Immigration Legislation fo' da' nation

[snowman]

Any thoughts on the proposed legislation(s) for illegal aliens? I'm suprised that topic hasn't surfaced here, yet.

[amber]

I'm not familiar with the legislation. I'm sure I have opinions, though. :laugh:

[snowman]

I'm not familiar with the legislation. I'm sure I have opinions, though. :laugh:


The senate is working a couple variations of dealing with illegal aliens (basically Mexicans) in the U.S.

[DrummerDeanna]

The senate is working a couple variations of dealing with illegal aliens (basically Mexicans) in the U.S.


Uh huh...illegal aliens, my ass. They are targeting Mexicans and Mexicans only. I think it's an attempt to further alienate Mexicans because on the racial totem poll people STILL put us very very low.

Fine, keep them out - watch major industries and other things crash and burn.

[snowman]

Uh huh...illegal aliens, my ass. They are targeting Mexicans and Mexicans only. I think it's an attempt to further alienate Mexicans because on the racial totem poll people STILL put us very very low.

Fine, keep them out - watch major industries and other things crash and burn.

And therein lies the controversy. But do really think this is a racial issue or merely that illegal aliens (unfortunately most are Latinos) are in this country...illegally and creating a burden on the system?

[amber]

The senate is working a couple variations of dealing with illegal aliens (basically Mexicans) in the U.S.
Yeah, but what's the proposal?
I will say this: Capitalism depends on cheap labor. So no matter how much Repubs talk about immigration rules, really, repubs need immigrants more than anyone. They know this, so any other opinion out of their mouths is either lip service, or trying to strip immigrants of health care and education, so as to make the labor even cheaper.
Dems would say use citizen labor, and have it be unionized, and everyone should get a working wage.
If they're going to try to crack down on immigration - Asians have a great immigration thing going. Tons come here, and they get a lot of benefits. There's this whole program. I read an article on it, but don't remember it all. Essentially, Asian people who immigrate and have families already here get money. Mainly older Asians do it. They work the system the best.
Personally, I'm against immigration. I'll go into reasons in a second.
However, because people do immigrate here anyways, I want there to be health care and education for those immigrants. Just as i want for all Americans.
Which is what the repubs usually don't want. So, although I am against immigration, I certainly am not against benefits for immigrants. No matter who you are, it does not benefit the population as a whole to have people undereducated and with poor health care.
Reasons I am against immigration: I am against population growth as a whole. And the thing with America is that we still have some land and resources and wildlife here that hasn't been destroyed. I think it should be preserved. Immigration leads to more population. And third world countries don't have building and environmental rules - and so usually don't have a culture/religion that supports zero population. Which is why I want the most educated population possible.
I don't want people to come here and have more kids, just because they can. I don't want us to be overpopulated and dirty like a lot of countries. I want us, as a country, to support zero population growth. Which is not just about immigration, of course. But immigration contributes.
So, in conclusion, I have no ethnic problems with immigration, just natural resource consuming problems. In other words - America is full. And -
Hey, people, we can't just have all the kids we want. It's called birth control, and it's called having as many kids as your environment can support. It's not a right to have kids. Just cause China is full, and Mexico has no way to make a living, doesn't mean America has unlimited resources for everyone. And let me say that I don't think naturalized citizens of America should be having as many kids, either.
I don't think people should ignore the fact that the earth can not support the population. Sure, we (America) have some resources left, but only because we were discovered by white, resource consuming men a mere 200 years ago. Sure as hell doesn't mean we should use all the "resources".
Again, although I would always be for immigration limits, I would never be for reducing the benefits of immigrants.
Let's remember - the earth's resources are finite, they can only support a certain amount of consumption. Just because we have stuff left in America doesn't mean that stuff will last forever. People can move to different parts of the world, but we all still live in the same world, and the resources will run out eventually. You can run, but you can't hide.
And I think America should put the kibosh on immigration theoretically to support having other countries enact environmental controls, and support economies that aren't corrupt, and don't deprive their citizens of basic living tools. And, by no means do I think that other country's systems should be like ours, quite the opposite. Capitalism is the worst economic system evah. Countries should be encouraged to consume less, to live within what is environmentally sustainable. Obviously America is way beyond that.

[DrummerDeanna]

\Reasons I am against immigration: I am against population growth as a whole. And the thing with America is that we still have some land and resources and wildlife here that hasn't been destroyed. I think it should be preserved. Immigration leads to more population. And third world countries don't have building and environmental rules - and so usually don't have a culture that supports zero population. I don't want people to come here and have more kids, just because they can. I don't want us to be overpopulated and dirty like a lot of countries. I want us, as a country, to support zero population growth. Which is not just about immigration, of course. But immigration contributes.
So, in conclusion, I have no ethnic problems with immigration, just natural resource consuming problems. In other words - America is full. And -
Hey, people, we can't just have all the kids we want. It's called birth control, and it's called having as many kids as your environment can support. It's not a right to have kids. Just cause China is full, and Mexico has no way to make a living, doesn't mean America has unlimited resources for everyone.
Again, although I would always be for immigration limits, I would never be for reducing the benefits of immigrants.


Amen! I agree....overpopulation needs to stop. I have a whole range of theories/ suggestions on how we, in America, can curb pop. growth...but I'm pretty sure they'd be considered "rights violations" or something. But let me just say it's f***ed up that it's harder to obtain a dog than it is to get knocked up and pop out babies...ugh. Don't get me started.

Anyway, you make excellent points in your above post.

And...snowman, yes, I think it is a racial issue on a certain level. That may not be the whole issue (illegals are a HUGE tax on the health/education system etc...) but either way, I think there's an underlying racial issue at play as well.

[amber]

Amen! I agree....overpopulation needs to stop. I have a whole range of theories/ suggestions on how we, in America, can curb pop. growth...but I'm pretty sure they'd be considered "rights violations" or something. But let me just say it's f***ed up that it's harder to obtain a dog than it is to get knocked up and pop out babies...ugh. Don't get me started.

Anyway, you make excellent points in your above post.

And...snowman, yes, I think it is a racial issue on a certain level. That may not be the whole issue (illegals are a HUGE tax on the health/education system etc...) but either way, I think there's an underlying racial issue at play as well.
There's a zero population growth organization - I'm writing a scholarship paper for it, I should post that -
I must say I'm gratified to see an obvious immigrant (recent, and mexican I mean - both sides of my family only came here in 1920, from Italy, so I'm an immigrant, too, but not like you of course. ) understand "my" point.
And you are right, about it being an upward battle and a racial issue (although, of course, logically it is not a racial issue) - it seems like everyone feels they have a right to have a child. I know you are catholic, too, which makes it even more interesting that you see "my" point. (yes, I know you are a "special" catholic :) Hey, did you know I read a study a couple years ago that Italy has the least population growth? Less than one child per household. Just an interesting "Catholic" fact. :p )
I'd like to hear your theories.
My comprehensive theory is that education is the key, which is why I would never support some immigration law. I want everyone in the world to have the most knowledge possible at their disposal. Only then can people make wise choices. Which is of course why repubs always cut education. And immigrant benefits. :mad:
It shouldn't be a racial issue, though - but America has always made it one - from the Irish to the Italians to the Natives to the Slaves - always racial (the disguise, the red herring - it was never racial, it is always economic, cloaked in racial) - but now I submit we are at a threshold point as far as population goes. Sucks for the races who are trying to come here now, but it still isn't racial (which is not to say people aren't prejudice, just to say in the economic global reality it isn't racial.)

Again, people, mark my words - Repubs argue this point racially - but for them truly they want immigration - their BIG BUSINESS PROFITS depend on cheap labor - so don't be fooled.
Which makes me think of Clinton and NAFTA...:mad:
Sorry for the big long thing....
I don't care if immigration is a "huge" tax burden (did you guys know that Welfare takes up only about one tenth of one percent of the national budget? Yeah, exactly)
I think education FOR EVERYONE should be the number one fiscal priority. Immigrant or not. And health care should be number two. Yes, I'm a socialization girl. But, again, repubs want to keep the people dumb and not healthy, so they will work for nothing, and make the billioinaire owners more billions.
PEOPLE, THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM
You can talk about "freedom" all you want, the only thing the repubs/rich people are thinking about is cheap labor and profits for themselves. "Lies, and the Lying liers who etc...."

[estranged4life]

Uh huh...illegal aliens, my ass. They are targeting Mexicans and Mexicans only. I think it's an attempt to further alienate Mexicans because on the racial totem poll people STILL put us very very low.

at least Mexicans arent as low as us "lowly Indians" (Sorry, I dont care to be PC and use the term "Native American" because in my eyes if you were born in the US you are a "Native American")...We're so low on the racial scale (Whatever the f**k that is) that the totem poles we built look like California Red Woods.

[irishgrl]

Uh huh...illegal aliens, my ass. They are targeting Mexicans and Mexicans only. I think it's an attempt to further alienate Mexicans because on the racial totem poll people STILL put us very very low.

Fine, keep them out - watch major industries and other things crash and burn.
In CA, this is a big issue, a huge chunk of the budget goes to pay health care and cash aid for illegals.

Working in Social Services, particularly in General Assistance, I see an awful lot of people that could potentially do some of these labor-intensive jobs. But, they'd rather stay homeless and get psych meds and be layabouts.

I Think its more accurate to say about this legislation's message: If you want to come to this country and work, fine. but either become a citizen or go home after an allotted time span.

It may force industries to start paying living wages. Boo Hoo. All I know is, there are a lot of people that already live here that could do the jobs that illegals do. Also, I dont know if this bill only targets Mexicans, but it shouldnt. It should target ANY/EVERY illegal.

EDIT: Deanna, it prob wont pass, so I wouldnt worry about it if I were you...

[DrummerDeanna]

In CA, this is a big issue, a huge chunk of the budget goes to pay health care and cash aid for illegals.

It may force industries to start paying living wages. Boo Hoo. All I know is, there are a lot of people that already live here that could do the jobs that illegals do. Also, I dont know if this bill only targets Mexicans, but it shouldnt. It should target ANY/EVERY illegal.



But if there are so many people here who could do the jobs...where are they!?! They're not doing them! OH...wait - I guess that's where the living wage thing comes in...BUT then in this day and age's economic climate - can't then just find another way to get cheap labor? I don't know...

[DrummerDeanna]

at least Mexicans arent as low as us "lowly Indians" (Sorry, I dont care to be PC and use the term "Native American" because in my eyes if you were born in the US you are a "Native American")...We're so low on the racial scale (Whatever the f**k that is) that the totem poles we built look like California Red Woods.

:( Unfortunately that's true. I grew up in New Mexico - and traveling anywhere you go through numerous reservations...I've know many a Native American (sorry lol) in my day - and they do have a lot of **** to deal with - racism IS still very prevelant toward Indians :(

[DrummerDeanna]

I must say I'm gratified to see an obvious immigrant (recent, and mexican I mean - both sides of my family only came here in 1920, from Italy, so I'm an immigrant, too, but not like you of course. ) understand "my" point.

Er actuallY I'm not a recent immigrant at all, my family has been in their neck of the woods since before NEw MExico was a state...so that makes me what third or fourth generation? The border crossed us? Lol...I don't know. But my mother's husband is a first generation immigrant, he came to this country as a boy to work the fields..(he is legal, though I'm not sure if that was the case when he first got here) and you will not find a more hard working man - and he's a proud voter and taxpayer and land owner now and all that...I know that's not the norm though..and there is a big tax on the system.





My comprehensive theory is that education is the key, which is why I would never support some immigration law. I want everyone in the world to have the most knowledge possible at their disposal. Only then can people make wise choices. Which is of course why repubs always cut education. And immigrant benefits. :mad:



Exactly, education IS the the key. That is so true...and sadly our education system is going down the crap hole.

My theories aren't as nice or realistic..lol..I'm thinking some sort of reversible mandated sterilization - then when you're the proper age you can apply for a kid...lol...um that would NEVER fly - and then I feel bad because I have some younger friends who were surprised by a pregnancy and are wonderful parents.

BUT ok..if you're on welfare and have more than 1 kid - you should NOT be allowed to keep popping them out.

I know Catholics are among one of the groups who are contributing to this population issue. I work with a guy who has I think 7 kids now....!!! In today's world? That's too much. But the church still has archaic views on contraception and family planning. But with more progressive thinkers like myself and my family - maybe in another couple a hundred years the tide will turn ;)

[bretonbanquet]

There's a zero population growth organization - I'm writing a scholarship paper for it, I should post that -
I must say I'm gratified to see an obvious immigrant (recent, and mexican I mean - both sides of my family only came here in 1920, from Italy, so I'm an immigrant, too, but not like you of course. ) understand "my" point.
And you are right, about it being an upward battle and a racial issue (although, of course, logically it is not a racial issue) - it seems like everyone feels they have a right to have a child. I know you are catholic, too, which makes it even more interesting that you see "my" point. (yes, I know you are a "special" catholic :) Hey, did you know I read a study a couple years ago that Italy has the least population growth? Less than one child per household. Just an interesting "Catholic" fact. :p )
I'd like to hear your theories.
My comprehensive theory is that education is the key, which is why I would never support some immigration law. I want everyone in the world to have the most knowledge possible at their disposal. Only then can people make wise choices. Which is of course why repubs always cut education. And immigrant benefits. :mad:
It shouldn't be a racial issue, though - but America has always made it one - from the Irish to the Italians to the Natives to the Slaves - always racial (the disguise, the red herring - it was never racial, it is always economic, cloaked in racial) - but now I submit we are at a threshold point as far as population goes. Sucks for the races who are trying to come here now, but it still isn't racial (which is not to say people aren't prejudice, just to say in the economic global reality it isn't racial.)

Again, people, mark my words - Repubs argue this point racially - but for them truly they want immigration - their BIG BUSINESS PROFITS depend on cheap labor - so don't be fooled.
Which makes me think of Clinton and NAFTA...:mad:
Sorry for the big long thing....
I don't care if immigration is a "huge" tax burden (did you guys know that Welfare takes up only about one tenth of one percent of the national budget? Yeah, exactly)
I think education FOR EVERYONE should be the number one fiscal priority. Immigrant or not. And health care should be number two. Yes, I'm a socialization girl. But, again, repubs want to keep the people dumb and not healthy, so they will work for nothing, and make the billioinaire owners more billions.
PEOPLE, THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM
You can talk about "freedom" all you want, the only thing the repubs/rich people are thinking about is cheap labor and profits for themselves. "Lies, and the Lying liers who etc...."

You don't want to come over here and be Prime Minister, I suppose...? :thumbsup:

[Jason T.]

As someone who is Mexican, I must say that I'm probably just overly biased in my opinions concerning this issue.

But here's my proposal to fix it:

1 Go after companies that hire illegal immigrants and fine their asses big for violation of labor laws. That would keep them from hiring immigrants in the future.

2 Cause/Effect - less illegal immigration if there are no jobs. Granted, don't sit there and say America is full. I think we should realize that the USA is located in a Hemisphere mostly occupied by Latinos and diffusion is just going to occur over time.

3 Kill Lou Dobbs -- set him on fire for public entertainment; Frist and Tancredo (sp?) should lose their jobs for lack of shame and humanity.

[irishgrl]

But if there are so many people here who could do the jobs...where are they!?! They're not doing them! OH...wait - I guess that's where the living wage thing comes in...BUT then in this day and age's economic climate - can't then just find another way to get cheap labor? I don't know...


so glad you asked Deanna my girl! If I was in charge, I'd make it mandatory for General Assistance (and maybe even TANF) recipients to have to put in so many hours of labor for their benefits. There are lots of community service, roadside cleanup and yes farm labor jobs that these folks could be doing. it would keep them off the streets in the day and give them a skill they could use on their resumes. I know that if a TANF recipient gets to the end of their 60 months and is still not self sufficient (ie working) they then do work experience (WEX) aka community service jobs. I think something should be worked out along those same lines for General Assistance folks...There is an outfit called "Labor Ready" in Chico that specializes in day jobs. I think we could expand upon that idea...


The other side of the coin is that these jobs that arent paying a living wage, should be forced to come up to at least minimum wage (and not the Fed minimum either! that needs to be increased as well!) I also think those dumbass multinationals that outsource the jobs overseas ought to be forced to come back and bring the jobs back home. Also they should be fined for each day they stay away

In any event, the reality is, the illegals DO tax the system, and as Ive said before, this country is at the breaking point. I dont know what the whole answer is, but I do think the corporations have gotten away with murder for far too long...

[DrummerDeanna]

so glad you asked Deanna my girl! If I was in charge, I'd make it mandatory for General Assistance (and maybe even TANF) recipients to have to put in so many hours of labor for their benefits. There are lots of community service, roadside cleanup and yes farm labor jobs that these folks could be doing. it would keep them off the streets in the day and give them a skill they could use on their resumes. I know that if a TANF recipient gets to the end of their 60 months and is still not self sufficient (ie working) they then do work experience (WEX) aka community service jobs. I think something should be worked out along those same lines for General Assistance folks...There is an outfit called "Labor Ready" in Chico that specializes in day jobs. I think we could expand upon that idea...


The other side of the coin is that these jobs that arent paying a living wage, should be forced to come up to at least minimum wage (and not the Fed minimum either! that needs to be increased as well!) I also think those dumbass multinationals that outsource the jobs overseas ought to be forced to come back and bring the jobs back home. Also they should be fined for each day they stay away

In any event, the reality is, the illegals DO tax the system, and as Ive said before, this country is at the breaking point. I dont know what the whole answer is, but I do think the corporations have gotten away with murder for far too long...

Excellent points, all.

I like hearing what other people think on this topic.

Unfortunately, I no longer live close to the US/Mexico border, so I'm not as up to snuff as I'd like to be on this issus. So right now I miss New Mexico - another place where illegals are flooding in....there are so many good stories to be had, but the local media isn't really doing as in-depth a job as they should. Frustrating.

Anyway - yes, corporations have gotten away with murder for too long...

I just don't think there are any easy solutions to this problem...and if they think that this legislation is going to help? Probably not, I mean if someone is determined enough - they'll get here...people die doing it everyday :distress:

[DavidMn]

Yeah, but what's the proposal?
I will say this: Capitalism depends on cheap labor. So no matter how much Repubs talk about immigration rules, really, repubs need immigrants more than anyone. They know this, so any other opinion out of their mouths is either lip service, or trying to strip immigrants of health care and education, so as to make the labor even cheaper.
Dems would say use citizen labor, and have it be unionized, and everyone should get a working wage.
If they're going to try to crack down on immigration - Asians have a great immigration thing going. Tons come here, and they get a lot of benefits. There's this whole program. I read an article on it, but don't remember it all. Essentially, Asian people who immigrate and have families already here get money. Mainly older Asians do it. They work the system the best.
Personally, I'm against immigration. I'll go into reasons in a second.
However, because people do immigrate here anyways, I want there to be health care and education for those immigrants. Just as i want for all Americans.
Which is what the repubs usually don't want. So, although I am against immigration, I certainly am not against benefits for immigrants. No matter who you are, it does not benefit the population as a whole to have people undereducated and with poor health care.
Reasons I am against immigration: I am against population growth as a whole. And the thing with America is that we still have some land and resources and wildlife here that hasn't been destroyed. I think it should be preserved. Immigration leads to more population. And third world countries don't have building and environmental rules - and so usually don't have a culture/religion that supports zero population. Which is why I want the most educated population possible.
I don't want people to come here and have more kids, just because they can. I don't want us to be overpopulated and dirty like a lot of countries. I want us, as a country, to support zero population growth. Which is not just about immigration, of course. But immigration contributes.
So, in conclusion, I have no ethnic problems with immigration, just natural resource consuming problems. In other words - America is full. And -
Hey, people, we can't just have all the kids we want. It's called birth control, and it's called having as many kids as your environment can support. It's not a right to have kids. Just cause China is full, and Mexico has no way to make a living, doesn't mean America has unlimited resources for everyone. And let me say that I don't think naturalized citizens of America should be having as many kids, either.
I don't think people should ignore the fact that the earth can not support the population. Sure, we (America) have some resources left, but only because we were discovered by white, resource consuming men a mere 200 years ago. Sure as hell doesn't mean we should use all the "resources".
Again, although I would always be for immigration limits, I would never be for reducing the benefits of immigrants.
Let's remember - the earth's resources are finite, they can only support a certain amount of consumption. Just because we have stuff left in America doesn't mean that stuff will last forever. People can move to different parts of the world, but we all still live in the same world, and the resources will run out eventually. You can run, but you can't hide.
And I think America should put the kibosh on immigration theoretically to support having other countries enact environmental controls, and support economies that aren't corrupt, and don't deprive their citizens of basic living tools. And, by no means do I think that other country's systems should be like ours, quite the opposite. Capitalism is the worst economic system evah. Countries should be encouraged to consume less, to live within what is environmentally sustainable. Obviously America is way beyond that.
I like your thoughtful opinionsa Amber.:)

[irishgrl]

Excellent points, all.

I like hearing what other people think on this topic.

Unfortunately, I no longer live close to the US/Mexico border, so I'm not as up to snuff as I'd like to be on this issus. So right now I miss New Mexico - another place where illegals are flooding in....there are so many good stories to be had, but the local media isn't really doing as in-depth a job as they should. Frustrating.

Anyway - yes, corporations have gotten away with murder for too long...

I just don't think there are any easy solutions to this problem...and if they think that this legislation is going to help? Probably not, I mean if someone is determined enough - they'll get here...people die doing it everyday :distress:


sad but true....

I think what the Legislature is trying to do is offer these folks a choice, to stay and become citizens or go back home after 6 years (I think thats the time frame) These workers definitely DO perform a vital service and they should be treated with respect.

[DavidMn]

sad but true....

I think what the Legislature is trying to do is offer these folks a choice, to stay and become citizens or go back home after 6 years (I think thats the time frame) These workers definitely DO perform a vital service and they should be treated with respect.Ont thing about Mexicans is from what I've seen they work really hard and dont expect an automatic handout.

[irishgrl]

**NOTE** I want to say that Im not necessarily supporting one side over the other by posting this article, but there are some compelling stats in this article that give you an idea of the scope of the problem.

Minutemen Gather for New Campaigns

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 4 minutes ago

Minuteman volunteers concerned over the continued flow of illegal immigrants across the border from Mexico gathered Saturday with lawn chairs, binoculars and cell phones for a new monthlong campaign aimed at raising public awareness of the issue.

A year after their first watch-and-report operation along the border in southeastern Arizona, members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps embarked on a much larger effort in the busy migrant-smuggling corridor.

"I'm concerned about what's not being done by the government — hasn't been done, apparently," said J. Glenn Sorensen, a retired school administrator now living in Flagstaff.

Sorensen, who was not involved with the Minutemen last year, said he thinks the organization has accomplished part of its intended purpose already, "to draw national attention to an insecure border. I don't think anybody wants to close the border — I certainly don't — basically I think they need to be secure."

No one in the group had any illusions about their campaign's effectiveness, since it targets a relatively short section of the border for just a month. However, it comes at a time when Congress is debating proposals seeking to reform immigration laws, which have drawn supporters of legitimizing illegal immigrants to demonstrations in a series of cities across the country.

"This is like sticking a finger in the dike," said Ken Raymond, a retired electrical engineer and airplane mechanic from Tucson.

Each month, thousands cross into Arizona. So far this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, agents have caught more than 48,000 illegal immigrants in the area staked out this weekend, up 53 percent from the same period a year earlier.

About 150 volunteers had gathered by midmorning Saturday, with organizers expecting several hundred more.

The group says it plans similar exercises along the border in California, New Mexico and Texas, and along the Canadian border in Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York state.

President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox support a so-called guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants already holding jobs in the U.S. to stay.

But the Minuteman organization's national leader, Chris Simcox, says the group's message is clear: "We want border security first."

The Minuteman members arrived Saturday at a ranch about 35 miles southwest of Tucson before heading out to set up observation posts on private property about 30 miles north of the border.

Along with their binoculars, cell phones and radios, a number wore sidearms. They were all under strict orders to call the Border Patrol and to avoid confronting intruders or drawing their weapons, said Simcox and Stacey O'Connell, in charge of the Arizona chapter.

Although last year's patrols were nonviolent and disciplined, there are still concerns about having armed groups in a busy trafficking area, Gus Soto, a Border Patrol spokesman, said last week.

Minuteman leaders have said that all the group's members have been screened to weed out members of racist organizations.

Still, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union-Arizona say they're concerned over "the potential for taking actions and ... attempting to enforce immigration laws," executive director Alessandra Soler Meetze said.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press

[DavidMn]

**NOTE** I want to say that Im not necessarily supporting one side over the other by posting this article, but there are some compelling stats in this article that give you an idea of the scope of the problem.

Minutemen Gather for New Campaigns

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 4 minutes ago

Minuteman volunteers concerned over the continued flow of illegal immigrants across the border from Mexico gathered Saturday with lawn chairs, binoculars and cell phones for a new monthlong campaign aimed at raising public awareness of the issue.

A year after their first watch-and-report operation along the border in southeastern Arizona, members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps embarked on a much larger effort in the busy migrant-smuggling corridor.

"I'm concerned about what's not being done by the government — hasn't been done, apparently," said J. Glenn Sorensen, a retired school administrator now living in Flagstaff.

Sorensen, who was not involved with the Minutemen last year, said he thinks the organization has accomplished part of its intended purpose already, "to draw national attention to an insecure border. I don't think anybody wants to close the border — I certainly don't — basically I think they need to be secure."

No one in the group had any illusions about their campaign's effectiveness, since it targets a relatively short section of the border for just a month. However, it comes at a time when Congress is debating proposals seeking to reform immigration laws, which have drawn supporters of legitimizing illegal immigrants to demonstrations in a series of cities across the country.

"This is like sticking a finger in the dike," said Ken Raymond, a retired electrical engineer and airplane mechanic from Tucson.

Each month, thousands cross into Arizona. So far this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, agents have caught more than 48,000 illegal immigrants in the area staked out this weekend, up 53 percent from the same period a year earlier.

About 150 volunteers had gathered by midmorning Saturday, with organizers expecting several hundred more.

The group says it plans similar exercises along the border in California, New Mexico and Texas, and along the Canadian border in Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York state.

President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox support a so-called guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants already holding jobs in the U.S. to stay.

But the Minuteman organization's national leader, Chris Simcox, says the group's message is clear: "We want border security first."

The Minuteman members arrived Saturday at a ranch about 35 miles southwest of Tucson before heading out to set up observation posts on private property about 30 miles north of the border.

Along with their binoculars, cell phones and radios, a number wore sidearms. They were all under strict orders to call the Border Patrol and to avoid confronting intruders or drawing their weapons, said Simcox and Stacey O'Connell, in charge of the Arizona chapter.

Although last year's patrols were nonviolent and disciplined, there are still concerns about having armed groups in a busy trafficking area, Gus Soto, a Border Patrol spokesman, said last week.

Minuteman leaders have said that all the group's members have been screened to weed out members of racist organizations.

Still, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union-Arizona say they're concerned over "the potential for taking actions and ... attempting to enforce immigration laws," executive director Alessandra Soler Meetze said.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated PressYou're trying to stir it up dammit! I'm reporting your ass.;) :p :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Q&A: Three Goals of Senate on Immigration

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press WriterFri Mar 31, 4:59 PM ET

Immigration and border security proposals being debated in the Senate encompass three goals: to stem the influx of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, to deal with people already here illegally and to satisfy U.S. companies that say they need the workers.

The task is anything but simple. And any legislation produced by the Senate would have to be negotiated with the House, which has passed a harsher bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony.

Here are some questions and answers on the issue:

Q: How many illegal immigrants are in the United States?

A: The Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington, estimates between 11 million and 12 million. The number includes children. An estimated 850,000 illegal immigrants have arrived each year since 2000.

Q: Where do they come from?

A: About 6.2 million, or 56 percent, are from Mexico, according to Pew. An additional 2.5 million are from Central America and elsewhere in Latin America. About 1.5 million are from Asia, 600,000 from Europe and Canada and about 400,000 from Africa and other countries.

Q: How many legal immigrants are in the country?

A: About 13.1 million, not including naturalized citizens.

Q: What is a green card?

A: A green card, which is not necessarily green, signifies an immigrant has legal permanent residence, a right to stay in the United States as long as he or she doesn't commit a deportable act. The immigrants can hold any job in which U.S. citizenship is not a requirement. They are protected by all local, state and federal laws, can vote in state and local elections that don't require U.S. citizenship and can petition for visas for a spouse, parents and minor children. Permanent residents also must pay income taxes and men 18 to 25 must register with Selective Service.

Q: How does a legal permanent resident become a citizen?

A: Immigrants can apply for citizenship five years after becoming legal permanent residents. They must pay a naturalization fee, pass English, history and U.S. government tests and be of good moral character.

Q: What are guest workers?

A: Guest workers have employer-sponsored visas to work in the country for a limited time, usually two to seven years. Some are allowed to apply for permanent residency.

Q: What do lawmakers want to do about illegal immigrants already in the country?

A: The House has passed a bill that would make all illegal immigrants felons. It would also make offering them non-emergency aid or assistance a federal crime.

The Senate essentially is looking at two proposals. The main differences between them are:

_One would let them stay in the country for up to five years if they apply within six months and pay fines that start in the second year at $2,000 and rise by that much each year. But they would have to leave the country at the end of five years. They could then apply to return to the country as permanent residents or guest workers. As guest workers they can work in two-year intervals for up to six years, but must leave for a year between each two-year period.

_The other allows them to stay for up to six years after clearing a background check and paying a $1,000 fine. If they pay all their taxes and don't get into trouble they can apply for permanent residency without having to leave the country. Critics call this approach amnesty, saying it is unfair to immigrants who get in line to come to the United States legally.

Q: What is President Bush's position?

A: Bush supports giving temporary legal guest worker status to illegal immigrants who have jobs and providing them with a path for becoming permanent residents and naturalized citizens. They could not get in front of legal residents already in that process.

Q: What do businesses want?

A: Businesses want a steady supply of legal workers to do jobs that they say Americans won't do. Most oppose proposals that would require them to verify the legal status of employees unless the government provides them with a low-cost way to do it.

Q: Are illegal immigrants' children born in the United States citizens?

A: Yes.

Q: What do the various proposals in Congress do about border security?

A: All of the proposals would add more Border Patrol agents, investigators to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants and inspectors to check for contraband at ports of entry. They would increase detention beds, and give more power and money to local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

Q: What about employers who hire illegal immigrants?

A: Employers could be fined from $5,000 to $20,000 for each illegal immigrant they hire under a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Fines would range from $5,000 to $40,000, under the House bill per illegal immigrant. Under current law, the range is $250 to $10,000 per violation.

Q: What are these proposals about a fence on the border between U.S. and Mexico?

A: The House wants to erect several double fences totaling about 700 miles or about a third of the 2,000-mile border. The fences would be put in areas where illegal entry into the U.S. is most prevalent. Proposals in the Senate would create a "virtual" fence of more cameras, sensors and other technology to augment a larger Border Patrol.

Q: Is anybody looking at allowing more immigrants to come to the U.S. legally?

A: Various Senate proposal would increase the number of guest worker, family and other residency visas by 150,000 to 800,000 a year.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

[irishgrl]

there's always more!

Migrant Issue Divides GOP
Marches don't move California's hard-liners, including those serving Latinos. Unless someone gives, there is little hope for a compromise bill.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
April 1, 2006

WASHINGTON — As massive pro-immigrant rallies have grabbed center stage in Southern California, the state's congressional delegation remains sharply divided over what to do about illegal immigration, with many Republicans — including those from districts with substantial Latino populations — holding firm in support of a get-tough approach.

Several of those GOP lawmakers said they believed their stance reflected the attitudes of most of their constituents, despite the recent demonstrations.

ADVERTISEMENT
"I go to a church that is predominantly Latino," said Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Diamond Bar), a sponsor of the House bill that has been a target of the protests. "And I get nothing but positive comments for what I'm trying to do.''

Miller and most of his 18 California Republican colleagues are part of a large group of GOP House members whose prime aim is to crack down on illegal immigration. Other California Republicans — and virtually all of the delegation's 33 Democrats — favor some version of the guest-worker program advocated by President Bush and business groups, including the state's important agriculture industry.

The split within the delegation underscores the difficultly facing the GOP-controlled Congress in trying to reach an agreement on an immigration bill.

Indeed, the hard-line position taken by many House Republicans is especially important because if they do not yield, a compromise bill has little chance of emerging.

The House bill, which passed in December with support from all but three of the California Republicans, would tighten border security and impose new penalties on those who enter the U.S. illegally and on those who hire or help them. The Senate, in contrast, may adopt a broader bill that, along with being less punitive toward illegal immigrants, would create a guest-worker program and open a path to citizenship for those now in the country without the proper papers.

California's House Republicans are not only divided over what kind of changes should be made to immigration law, but how they should talk about the subject.

Rep. David Dreier of San Dimas, a member of the House GOP leadership, has urged colleagues to avoid "strident rhetoric."

But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), appearing with other House Republicans at a Capitol Hill gathering Thursday assailing the Senate's legislation, declared, "We do not need more people from foreign countries coming in taking the jobs of Americans…. I say let the prisoners pick the fruits."

The pro-immigrant rallies in the Los Angeles area have not escaped notice in Washington. But so far, they do not seem to have swayed opinions among the California House members who backed the House bill.

In a typical comment, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said, "There are a lot of people, in just as great a number [as the protesters], that you didn't see who are home fuming" about illegal immigration.

"I went to a coffee shop [in his district] and I had five people walk up to me yelling about all these demonstrations, that it's not right," Calvert said.

Many of his constituents, he added, "probably don't think the House bill is strong enough.''

That measure would make what is now a civil offense — illegal presence in the United States — a felony. It also would authorize the building of a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico.

Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs) recalled that during a recent stop at a grocery store in her district, "A woman came up to me, grabbed me by the arm and thanked me for my support of the House bill. She said, 'We're the silent majority, and we're very angry' '' about illegal immigration.

If anything, the recent rallies may have hardened the views of some GOP lawmakers.

"They've protested in front of my office,'' Miller said. "People started writing me letters of encouragement, 'Hang in there.' ''

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Visalia), whose district is more than 40% Latino and who voted against the House bill, said he believed protesters waving Mexican flags were hurting the push for an immigration bill that went beyond tougher law enforcement.

"It would have had the opposite effect if they would have been waving American flags, saying, 'We want to be Americans.' '' Nunes said.

[DavidMn]

Boy youre just full of information today!:cool:

[irishgrl]

Boy youre just full of information today!:cool:


and the cherry on top of the whole shebang: (op-ed piece from LA Times)


Civil rights? How about lawlessness?
The protesters seem intent on ending border restraints, not improving immigrants' lives.
By Joe R. Hicks, JOE R. HICKS is vice president of the L.A.-based human relations organization Community Advocates, Inc.
April 1, 2006

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights."

During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

The participation of students, some as young as 13 and 14, is especially troubling given that all too many seemed clueless about the issues. Perhaps more puzzling is that some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. The great Chicano labor organizer held a march in 1969 from the Coachella and Imperial valleys to the Mexican border. Chavez and the United Farm Workers were protesting the use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Further, Chavez believed that illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented.

What immigrant-rights groups refuse to acknowledge is that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor drives down wages for entry-level jobs, rendering all poor Americans, including millions of teenage workers, less than competitive.

Are illegal workers doing jobs that Americans won't do? This often-heard argument is specious. The reality is that most Americans won't do entry-level labor for the meager wages often offered to undocumented workers.

Activists seem focused on a political agenda that is fiercely anti-capitalist and intent on removing all border constraints. Nevertheless, protesters in Los Angeles were welcomed uncritically by the city's leaders. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the crowd of 500,000 last Saturday, "There are no illegal people here today." He added: "America was built on the backs of immigrants."

This is an obvious truism, but it obliterates the distinction between legal and illegal and mocks the rule of law. The immigration process continues to bring people from all parts of the world to these shores, but it has to be an orderly and lawful one.

Lawful or not, the United States cannot absorb all of the people who aspire to come here. A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center survey on attitudes toward immigration, conducted in part in Mexico, found that an estimated 70 million adults in Mexico would come to the U.S. if they had the means and the opportunity. About half of those said they would be willing to move to and work in this country illegally. The study also found that 35% of Mexican college graduates want to come to the U.S., even if that means they would have to work at a job below their qualifications — and many also said they'd be willing to come illegally.

What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington's politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.

[gldstwmn]

I find myself in the most odd position of siding with some of the Republicans on this issue. I'm definitely against the guest worker idea.
The illegals shouldn't be prosecuted. We need to hold the Mexican government accountable.
Something has to be done about this. We can't afford it in many ways. So if fences need to be built, employers prosecuted, then so be it.

[irishgrl]

I find myself in the most odd position of siding with some of the Republicans on this issue. I'm definitely against the guest worker idea.
The illegals shouldn't be prosecuted. We need to hold the Mexican government accountable.
Something has to be done about this. We can't afford it in many ways. So if fences need to be built, employers prosecuted, then so be it.

Im with you. this is one area where "touchy-feely" responses to the problem arent appropriate. But I diverge with you in that I think the illegals SHOULD be prosecuted. Especially for repeat offenses or for assisting someone else to cheat the system. I also think Mexico should be held accountable. they should have to pay the costs of rounding up and shipping back those 48,000 (and thats just in ONE area!) I personally think its a lot to ask of our taxpayers to fund the costs of healthcare for these people when so many of our OWN citizens cant afford health care. I firmly believe charity begins at HOME. help our OWN people first. It there's enough resources to help the illegals after that, then ok. And those damn corporations should be fined. Big Time.

[DavidMn]

and the cherry on top of the whole shebang: (op-ed piece from LA Times)


Civil rights? How about lawlessness?
The protesters seem intent on ending border restraints, not improving immigrants' lives.
By Joe R. Hicks, JOE R. HICKS is vice president of the L.A.-based human relations organization Community Advocates, Inc.
April 1, 2006

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights."

During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

The participation of students, some as young as 13 and 14, is especially troubling given that all too many seemed clueless about the issues. Perhaps more puzzling is that some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. The great Chicano labor organizer held a march in 1969 from the Coachella and Imperial valleys to the Mexican border. Chavez and the United Farm Workers were protesting the use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Further, Chavez believed that illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented.

What immigrant-rights groups refuse to acknowledge is that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor drives down wages for entry-level jobs, rendering all poor Americans, including millions of teenage workers, less than competitive.

Are illegal workers doing jobs that Americans won't do? This often-heard argument is specious. The reality is that most Americans won't do entry-level labor for the meager wages often offered to undocumented workers.

Activists seem focused on a political agenda that is fiercely anti-capitalist and intent on removing all border constraints. Nevertheless, protesters in Los Angeles were welcomed uncritically by the city's leaders. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the crowd of 500,000 last Saturday, "There are no illegal people here today." He added: "America was built on the backs of immigrants."

This is an obvious truism, but it obliterates the distinction between legal and illegal and mocks the rule of law. The immigration process continues to bring people from all parts of the world to these shores, but it has to be an orderly and lawful one.

Lawful or not, the United States cannot absorb all of the people who aspire to come here. A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center survey on attitudes toward immigration, conducted in part in Mexico, found that an estimated 70 million adults in Mexico would come to the U.S. if they had the means and the opportunity. About half of those said they would be willing to move to and work in this country illegally. The study also found that 35% of Mexican college graduates want to come to the U.S., even if that means they would have to work at a job below their qualifications — and many also said they'd be willing to come illegally.

What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington's politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.I'm gonna get a headache reading all this!:lol:

[irishgrl]

I'm gonna get a headache reading all this!:lol:

Sorry David :lol:

I was watching that Sunday Morning Politics show with George Stephanopolous (did I spell that right? LOL!) and I saw Barack Obama and a Senator from Virginia (or West Virginia, I didnt pay attention) talking about this issue. From what I gathered, the Republicans are MOST concerned about border security, and that we tried the "amnesty" approach over 20 years ago, and the problem hasnt improved. Based on that, I dont think "amnesty" is a good idea.

I say we need to identify the illegals, and have the corporations/organizations who hired them pay for their passage home. And then, force Mexico to work on their side of the fence with penalties for any ILLEGAL entries into this country. The whole idea is that these thousands and THOUSANDS of people are here ILLEGALLY. That is a slap in the face to all the others that are trying to come here through the proper channels. Our borders ARE porous and we've been sadly lax about the issue. Well, I agree with the Reuplicans on this, our borders must be secure, and IMO that comes before worrying about the cheap labor for corporations.

oh yeah the disclaimer: just my 2cents