exists?

i have heard mention of a fabled yellow orb in the sky but i think it is a myth

He's busted!

and the weather is great for my "combination skin". that, and oil of olay (well, not really... on the oil of olay thing)

seattle rools. close to the mountains, not too far from the sea, right on the water, you can take a friggin boat to canada, etc.

otoh, i cannot stand the (what i refer to as ) pacific northwester passive-aggressive syndrome (tm)

people here are total wimps in that regards. mebbe that's my east coast type a personality upbringing

Where do you run into it?

work, clubs, the slopes, the store, everywhere.

basically, i am from the east coast. east coast people are way more direct, and stuff

this is one big difference

on the east coast, if somebody has an issue with you, GENERALLY speaking they will let u know to yer face.

in seattle, avoiding confrontation is the #1 goal, so nobody confronts people directly. they talk behind their back

this holds for men and women btw

men at a club where i am from would fight you in a heartbeat if you said something disparaging to their girlfriend. even if they were 1/2 yer size

espeically tough working class italian kids where i lived

in seattle, you could walk up and sit down at a table with a guy and a girlfriend and put yer arm around her, and he would sputter and not know what to say

it's a total zeitgeist thing

it i s also truer in seattle than it is in some other places in the seattle area

seattle guys are wimps, and passive aggressive

in general

direct. Probably more direct than people anywhere else in the country, don't you think? Have you lived in a lot of places? The Seattle area doesn't seem that different to me than the midwest, in terms of that. And both are more direct than a place I lived in in the South, where people seem so so nice on the outside . . . but it's all on the surface.

There's a linguist named Deborah Tannen that has written a number of books about how people of different backgrounds and genders express themselves. It sounds dry, but she writes very interestingly. (The one about men/women is called "You Just Don't Understand.")

as oppossed to Miami, where I grew up. Down here, if somebody has something to say to you, they will say it to your face. In Arizona, like you said, they will say it behind your back.

Of course, Miami is considered one of the rudest cities in the U.S.

But I prefer honest rudeness than fake niceness. I like to know where I stand with people.

stairs smell of urine? Could it be dogs maybe? If you are a cop, you of all people should understand that the city you are supposed to protect and serve is only as good as your protection and serving. I am not blaming you but your superiors for not deploying the right amount of personnel needed to enforce the laws and protect the law-abiding citizens. Now I don't know where urine ordinances enter into this but it could be a city infrastructure problem, ya think?

Also I have been in Seattle and there is so much water pouring from the sky there that I doubt that so much urine would accumulate without being washed away.

disputing your claim that it NEVER happens, simply because you've never observed it.

The fact is that people with power are using other people -- in this case, illegal immigrants -- in order to declare "urban blight" in order to grab the land they want from low-income, low status people like my relative.

when you are done constructing pretty strawmen, please get back to me...

tia

in CHA projects in chicago (cabrini, robert taylor, rockwell) that smelled of urine. it is probably due more to poverty and overcrowded conditions.

it isn't because the people are inferior. and that is the linkage i think the OP is trying to ascribe. oppressed minorities are often accused of breaking out the "race card", but whites never get any flack for playing their "dehumanize the dark Other" card.

Unlike some of the people around here, I don't think I have all the answers. Just lots of questions.

more like using setup questions as a ruse to vomit rw talking points.

a hard on for enforcing laws

that is plenty busy with crimes that actually could be investigated. "Some guys are peeing across the street" won't bring a squad car over. But, they will respond, sometimes, to "some drunks are sleeping it off in my front yard."

LOL. That's a great suggestion.

"truth" in my neighborhood.

I would prefer they not be here illegally, as long as you're asking what I prefer.

You call the immigration, the police and any other authority like the housing authority and report it. Putting up an arbitrary post about something that did or didn't happen without any proof on a bulletin board for the purpose of stirring the pot of hatred against these people because they are supposedly here illegally doesn't solve the problem.

If they are illegal then let the authorities check them out. The authorities most likely will give the landlords a citation for a court appearance if there are laws being broken.

issues are a lot more complicated than some DU'ers think they are.

I notice that you still haven't addressed the eminent domain issue, and the way that developers and others profit from letting neighborhoods go downhill.

It's amazing the trust that you have for "the authorities." I don't.

Eminent domain, which is a clause of Costitutional Amendment IV, is mostly intellectual, but the real effects taking place in courts should get some emotions going.

I just learned about the Eminent Domain clause. It should be required reading for very high schooler. Too bad for me it took me so long!

Find out who they are illegally working for, and prosecute their employer. That's the 1st step I'd take.

workers up in the morning and take them into the city.

And are indeed temporary workers? :shrug:

illegal workers. And put them on buses.

We don't have a temporary worker program.

the neighborhood's fault for not contacting Immigration. They already know they are ilegals so why not do anything about it? It is their responsibility as citizens.

Not all Mexicans live here illegally and they take pride on living in America, working hard and not being a burden to society. Situations like this give a bad name to those who are here legally.

Hmmm, maybe we need one?

the going rate, I wouldn't oppose it.

Hiring of illegal immigrants violates Federal law. So, in theory, it shouldn't matter that the employers are in another state. The reality is probably a lot different. In California it would be better if the employers were in another state, because there's absolutely 0 chance that the State of California would try to prosecute the employers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

bus goes after it leaves their town, except they've heard that it goes to the city. I'm sure law enforcement could figure it out if they wanted to . . . but they don't.

Should we have the cops checking all buses with brown-skinned people?

employer should be determined.

don't know where the buses go, but you know the company is from out of state?

how do you know that don't have a branch office in your state or the state magic town is in?

I would be facing the inquisition here, so I didn't try to put him through one first.

in this magical town.

right?

and you KNOW these are undocumented mexicans.

right?

and now their employers are from out of state?

how do you know this? or are you just making this up as you go?

I'm just going by what my relative told me. And he lives in a metro area where the majority of people probably work out of state.

And I'm still asking: how do we keep people like my relative in the Democratic party if they feel that their strong concerns aren't being addressed? And that Democrats are condescending to them and insulting them?

and what they will and won't do about whatever is purely an old switcheroo tactic.

you are being dishonest and have nothing to back up your racist assertions. now you are trying to hem me in by citing where the democratic party fails ON A DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE BOARD.

sorry, it won't work.

try a little honesty.

you don't want a discussion, you want an audience to spew your hatred at and a forum to make you feel important, as if somehow coming to a democratic discussion board and pretending to want to "debate" makes you think you are getting something over on the people here.

you are not. you are very transparent

trying to have a discussion with people who are willing to actually talk -- rather than throw insults around.

Sorry but we're not all clones of you.

Why don't you do what you said you were going to do and just go away?

"illegal" immigrants.

Wouldn't they be illegal?

The gays might be breaking local ordinances, or maybe even a state law, but they wouldn't be violating Federal law. And if they weren't actively practicing sodomy, they wouldn't be breaking any law. In contrast, illegal immigrants are breaking Federal law by simply being in this country.

And, once again, employers would be breaking Federal law by hiring illegal immigrants. In contrast, employers wouldn't be breaking any laws if they hired gay workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

They were exhibiting very similar behavior, and yes, it absolutely bothered me.

I don't honestly think this is a problem of immigration so much as it is one of poverty and unemployment. When people are poor, unemployed/underemployed, and can't afford adequate housing, it's much more likely that they'll create problems like that for a neighborhood. Has nothing to do with what color they are, their country of origin, or immigration/citizenship status.

because illegal immigrants are much less likely to complain about their landlords.

What a strawman's argument.

but imo it's a law enforcement problem. Period.

When my boys were toddlers, I lived in a downstairs apartment at the front of the building. There was my wall, with windows, about 15 feet of grass, a sidewalk, and the street. Each night, the hispanic population gathered on the grass. No problem there. I didn't check their green cards, either. I'm sure some were legal; some not. Few spoke English. The problems began once they'd been there awhile, and were no longer sober. Then the knife fights started. Police and medical personnel were there every damned night. We never left the apartment after 4:00 pm, when they started gathering. It wasn't safe. During the day, I'd walk my toddlers to the park. We were often surrounded by teenagers riding bikes and sniffing glue. Are any of these an illegal immigration problem? No. It's a social problem and a law enforcement problem. It would have been the same whether or not they were legal or illegal. As a matter of fact, this same scenario may be played out in many neighborhoods of the poor and disenfranchised, regardless of ethnicity or whether or not someone was born within our borders.

Isn't that true for your relative, as well?

On the other hand, I've taught the children of many illegals. I can tell you that they put the average American work ethic to shame, and that the energy and determination to succeed that they bring to what they do is a gift to the communities that they settle in.

supportive, well-functioning neighborhood until recently. The problems now are being caused by the combination of the severe crowding (caused by the wave of Mexican immigrants -- this wasn't a problem previously) and the easy access to liquor.

My relative -- and his friends in the neighborhood -- would be very upset to hear you imply that he hasn't worked extremely hard for the little bit that he has -- as hard as any immigrant, believe me.

The other issue is that, because of eminent domain laws, there are a lot of people who stand to PROFIT from letting this neighborhood (which, as waterfront, has prime developoment potential) go downhill.

So my relative thinks that the illegals are being USED by the powers-that-be to degrade the neighborhood so that the upscale developers can be brought in.

I'm wondering if it is legal status, or some other factor, that has brought about the change.

Disenfranchisement in any form can degrade a neighborhood, and you and your relative are correct in thinking that illegals are easy targets, and, perhaps therefore, tools.

No criticism of the neighbors intended; I, too, would be unhappy with overcrowding and deliberate destruction of a vibrant community.

I hope they can get that back.

It is easy to complaint but why no one has contacted the Landlord and threaten to call Inmigration on his ass so he stops the situation? Why has no one tried to send the police to the store to investigate that the owner is indeed selling alcohol to minors? So it makes them feel better... blame the damn inmigrants on how screwed up is the "wonderful" community.

This is like blaming the partner for getting them HIV when one didn't care about having unprotected sex.

My $0.02.

the country. Low-income, waterfront property is the most vulnerable for several reasons.
It is cheap.
The residents don't have the resources, and usually don't know how, to fight them.
Developing this type of property, especially commercial, is the most profitable scenario, outside of a government grant. Since you're developing a "blight" area you can get $$ from every level of government from the city and county through tax concessions, right up through grants and no-interest loans from the state and the feds.
An investment of a million or two will generate 100's of millions in returns over two to five years, and potentially billions over time.
And all it costs is another community destroyed and little more misery for a few hundred people.

My relative bought this property over twenty years ago because it was a nice place to live and -- he hoped -- a good investment for his future. But now others , with a lot more money and power, see the potential and they want the govt. to help them grab it.

I've heard about it most often in Florida, but it's happening all over the country now.

Illegal immigration is a plot by to aid gentrification? C'mon.

building codes (and other laws) is a step on the way to declaring "blight" and taking property through eminent domain. It's happening all over the country, and it's already happened in two towns near my relative. You should educate yourself.

has blight become a problem only in the past 20 years?

Who are YOU to tell them that THEY are wrong? Are we going to let them know that Democrats can offer real solutions, or are we just going to figuratively slap them in the face?

And as far as this neighborhood is concerned, blight IS a very new phenomenon. As recently as two years ago it was a well-kept neighborhood.

and many, like you apparently, don't want to believe that this is how things work, now. It isn't a conspiracy in the traditional sense, in fact, it was originally just what it is purported to be, a method of attracting capital into neighborhoods in order to improve them.

The problem is it worked so well and was so profitable for the investors, that some soulless MBA idiot worked the numbers and found that these "blight" could be created in a relatively short time with minimal outlay and virtually no risk.

So, it's not a conspiracy, it's just another example of unintended consequences, a la the "enterprise zones", another great idea that was perverted by twisting the intent.

it has no changed status (in the eyes of the system) because of the illegals.

if well-heeled interests want it, they will take it.

minority groups (regardless of color) are on a par especially in low income areas.

"I can tell you that they put the average American work ethic to shame,
and that the energy and determination to succeed that they bring to what they do
is a gift to the communities that they settle in."

They have put the American work ethic to shame alright, by lowering the American wages.

but the quality of work that I'm thinking of. Illegals are often doing some form of physical labor that many american workers avoid. There's more to it than "lowering american wages." It's a complex issue.

Coming from blue-collar, working poor people, I can tell you that the companies my dad drove a truck for wouldn't hire illegals. He had to have a driver's license, and they had to be able to insure him. I don't think my mom ever competed with illegals for clerical work.

I worked with illegal busboys when I was a waitress. The other people doing those jobs tended to be high school kids. They worked right along side, both earning the same (minimum)wage plus tips.

My son's great-grandmother, who passed away last weekend, was a migrant farm worker. Not illegal; just off the reservation. She didn't resent the presence of illegals. She thought they were more like her than most of the rest of the U.S.

It might be true that illegals keep non-skilled labor wages lower. It's also true that our whole economy depends on an underclass of low-income workers, legal or not. I'd like to see that change. I'd like to see workers paid a living wage regardless of where they came from.

Exactly. They've increased the labor supply dramatically and decreased average American wages by 4% annually, or about $1700/year per worker. Of the 143 million American jobs, 7 million are take by illegal immigrants. That's 7 million less jobs for Americans. That's just what our economy needs--another factor to depress wages and reduce employment.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

...we as Democrats should actually be OUT IN FREAKIN' FRONT on resolving the illegal immigration issue, with all the tools at our disposal--we do working families a disservice otherwise...

Democrats should be out in front trying to protect American workers from competition with illegal workers and from semi-slave workers in foreign countries. Unfortunately, there are too many Corporate-controlled Democrats (like Joe Liebermann), who's main allegiance is to their rich Corporate donors, not the voters who elected them.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

who is "legal" and who is "illegal"?

it's just an assumption. The point remains that we shouldn't be admitting people -- legally or illegally -- who have no place to go when they get here.

So the problem isn't their status at all? It's just the fact that they're foreigners that you don't like?

their apartments and into other people's front yards. It's the fact that, down the road, the city may well use the situation as a reason to declare "blight" and exercise eminent domain and hand the neighborhood over to developers.

That's what I don't like.

Spilling body fluids and having sex in people's yards is gross. Absolutely.

What you said, though, is that you don't know if they are here legally or illegally, and the issue for you isn't really whether or not they are here legally. "The point remains that we shouldn't be admitting people -- legally or illegally -- who have no place to go when they get here." So the illegal thing was a strawman. You don't like that they are foreign and poor in general, right?

The underlying issue seems to be that you don't like people living in overcrowded poverty conditions - "people who have no place to go." So that raises a few issues for me:

1. Do you think they are having sex in people's yards because they are foreigners? Are foreigners more prone to spilling bodily fluids in public than US citizens?

2. Do you think they are having sex in people's yards because they are poor? Are poor people more prone to spilling bodily fluids in public than US citizens?

3. Do you think poor people in general should be restricted on how many kids they can have, since they also have "no place to go" except overcrowded conditions?

4. Do you think driving out poor people so you can avoid gentrification is a solution to gentrification? Or IS it gentrification?

You were the one making a big deal about whether my relative was correct or not in assuming they were here legally. It doesn't really matter to me. They are immigrants -- meaning, the govt. could control their numbers, if it chose to -- they are living in terrible conditions, the local government isn't willing to do anything about it -- possibly because someone's going to profit down the way.

Here's a question for you: are you willing to have the neighborhood around you turned into apartments housing 10 or 15 to a one bedroom unit? Are you willing to have to trip around drunks when you're trying to get into your house?

Why should my relative, simply because he is low-income, have to put up with conditions that would be beneath you? He and his neighbors have worked hard to make a good neighborhood. Why should they have to suffer because of the misplaced idealism of people like you?

yes, I think they should drive those poorly housed people straight out of that neighborhood -- and into yours.

You were the one making a big deal about whether my relative was correct or not in assuming they were here legally.

On the contrary - in your post, you connected some poor behavior (sex in public, peeing in public) with being an "illegal" immigrant, and other poor behavior (not carding people) with being foreign in general. When challenged (by someone else), you switched to connecting poor behavior in general with being foreign, because you really don't know the status of their paperwork. Damned if I know what being foreign has to do with that.

Here's a question for you: are you willing to have the neighborhood around you turned into apartments housing 10 or 15 to a one bedroom unit? Are you willing to have to trip around drunks when you're trying to get into your house?

I've lived in apartments where rent was $100 a month, scavenged for food, and had neighboring apartments in the same complex that were rat infested, and children that were dirty with lice. I can still picture exactly how disgusting their hair was - big gray eggy looking clumps at the roots, I've never seen anything like it. Instead of trying to get them evicted, I taught them where to get food. I've lived in places where none of us had running water or working toilets. I've come home to stinking drunk neighbors who had been in bar fights - instead of calling the cops, we went to a public restroom where there was electricity and lights so we could see to get the glass shards out of their face. The pickled alcohol smoke reek off them turned my stomach. Didn't stop me from giving them a hug. When you don't have health care, you patch each other up as best you can.

When I had a house of my own, one of the first things I did was open it to one of those "foreigners," a girl in high school, no relation to me at all.

Now I live in a middle class neighborhood that's mixed - some expensive (by my standards) houses, and some lower working class houses, side by side. What I've found - which has been consistent with every place that I've lived (anecdotal evidence) is that I get along great with the poorer folks, and they make the best neighbors. We shovel each other's driveways when it snows, we voluntarily give up land rights to each other. I've been thinking of giving up part of my front lawn to urban garden plots for the apartment dwellers down the street, which would mean *gasp* poor people in my yard, and possibly going into my house to pee.

The richer neighbors next to me are the sucky ones, letting their dog crap in my yard and being mad at me for expecting them to clean it up, and throwing their trash in my yard. Those are the only ones I've seen pee in public in their yard. We refer to them as "the icky neighbors," like it's their name. They seem to feel they're entitled to leave their (dog) shit in my yard, and I should be happy to clean it up for them, and if I don't, it's because I'm not neighborly enough. Now it's not my place to decide where other people get to live, but if I were forced at gunpoint to kick someone out of my neighborhood, it would be those people. Maybe I should mention they're white Americans, just so you can get the scope of the problem when we talk about rich white Americans who run their own successful small businesses.

Why should my relative, simply because he is low-income, have to put up with conditions that would be beneath you?

This is exactly what immigrants are asking - why should they have to leave to live in WORSE conditions that would be beneath you?

yes, I think they should drive those poorly housed people straight out of that neighborhood -- and into yours.

It sounds like you're in favor of gentrification. Isn't gentrification all about that idea "not in my backyard"?

It appears to me you haven't addressed "the scope of the problem" at all. The scope of the problem takes into consideration the living conditions of not just your relative, but of the immigrants also. I'm sorry he has to see someone pee or have sex. Seriously, that would be unpleasant in your yard. But I'm more sorry that the others have to live in overcrowded conditions - that strikes me as the more serious situation. Your "solution" as much as it is one, is similar to cities who outlaw feeding the homeless. Exterminate the poor from your area, don't give them a means to survive so they will move elsewhere.

The scope of the problem as you describe it seems to be figuring out a way to gentrify an area in such a way that you and yours aren't the ones being exterminated. Figuring out how to get better living conditions for the immigrants doesn't seem to be part of your scope - I haven't seen you say anything about how to improve their life, only how to eliminate them from your neck of the woods, your relative's city, your country. People live 10, 15 to an apartment all over the world, why not work to fix that, instead of working to make sure you don't have to see it?

You don't know how much I so love people like you... Thank you.. Thank you..

wants to come here from any country for any reason. We simply can't support unlimited immigration.

Is your solution to open up our borders, and our communities, to the whole world?

Because I am not posting this to be sarcastic. I am actually posting this because you're a fellow DU member.

The hole you've dug yourself into; every post now you're posting is only digging it deeper. Just thought I'd point that out..

that you're a black and white thinker, who doesn't believe that the U.S. is a sovereign state.

Oh well.

n/t

With the most help going to those who are neediest. Not the most help going to those who are born within this aritificially imposed political border or that one. Borders change over time. People remain people. Humanity trumps nationalism, in other words.

I proposed several constructive suggestions in my initial post regarding this particular situation, because I thought you might be interested in finding constructive and creative solutions to improving their living conditions. Now I'm not so sure of that.

What is YOUR solution for your improving the living situation of your relative's neighbors other than not making you look at them?

As I said, I don't think we can take care of all the people in the world that might want to come here.

For my relative, I'm helping him pay for a fence. Go ahead, flame away.

Actually, there is something we should be doing, and that's putting pressure on Mexico, which is a country rich in resources, to have policies and a tax structure that takes care of its own people so that they don't feel they have to escape here.

from U.S. interference in latin american affairs over the past 100 or so years.

economic colonialism does have after effects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1890126&mesg_id=1902147

The question is what do we do about this AND what is our message to people like my relative, who -- in the meantime -- feel like they are bearing the brunt of the problem?

From her posts, even though she tries to dodge being seen as such, I think you're correct in that it certainly appears that she doesn't like people who she sees as foreign and poor.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Here's some of her own words just in her OP:


From what perspective? The only perspective I've seen is your expressing that you don't want them around you.



No....They are 'people' (human beings), who pay taxes. So instead of saying the local government isn't willing to 'help' them. You instead say, the local government isn't willing to do anything about it.

Question: Elaborate what you mean by "do anything about it"?

Do you mean help them? or;

Do you mean run them out?

Your choice of words is quite telling IMO...



This last remark says it all doesn't it.. If that's not an obvious dehumanizing statement against a race of people then Bush is a Democrat.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



lwfern, I myself would go so far as to say, it also 'appears' to me that since there are other races of people who come here and don't get documentation and who take jobs and have to live in poor conditions, and since we don't ever hear complaints about them.

I would say it appears she doesn't like Mexicans in general. Even if I am incorrect, it certainly appears that way. If not, then why else is the Mexican always singled out in discussions about illegal immigration?

can be hurt by immigration policies that encourage people to come here whether or not they will have adequate housing when they arrive or jobs that pay a living wage.

And that in some parts of the country, local governments are deliberately letting neighborhoods deteriorate because there are well-connected people who stand to benefit financially through redevelopment opportunities.

Here's a reason Mexicans are singled out: sheer numbers. According to the Census bureau, the number of illegal Mexican immigrants each year is HALF as many as ALL legal immigrants from ALL countries COMBINED. In other words, we have each year 150% of the number of immigrants that we plan to admit, and that last 50% comprises illegal immigrants from Mexico.

And, by the way, many illegal immigrants are paid off the books. (Just as many others are.) They're not all taxpayers.

A question for you: Why should the government be required to "help" illegal immigrants?

They aren't illegal. Only those who border jumped across the Atlantic are the real illegals.

Besides, they do pay taxes.. They pay income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, vehicle registration taxes, etc, etc...

And, by the way, you're only outing yourself further now..

:sarcasm:

It wouldn't be my preference, but we COULD treat immigrants from Mexico exactly as they treat immigrants from the U.S.

If a U.S. citizen wanted to live and work in Mexico, even a U.S. citizen of Native-American descent, he or she would have to meet many requirements.

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/working_mexico.htm

"Is it legal for a foreigner to work in Mexico?
Yes, provided that you have the right permit. You are not permitted to travel to Mexico, enter as a tourist and seek gainful employment there. You must have the correct migratory permits to do so before you go.

"Permits are gained from the Mexican Government and are issued to people who are sponsored by companies in Mexico (or foreign companies with Mexican operations / subsidiaries), or by people with specific skills required in Mexico. You can enter Mexico to work for a foreign company provided that you do not receive any remuneration directly from a Mexican company or subsidiary.

"Permits can also be arranged for investors (i.e. setting up your own company), but you'll need to invest 40,000 times the daily minimum salary* in order to qualify. Casual investors (for example, buying stocks on the Mexican Stock Exchange) can also get resident permits, although as with direct investment, you will need to invest the same amount as above.
*Multiples liable to change without notice

"These mechanisms are in place to ensure that you will not be: a) taking jobs that Mexican nationals could otherwise have and/or; b) ensure that if you don't have an immediate income, you have the means to support yourself without relying on the Mexican State in any way."

It is a felony to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico, punishable by up to two years in prison. Should we adopt that policy, too?



P.S. The Atlantic is a body of water. No more special than any other border.

Your post shows the exact same logic you see from Bush, Cheney and the Rethuglicans.

How does Mexico's policies have anything to do with the United State's polices? If we used your logic; if Mexico jumped off a cliff you'd say we need to jump off a cliff..

LMAO..



YA BASTA!

You're using Bush/Cheney logic. How am I incorrect?

Again, what does Mexico's policies have to do with us? If anyone here has nothing else to think of, your post above shows that you don't have any else. Why else would you resort to the desperate logic that you're resorting to?

And I don't think my pointing out an observation of logic type is name calling. Sorry you take it that way.



And I don't know what you were expecting in posting such an obvious thread on a forum full of liberals. They type of people who helped fight for your civil rights back when the prevailing attitude in this country was that Black Folk weren't equal citizens. I mean honestly, what were you expecting?

or unrestricted immigration, which you seem to prefer, conflicts with other liberal issues. For example, many liberals who are concerned about population growth in the U.S. are worried about immigration. Liberals who are worried about the increasing loss of jobs that support a strong middle class are worried about the effects of immigration.

There is nothing about my logic that is Bush/Cheney, unless by that you mean "a point of view you disagree with." You repeatedly made a claim to the whole North American continent based on your unscientific concept of the "common American race" and its origins in the lands of the Aztec. I'm pointing out that Mexico is a sovereign country just as we are, with immigration laws that are stricter than ours. And even Cherokees and Inuits from the U.S. have to go through normal immigration procedures to get into Mexico, just as Mexicans should to go into the U.S.

As in Statue of Liberty. You know, that statue with the plaque that says:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

the welcome mat to immigrants either.

But they're happy for us to.

Actually, the French didn't have anything to do with the plaque, and neither did our government. The poem was written by a woman named Emma Lazarus and was donated to the private individuals who were raising funds to pay for the statue's pedestal.

The French hadn't intended the statue to have anything to do with immigration. It was paid for by a group of French citizens who wanted to thank the U.S. for our revolution, which paved the way for the French revolution.

They gave it to us and we turned into a symbol of what our country is about, a nation of immigrants.

this is getting better and better.

rule no.1 of hole digging 101: if you get too deep, stop digging.

i was born and raised in latino ghettoes.

there is a strong family sentiment and religious sentiment that bleeds throughout every aspect of life in that culture.

exposing your penis OUT IN THE WIDE OPEN WORLD in that type of subculture would get you ostracized or beaten (especially if there were kids around). it is something you just don't see. do people piss outside? yes, but it would be like any person of any race of immigration status: you take it in the alley or out of sight. but people just pissing in plain view: bullshit.

you are creating a monster to dehumanize a class of people.

And the men in the morning go against the wall of the building. They're not trying to expose themselves.

?

in the neighborhood who are being affected by this think. And it matters to Democrats, as a party. Can we respectfully address their concerns or if we are just going to insult them and hand them over to the Republicans?

and he needs to KEEP calling..

If they do nothing, he needs to call the local newspaper..

advertisers? It's the same with the hometown newspapers. They get their money from the developers, not the little guys.

And, yes, he calls the police at least once a week.

the police consider stuff like this small potatoes..

If the code people do not come out, he needs to call the papers..

or not. Thanks.

He's called the police about the people who come onto his property, but that's a different situation.

you can call the Fire Department for that and they will give a citation to the landlords.

What you described is a health hazard. Code Enforcement "loves" to bust these arrangements, it makes them look good. Have your relative try this tack with the city gov. Also contact the Health Department; I'm sure they could find some violations, too. The police are not in the business of code enforcement, until they get an order from above. If the city won't work with him, go up a level to the county and bug them.

My county has lots of problems and the best way we have found to fight blight is through the use of the Code Enforcement department. Nothing like losing rent revenue to cause the absentee landlords to pay attention. Or getting a red tag for having illegal electrical hookups.

these things happen until they actually see them. While I haven't seen all you mention here, I believe your family member's account based on my own experience with way too many Mexicans living in too small spaces. Whatever one thinks of illegal immigration, it's hard to deny that allowing people to live in such conditions will eventually lead to a lower standard of living for all. The economics are simple.

the descendants of invaders who committed genocide and who have broken treaty after treaty and who are now really squatters on this land complain about the descendants who are indigenous to this land not following the land laws of these pilgrims? Especially when the reason why most of them seek to move here is because of the economic imperialism dropped on their heads by the very same people who are the decedents who stole their ancestors' land?

Sorry, but my response to anyone complaining about any indigenous people has to be:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

There is no reason to say that the descendents of people from the area that is now Mexico somehow have a prior claim to the ENTIRE North American continent. The ancestors of people who've come here from Mexico were extremely unlikely to have been living in this eastern coastal state.

The ancestors of my relative were brought here in slavery, and have worked hard for what they have achieved here.

Mexicans, by the way, come from a mix of racial backgrounds, including Spanish, other European, Native Americans, and Africans. Just because they are from Mexico doesn't make them "indigenous."

My ass...

This whole continent by right belongs to all the indigenous people it was stolen from. From all the 500 Nations, the Chichimec and the Mexica (pronounced Meshica) of North America, to the Aztec (who are the Mexica) and Inca of Middle and South America as well as many others. The Americas has always been ours. Everybody else have been squatters; simple historical fact.

Another simple fact is: The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo has been violated. Areas of the treaty that became much of the southwest U.S. states that all of the Mexican people within these areas are to become U.S. citizens and 'retain' all their lands. Now we all know what happened to that land now don't we. Like all the other land, the people who were there were either killed or ran off it. In total violation of the "law". Yet another treaty violated by the fork tonged devils.

Some more historical fact for you: The official map of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which is housed in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., indisputably shows a site -- "Antigua Residencia de los Aztecas," or Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs. The Aztecs who's name which I pointed out is the "Mexica" (pronounced Meshica). It was some of the Mexica who traveled south into the valley of Mexico who later defeated the Toltecs and then built Tenochtitlán.

The map shows that the ancient homeland of the Mexica (The Aztecs) is north of an area called "Apacheria" near the "Nacion Navajoa" and also the land of the "Moquis" -- the name given to the Hopis by the Spaniards. Many of the original place names were first changed by Spaniards, then subsequently by the U.S. government after the 1846-48 war against Mexico.

This map incontrovertibly proves that rather than being foreigners, Mexicans (and Central Americans, who were also Nahuatl-speaking peoples) are indigenous to Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah as well as California. It also corroborates the oral traditions of Hopi, Pueblo and Lakota Indian elders -- that Nahuatl-speaking peoples are their relatives.

Again, The actual name of the people who lived in Tenochtitlán (present day Mexico City), when the Spaniards arrived there in 1519, was Mexica (pronounced Meshica). Several hundred years earlier, one of the migrating tribes had been called Aztecs, and the original name of their migrating descendants were the Nahuatl (people of the four rivers). And to us, this northern homeland has been what's called Aztlan.

And anybody who wants to cry a river about a problem of their own creation of corporate greed can go back to their own ancestral land.

Makes me sick to see so much obvious racist motivated complaining, because that's all it is. If it wasn't, then I would instead be reading about how outrageous these imperialistic corporate policies are -- to "all" working people. But especially to brown and black folk.

people whose ancestors populated the areas you mentioned in the southwest?

The town I am talking about was never populated by Mexicans -- until now.

the town that you live in now was never populated by Europeans until they illegally immigrated there by border jumping across the Atlantic. So you point is?

the U.S. than Europeans do. The Cherokees, for example, who came from the northeast, have a completely different culture. The Mexicans who illegally settle in what were Cherokee lands have no historical or legal claim to be there.

you're incorrect.

ALL natives of America have a common ancestry. From the tip of Alaska to the tip of South America; from the West Cost to the East Cost. We are the true founders of this land. We settled all of it thousands and thousands of years before any European invader claimed he discovered America.

Now I earlier gave you an example of this country's own law, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, with respect to the Mexican which includes the South West States and pointed out how like all other treaties, the European settlers violated. The violation of this one gives rights to Mexicans in those States. And just like anyone else in this country, anybody who lives here has a right to move to any other State -- including New York.

If anybody doesn't like this fact. Then they should go back in time and demand to their ancestors not to violate that or any other treaty.


Mexicans are here. We're not going anywhere. Deal with it...

if you go back far enough.

Dividing things by continents or oceans is as arbitrary as anything else.

This country has a legal government, and methods for becoming a legal citizen. Deal with it.

your point of all humans having a common ancestry if going back far enough only supports the idea of no borders.

Second, Africans, Asians, Europeans, Native Americans, etc. are no longer a common race with each other. The races of the Americas are all still a common American race.

Sorry, but there is no way you can escape losing this debate. We native Americans are the true founders of this continent and have always been the true rightful owners of it. Everybody else are only squatters living on our land after having "illegally" immigrated here and committed genocide and treaty violation after treaty violation.

We're here, we're not going anywhere and it is you who has to deal with that and other facts..

There is no such thing as a "common American race." And like it or not, the world recognizes legal borders and legal governments. This is 2006, not 206.

LMAO.... Try "History"... Deal with it....

source for this.

Here is one of my sources for asserting the opposite:

http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html

From Dr. Joseph Graves Jr. , professor evolutionary biology, Arizona State University

"We take the entire human population and we subdivide it in logical ways based on geography or any other criterion you want to use and examine whether they are essentially the same, sharing genes across their entire range, or discrete and separate groups. If we found that groups were discrete or separate that would indicate the existence of specific races. Here we use Wright's Fst, that examines the degree to which subpopulations differ in gene frequency from the a total population, created by pooling the genes of all subpopulations. This statistic can take on a value of 0 meaning no subdivision whatsoever or 1 meaning totally subdivided in which case identifying geographical races make sense. The data for modern humans based on 133 gene sequences is 0.156--not much greater than 0.000. This is inconsistent with the existence of races in humans. To put this statistic in context, we could compare it to fruit flies, to round worms to fish, but the important thing would be to compare our value to other large bodied mammals that can move around well. Lets consider the Fst value for the gray wolf from North America, Eurasia, and in the Northern Hemisphere. Gray wolves are strongly subdivided. Wolves are in different national parks and cannot travel to mate with one another and are therefore going to diverge in gene frequencies over time.

SNIP

"There was a discussion earlier about how the new genetic technology could enhance discrimination or end the race concept. We had the means to say goodbye to the race concept a long time ago. The new genetic technology does not add anything new. We could have done it by looking at physical features. These do not define races. When we use hair type, skin color, body proportions, all the ones that everyone is convinced put you into a racial group, we do not get trees of relatedness that match our known evolutionary and migratory history. In other words, you cannot use physical features to clump people in the races. For example, this diagram of relatedness by physical characteristics shows Swedes and French people being linked together. That makes sense. It also shows that Eskimos are more closely linked to Swedes and French people than Eskimos are to North American Indians. That does not make sense. It also shows that North American Indians are more closely linked to Swedes and French people than they are South American Indians or Japanese and Chinese. So by using physical characteristics, we get a diagram that does not make migratory sense-it cannot be true. The people in Papaua, New Guinea and Australian aborigines are the most genetically distant group from sub-Saharan Africans. Yet, on this tree of physical traits they look the same. They used to call people in Australia "Negritoes" which means that they looked like Negroes. Again, using physical characteristics does not define racial groups that match the genetic codes that human beings exhibit. Ashley Montagu made this point in 1943 in Mankind's Most Dangerous Myth. It happened because physical variations to define races is discordant. Different genes respond to different pressures, and that they are not correlated with just each other in different populations."

SNIP

Try as hard as you wish. Again you're not going to get around the historic fact that there were people who migrated here thousands upon thousands of years ago who ended up becoming the people who populated the Americas. And they weren't the European.

Nor are you going to get around the fact that the settlers who border jumped across the Atlantic on the Mayflower, etc. and illegally took land are the real illegal immigrants guilty of genocide and a multitude of treaty violations. And time will never erase illegal acts or legitimize stolen property.

You talk about observing borders and the law pertaining toward borders. Then even if I were to drop the ancestral argument, you will still lose this debate by my simply responding to your assertion about observing the law and borders. Observe all the treaties and their borders and stop squatting on other people's land.


Like I said. Mexicans are here. We've always been here. We're entitled to be here. And we're not going to leave.

The borders of 2006 are what matter.

And your whole idea of a "common American race" is bogus -- with no scientific basis whatsoever.

And face the fact I have already said above.



We are Mexicans. We are here. We've always been here. We're entitled to be here. And we're not going to leave.

Get over it and start obeying the treaties! And stop squatting on stolen land...

had nothing to do with the Native people who lived in the southwest at the time.

And the Native Americans in the area we now call Mexico -- even the ones with no Spanish or African blood -- are no more genetically related to the Cherokees, for example, than they are to the French, the Ukrainians or to any other cultural group. The concept of race is a myth -- a social construction. It's not backed up by any identifiable characteristics that distinguish one person or group of people from another. And history tells us nothing about race, either -- because people have always moved across land masses and over water.

The United States in 2006 is a country with borders and laws regulating immigration, and there is no "common American race" that gets to supercede these laws. What we have in common is a constitution.

:applause:

How dare you try to unify people? :sarcasm: :hi:

viva la raza!~

We're talking about "illegal" people. No one has any problem with the "indigenous" people South of the border. It's only when the "indigenous" people South of the border illegally immigrate North of the border that there's a problem.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Inhabiting the White House. Oh, that's right, they might fight back.

but that doesn't solve his problem with the illegals staking a claim to his front yard.

illegal immigrants help your relative solve his problem?

powerful people who are using them in ways that hurt other low-income people.

And I am posting this to help make some people aware of real things that are happening to many real people in this country, that impact on the immigration debate that this country needs to have.

And that the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States mean nothing. I don't buy that.

But I'm still anti-*illegal* immigration. The employers employing these people are abusing the workers, so what's so good about that? If you're pro-illegal immigration, you are pro-big, irresponsible business. There are so many downsides to *illegal* immigration and we all should be familiar with those issues by now.

are those of European descent. How can anybody look at history and claim that an indigenous person is an illegal immigrant? To do so is simply to deny history.

If so-called Americans don't wish to see so many people come into the U.S. from Mexico. Then I'd suggest getting rid of the causes the U.S. does to create that cause & effect. If not, then its your own bed - sleep in it.


http://www.mexicauprising.net/decolonize.mp3

And why should the descendents of people in the area now called Mexico have some prior claim to live in New York or New Jersey?

Because they aren't the ones who got their backs wet on the Mayflower. The border jumpers who came across the Atlantic are.

Besides when I talk of "indigenous people", I am referring to ALL indigenous people, not just Mexicans. And having some mixed blood in you doesn't take away your ancestry.

You can't hide from history. Red and brown people are not the "illegal immigrants" here. The European is.

the area we now call Mexico. Only a fraction of Mexicans carry no European blood.

And if you read my original post, you would know I wasn't talking about a European-American, but an African American.

"And having some mixed blood in you doesn't take away your ancestry."

You already live here, so there is no concern for you.

We should get rid of the "cause." And that "cause" is the slimebag employers who hire illegal immigrants to undercut the wages of Americans. We should aggressively prosecute the illegal employers that are the cause of illegal immigration.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

they and the Americans already here had to deal with the economic consequences. But overall, they were good.

This is just your neighbor/friend/relative being short sighted.

These other people don't hurt his economic chances. Tell him get an imagination and figure out a way for them all to prosper. It's not hard.

It's being short-sighted to not want to have to call the police a couple times of week to have drunks pulled out of your own yard?

It's being short-sighted to not want your KIDS to trip over people having sex in your bushes?

"Tell him to get an imagination and figure out a way for them all to prosper. It's not hard."

You sound like someone who needs a reality check. It is DAMN hard for many people in this country, and putting blinders on doesn't help.

When you call the police. Do you just say drunks or people being indecent in public? Or do you say something referring to "illegal immigrants" because they have brown skin? Or do you say I see some "Mexicans"?

police. I imagine he tells them there are drunks sleeping it off on his property, or whatever. I think he and his neighbors have also reported the store that sells alcohol to minors, but nothing has happened.

they lived 10 or 15 in squalid rooms often in shifts.

and if they were poor, they worked ungodly ours for low pay.

and the "nativists" of their time probably villified them too.

feel that everything they've worked for is being threatened? Tough luck? You're wrong? You're a racist? WE know better than you do?

i am anti-authoritarian.

we'll lose their votes to people who will.