Shouldn't they be focusing on the employers? Seems like it would at least be more efficient to go after them instead of chasing motherfuckers through the Arizona desert.
Agreed 100%
Watching those fools out there building that crappy fence, seems like such a waste of time.
Shouldn't they be focusing on the employers? Seems like it would at least be more efficient to go after them instead of chasing motherfuckers through the Arizona desert.
Agreed 100%
Watching those fools out there building that crappy fence, seems like such a waste of time.
This was tried in the 90s, business threw a fit and the feds backed off.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico. All other solutions are even more unworkable and unethical.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico.
I think, before we do #2, maybe we should work on fixing that at home too.
And Stayle - I think you're under-estimating the anti-immigrant (legal or illegal) sentiments that have emerged. One of the KEY underpinnings I've seen raised by the anti-immigration side is the idea that America is "losing its character" on account of rising immigration rates (legal and otherwise) as well as the increase in Spanish-speaking residents. That said, I agree that it should have been that the data I cited was for legal immigrants rather than looking at the financial impact/burden imposed by undocumented immigrants.
There are very few people in this country -in either party- that oppose LEGAL immigration. There are many facts presented in this piece that most definitely support LEGAL immigration.
However, the debate with in the US, all the protesting and so on, is only about ILLEGAL immigration.
This piece that you have posted serves only to confuse and blur the lines between those people that choose to follow the laws of the US and follow LEGAL immigration protocol, and those that choose to not acknowledge US laws and cross the border and live here ILLEGALLY.
The media really does a disservice to the public by constantly interchanging the word "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant." They are two different things.
Within this piece that you posted, when they use the term "immigrant," they are referring ONLY to LEGAL immigrants.
Occasionally they will mention "undocumented immigrants" aka illegal immigrants, and provide a different set of facts.
Anyway, a few things I would like to mention here....
Some illegal immigrants do indeed pay income tax via the Individual Tax Identification Number, or the ITIN. However, most illegal immigrants are poor, so they would receive a full tax refund. Therefore, the American middle class ends up footing the bill for schools, hospitals and maintenance of the infrastructure, which in some places, is busting at the seams.
In addition, there are some illegal immigration advocate groups that are pushing for the ITIN to serve as a replacement for the Social Security Number for those unable to obtain SSN's (because they are not citizens). This opens up a whole new can of worms and is pretty controversial. I encourage ppl to research the developing use of ITIN's by those living here illegally.
One thing I would like to address is those illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin claiming that the southwest portion of the US is "their land" and was "stolen" by American settlers..... This "argument" is bogus. The fact is that most Hispanic illegal immigrants are coming from far south of the existing US border, and have no relation to Native Americans whatsoever. The original border tribes from back in the day have already been in the US for years. I encourage anyone to research the fact that the US, up to a point, did not require customs info from border Mexicans, as it did from those arriving from Europe and beyond.
So, I ask everyone to re-read this article that O-dub posted, and make note that the article is referring to only LEGAL immigrants, and only mentions ILLEGAL (undocumented) immigrants a few times, and provides a separate set of data for those people.
(sorry for the caps, just trying to make a point)
Interesting info being put out by the justiceforimmigrats.org, though almost all of their information is sourced from third party sources, including gov't studies. If anyone has contradictory data to refute some of these "Facts" I'd like to see them - I'm not saying that as a challenge, I'd just like to see where the opposition is drawing their information from.
Myths vs. Facts: Commonly used attacks against immigrants
FACT: Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administrations suspense file (taxes that cannot be matched to workers names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
FACT: Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.[/b]
(Source: Questioning Immigration Policy Can We Afford to Open Our Arms?, Friends Committee on National Legislation Document ..G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http: www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html)
[Note: this remains one of the biggest areas of contention. The fact that they have to draw on estimates with wildly different numbers either suggests 1) we don't really know and don't have a reliable way of measuring/parsing this data or 2) it's very selective use of data. That said, I followed the source back: the numbers the throw out here are based on a Business Week article from 1993 so even if the ratio is accurate, the numbers are likely different now in 2006.]
Myth: IMMIGRANTS SEND ALL THEIR MONEY BACK HOME
FACT: In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.
FACT: The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000.
(Source: Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994), p. 13.
[Note: Again, I would have preferred to see data collected more recently than 1994]
Myth: IMMIGRANTS ARE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY
FACT: During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we havent spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years
(Source: Andrew Sum, Mykhaylo Trubskyy, Ishwar Khatiwada, et al., Immigrant Workers in the New England Labor Market: Implications for Workforce Development Policy, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, Prepared for the New England Regional Office, the Employment and Training Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts, October 2002.
Myth: IMMIGRANTS DONT WANT TO LEARN ENGLISH OR BECOME AMERICANS
FACT: Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after two events: enactment of immigration and welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001.
(Source: Simon Romero and Janet Elder, Hispanics in the US Report Optimism New York Times, (Aug. 6, 2003).
Myth: TODAY'S IMMIGRANTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE 100 YEARS AGO
FACT: The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about todays immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow migrs. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that todays immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.
FACT: Around 75% of todays immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas. Undocumented immigrants estimated to be less than 2% of the US population.
FACT: From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrols budget increased six-fold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that timeframe, to 8 milliondespite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs in need of workers, has significantly contributed to this current conundrum.
Myth: THE WAR ON TERRORISM CAN BE WON WITH IMMIGRANT RESTRICTIONS
FACT: No security expert since September 11th, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacksinstead, the key is effective use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security have netted no terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information.
(Source: Associated Press/Dow Jones Newswires, US Senate Subcommittee Hears Immigration Testimony, Oct. 17, 2001.)
(Source: Cato Institute: Dont Blame Immigrants for Terrorism, Daniel Griswold, Assoc. Director of Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies (see: http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-23-01.html)
In response to Stayle, here are some figures I posted in an earlier post about the strike day that are just about illegal immigrants:
Here's some more info I dug up, mostly about illegals and their impact upon the U.S.
From the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Illegal immigrants have very little effect upon U.S. wages.
From 1980 to 2000 wages in the U.S. were reduced by 4% by all immigration.
The only group that would see a large increase in pay if illegal immigrants disappeared would be high school drop outs that could see a 3-8% increase in pay. That would average out to about an extra $25/week
Illegal immigrants have very little impact upon unemployment in the U.S.
Even in cities with large illegal immigrant communities like NYC, Chicago and LA they have minimal impact upon wages
A Harvard economist estimated that illegal immigrants overall add about less than 1% to America???s wealth
Pew Hispanic Center findings on illegals:
78% of illegals are from Mexico and Latin America
Less than 25% are young single men. Most are young working families.
Illegals make up less than 5% of the U.S. workforce, [/b] mostly work in low skill jobs. 24% of farming, 17% of clearners, 14% of construction, 29% of roofers and dry wall installers, 27% of butchers and food processors, 12% of food preparation
Illegal male workers arriving in the past 5 years earn about $480/wk, legal immigrants $700/wk, immigrants who have become U.S. citizens earn $930/wk
I don't wanna come off as anti-immigration tho guys. Cause in truth, immigration keeps a country moving. I just don't believe that just giving amnesty is a great idea. Proper legal immigration is IMO the best way to do things. I also believe that companies should be forced to not hire illegals and also pay people proper livable wages. And I also believe that in reality, people should be marching on their own countries capitals, trying to force them to make things better at home.
B*ll* -
Not taking you to task, but here's a red flag as to the proviso of legal immigration...
Here's the dilemma - and Canada's immigration policy is symptomatic of this - most immigrants are fiscally driven, as in they wish to improve their financial status and most of them are coming from lower socioeconomic rungs; the exception would be those fleeing persecution/civil strife/war/etc.
The manner in which Canadian immigration policy is designed bars a lot of these interested would-be-immigrants from being able to do so legally - the Portuguese that Canadian immigration has been boring down on are from the Acores, that set of islands that is equidistant from mainland Portugual as it is from northern Africa - and despite its majestic physical scenery, it's pretty improverished and uneducated - and the reason why Azorean cuisine masquerades as Portuguese food you find in North America (in Toronto, Fall River, New Bedford, etc.) is b/c folks from Lisbon and Porto just aren't leaving b/c their lifestyle is comfortable enough - Italy is the same: Calabria, Sicily - rarely from the industrial north let alone the agriculturally rich Puglia region or Tuscany for that matter... Canada's present policy is based on a point system and awards points for education/skills/etc. - if you're comfortable (financially and otherwise) in your home country, is there any overarching reason to leave? Really? Look @ the number of graduate students from China who no longer stay in the country they study following graduation in recent years - given China's booming financial prowess...
If you're going to promote legal immigration, you may very well need to revise your criteria to reflect the qualifications of those looking to migrate: poor, uneducated, etc. - you're not going to tempt the educated elite that current requirements are positioned towards...
The biggest myth in this whole debate is this: that everybody who is concerned by illegal immigration is a racist who opposes immigration of any kind.
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
One thing I would like to address is those illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin claiming that the southwest portion of the US is "their land" and was "stolen" by American settlers..... This "argument" is bogus. The fact is that most Hispanic illegal immigrants are coming from far south of the existing US border, and have no relation to Native Americans whatsoever. The original border tribes from back in the day have already been in the US for years. I encourage anyone to research the fact that the US, up to a point, did not require customs info from border Mexicans, as it did from those arriving from Europe and beyond.
I hope you're not suggesting that anyone pushing the agenda you mention above is anything but a fringe element.
In my experience living here in Chicago, it's a common theory held as truth. I gathered this by talking to friends, reading local Spanish media like La Raza, and reading the signs of protesters.
One thing I would like to address is those illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin claiming that the southwest portion of the US is "their land" and was "stolen" by American settlers..... This "argument" is bogus. The fact is that most Hispanic illegal immigrants are coming from far south of the existing US border, and have no relation to Native Americans whatsoever. The original border tribes from back in the day have already been in the US for years. I encourage anyone to research the fact that the US, up to a point, did not require customs info from border Mexicans, as it did from those arriving from Europe and beyond.
I hope you're not suggesting that anyone pushing the agenda you mention above is anything but a fringe element.
In my experience living here in Chicago, it's a common theory held as truth. I gathered this by talking to friends, reading local Spanish media like La Raza, and reading the signs of protesters.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Stayle here. I don't think the MAINSTREAM of the movement is making this argument, but I wouldn't push it purely out to "the fringe" especially since, even if it's just a vocal small minority...it's a very LOUD minority.
Not taking you to task, but here's a red flag as to the proviso of legal immigration...
P*t*r,
I agree with you. The Canadian immigration deal IMO, is a different story than the US. Just off the top of my head, 3 things slightly bother me.
1. That Canadian officials mostly push for educated or skilled immigrants. Or immigrantes that already have family in the country that will post bonds (Right term?) for them. On the topic of educated and skilled immigrants, the Canadian government doesn't seem to help in any way to get these people working in their field. Most end up with jobs that are so far from what they are trained in. It's not a good look. But the government should also be helping poor and displaced immigrants (A certain number each year) and placing them in programs to help them get started in this country. You just can't take the people who can afford it or who are educated or skilled.
2. I believe that the government should be trying to encourage immigrants to work/live in areas of the country that really need then. Instead they mostly all hub around major urban centres. Mind you, not force them to go there. But offer some kind of major incentives to go there. The government has talked about this in the past, but I don't think they have ever really done anything about this. And they should.
3. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that while many stay in this country. I bet there are a good number of immigrants that do come to this country, and use it as a stepping stone for gettings into the US. Where they end up using any benifits available and then bolting for better paying jobs. Hell, it worries me in just the amount of citizens in the health care field that do this.
Like I said, I am not against any form of legal immigration. But reading what you just wrote, I wish there were people like you running the show. Thanks for your comments.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico.
I think, before we do #2, maybe we should work on fixing that at home too.
And Stayle - I think you're under-estimating the anti-immigrant (legal or illegal) sentiments that have emerged. One of the KEY underpinnings I've seen raised by the anti-immigration side is the idea that America is "losing its character" on account of rising immigration rates (legal and otherwise) as well as the increase in Spanish-speaking residents. That said, I agree that it should have been that the data I cited was for legal immigrants rather than looking at the financial impact/burden imposed by undocumented immigrants.
Thanks for the clarification.
In a Capitalist system such as the US, there needs to be a constant influx of unskilled, "low level" workers, either by immigration or by birth. In the Capitalist system, the population never stops growing, ever.
So, one might say 'if we always need an influx of unskilled workers, what's the problem with illegal immigration?' I'll explain:
There is an immigration quota here in the US, established at 700,000 people per year by the 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT). This means that the US gov't has determined that in order for our economy to operate and for our standard of living to remain intact, 700,000 people are allowed to immigrate here per year.
So why is the number limited to 700,000? The majority of people who wish to immigrate are poor. There are only a certain number of poor families that the US can absorb without the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roadways and other tax-based services) becoming strained.
So, in addition to the 700,000 people that immigrate here legally each year, you have the estimated 1,000,000 - 3,000,000 people immigrating here illegally each year. These illegal immigrants are mostly poor folks that consume a vast amount of resources that are set in place for US citizens & legal immigrants. The immigration quota is thrown off balance, and the US infrastructure takes the hit. Who ends up paying for the resources such as Medicaid and education that the illegal immigrants consume? The American middle class family.
Switching from facts to my opinion....There are a couple things that irk me about the illegal immigration protests. Why are these people coming here by the millions and marching in the streets making demands of the US gov't? Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty?
Furthermore, and I hope not to offend people, but it does bother me when the illegal immigrant protesters invoke the name of MLK and compare their "cause" to the civil rights movement and the struggles of African-Americans. I don't even know where to begin with that....and I don't want to get into it here. But it does bother me a great deal.
Switching from facts to my opinion....There are a couple things that irk me about the illegal immigration protests. Why are these people coming here by the millions and marching in the streets making demands of the US gov't? Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty?
Furthermore, and I hope not to offend people, but it does bother me when the illegal immigrant protesters invoke the name of MLK and compare their "cause" to the civil rights movement and the struggles of African-Americans. I don't even know where to begin with that....and I don't want to get into it here. But it does bother me a great deal.
On the latter note - you're certainly not the only person bothered by this. I've been trying to wrap my head around this and have been talking with some friends in the progressive left. The gist is this: Can the immigration rights movement succeed without the involvement - let alone endorsement - of African Americans? And the answer seems to be "yes." And this should be considerable cause for concern on multiple levels.
On the former note: I don't think it's that simple. To me, as the child of immigrants, I don't really think of the term "American" as distinguishing between native-born and immigrant-born. I mean, my community of Asian Americans is majority foreign-born - that doesn't make it any less "American" in my eyes (though I certainly know, for many, even someone like my daughter - who technically is fifth generation American on her mother's side - is still "foreign" because she's Asian. But I digress). So I think immigrants in the U.S., regardless if they came here legally or not, are entitled to see themselves as part of American society, ESPECIALLY if they're part of the labor force. Therefore, it's not a simple matter of asking why they're not in Mexico City but rather, in Los Angeles instead.
As for "protesting themselves out of poverty" - look, I don't want to be an asshole in saying this, but isn't that a rather hopelessly naive question? You think poverty can be overcome with sheer will? You think people risk live and limb to come across the border to do back-breaking work because they lack the will to get themselves out of poverty in their home country? I mean, c'mon.
1. That Canadian officials mostly push for educated or skilled immigrants. Or immigrantes that already have family in the country that will post bonds (Right term?) for them. On the topic of educated and skilled immigrants, the Canadian government doesn't seem to help in any way to get these people working in their field. Most end up with jobs that are so far from what they are trained in. It's not a good look. But the government should also be helping poor and displaced immigrants (A certain number each year) and placing them in programs to help them get started in this country. You just can't take the people who can afford it or who are educated or skilled.
I suspect that the condition of addressing prospective immigrants w/ skills/etc. is partly based on Canada's declining birth rate amongst those already residing here - the sentiment is to attract people w/ the ability/ies to fill those positions once they're vacated and no longer able to be filled by people who aren't here b/c they aren't being born... Coincidentally, Putin mentioned in a speech yesterday I believe that Russia faces a major crisis w/ regards to its population and is trying to encourage women to have children w/ financial incentives/etc. - it's a losing proposition tho' given that Scandinavian countries have been attempting to do so for years w/ only temporary results - Sweden was able to halt the downward trend for only 2 to 3 years before it resumed once more... Better you put away $$$ for when you retire versus depending on your pension/etc.
2. I believe that the government should be trying to encourage immigrants to work/live in areas of the country that really need then. Instead they mostly all hub around major urban centres. Mind you, not force them to go there. But offer some kind of major incentives to go there. The government has talked about this in the past, but I don't think they have ever really done anything about this. And they should.
This is a predicament that also confronts governments and newly minted health care workers - specifically physicians - even if you were able to persuade them to reside in an underserved part of the country for a stretch of time, most jettison themselves to urban locales immediately following the expiration of the term in question... And as a lead-in to your point below, consider the number of physicians who complete their medical training (schooling primarily) in Canada and then look south of the border to continue their career - it's positively Machievellian in tone in that they pimp the resources of the country to their benefit... If you're going to study in Canada, then the country itself should be the beneficiary of the education you've received - especially in a field such as medicine given the costs of training absorbed by taxpayers...
3. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that while many stay in this country. I bet there are a good number of immigrants that do come to this country, and use it as a stepping stone for gettings into the US. Where they end up using any benifits available and then bolting for better paying jobs. Hell, it worries me in just the amount of citizens in the health care field that do this.
See above - Canada by and large for a lot of immigrants is the second resort - and if anyone thinks I'm disparaging the country, I'm not - even the colloquial reference to the U.S. in the Chinese language translates roughly to 'Golden Mountain'... It's been that way for the better part of the last 100 + years and the mentality continues to pervade as such...
Switching from facts to my opinion....There are a couple things that irk me about the illegal immigration protests. Why are these people coming here by the millions and marching in the streets making demands of the US gov't? Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty?
Furthermore, and I hope not to offend people, but it does bother me when the illegal immigrant protesters invoke the name of MLK and compare their "cause" to the civil rights movement and the struggles of African-Americans. I don't even know where to begin with that....and I don't want to get into it here. But it does bother me a great deal.
what about the illegal immigrants who have american-born children? should they be protesting in mexico, not here?
when our govt treats people living in this country as second-class citizens, they should protest. granted, we are talking about people who came over "illegally", but that seems like a technicality considering our govt's WILLING decision to turn a blind-eye to it.
if we truly wanted to end illegal immigration, or at least curb it, we could easily do it (penalizing the employers for starters). until that happens, its hypocritical for us to employ illegals and give them less rights. if there was a poster for like in America, you'd have an illegal somewhere bussing tables...so its crazy to see raids going on in restaurants. there are how many millions of illegals here? give me a break.
the resurgance of the immigration issue is bush's wag the dog. there is some interesting debate in this thread, but if we are talking political issues, lets focus on our ciminal administration. anyone notice who bush just appointed as the cia chief?
Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty? The May Day March in Mexico City was larger than any of the marches in the US. Every year ten of thousands people march in Mexico on May Day calling for justice. There is a low level civil war going on in the Chiapas (sp) province of Mexico. In case you have not noticed the US media does not cover Mexican politics.
The people marching in the US were people who live in work in the US. Most of course are here legally. The catalyst for the marches was a bill in congress that would raise penalty for illegal immigration to a felony. Because of the size of the spontaneous protests the Rs quickly removed that language. Bill Frist and Hasert then released a statement saying it was all the Ds fault.
I would love to see on a thread on the appropriation of MLK. It seems to me that the African American community does not like seeing his image or words invoked by other struggles. Every struggle from immigrant rights to anti-Starbucks wants to use MLK. I'd love to hear opinions in another thread if anyone is interested in talking about it.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico.
I think, before we do #2, maybe we should work on fixing that at home too.
Actually we are workin on it at home. I don't mean to be flip, but poverty in America comes with cable TV. In the US there are food stamps, food banks and soup kitchens, not in Mexico. If you have no money in Mexico you don't eat, and a lot of people have no money there. As the richest nation in the world I believe we have an obligation to our neighbor to the South.
There is a third and perhaps the best way, open the boarders between the US and Mexico.
It's not just that African Americans are concerned about how the imagery and icons of the CRM (Civil Rights Movement) are being co-opted by other (non-Black) social movements. I think this is a relatively small issue. The BIGGER issue is: how is it that we're talking about the NEXT CRM when, you know, the old CRM hasn't really been completed yet? In other words, I think African Americans are wary over the idea that there's a mass civil rights movement underway that's trying to borrow from their tradition when the fight for social justice for African Americans is still far from over. They feel, in a sense, passed over, and that's no small deal when you're talking about the stakes involved here.
The biggest myth in this whole debate is this: that everybody who is concerned by illegal immigration is a racist who opposes immigration of any kind.
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
you attempted to use figures on general immigration as ammunition in opposition to a bill only relevant to illegal immigrants. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
The biggest myth in this whole debate is this: that everybody who is concerned by illegal immigration is a racist who opposes immigration of any kind.
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
you attempted to use figures on general immigration as ammunition in opposition to a bill only relevant to illegal immigrants. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
The biggest myth in this whole debate is this: that everybody who is concerned by illegal immigration is a racist who opposes immigration of any kind.
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
you attempted to use figures on general immigration as ammunition in opposition to a bill only relevant to illegal immigrants. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
you attempted to use personal attacks as ammunition in opposition to facts. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
The biggest myth in this whole debate is this: that everybody who is concerned by illegal immigration is a racist who opposes immigration of any kind.
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
you attempted to use figures on general immigration as ammunition in opposition to a bill only relevant to illegal immigrants. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
Switching from facts to my opinion....There are a couple things that irk me about the illegal immigration protests. Why are these people coming here by the millions and marching in the streets making demands of the US gov't? Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty?
Furthermore, and I hope not to offend people, but it does bother me when the illegal immigrant protesters invoke the name of MLK and compare their "cause" to the civil rights movement and the struggles of African-Americans. I don't even know where to begin with that....and I don't want to get into it here. But it does bother me a great deal.
As for "protesting themselves out of poverty" - look, I don't want to be an asshole in saying this, but isn't that a rather hopelessly naive question? You think poverty can be overcome with sheer will? You think people risk live and limb to come across the border to do back-breaking work because they lack the will to get themselves out of poverty in their home country? I mean, c'mon.
Focusing on Mexico, from where the majority of illegal immigrants come from...you would be hard-pressed to find political-minded people that follow Mexican politics that would not admit that their government is corrupt. They need to somehow, someway eliminate this culture of political corruption. Like I said, we're not talking about a vast desert with no food and water. Mexico has excellent resources, and, in my opinion, the only thing keeping the country in perpetual poverty is their corrupt government.
Call me optimistic, but I do believe that poverty can be overcome by sheer will - the sheer will to reform your own government and economy via protesting, rioting, or whatever it might take.
The Mexican government has an agenda to push their poor into the United States, illegally, legally, it does not matter. When they are here, they send money back to Mexico at the rate of $22 billion per year, Mexico's second highest source of income.
when our govt treats people living in this country as second-class citizens, they should protest.
That's just the problem, KVH, it's not that they are second class citizens, they are not citizens at all.
granted, we are talking about people who came over "illegally", but that seems like a technicality considering our govt's WILLING decision to turn a blind-eye to it.
It is most definitely not a technicality. Please see my earlier post about the immigration quota. We are talking about real data and economic facts. Re: our government turning a blind eye....I agree. Bush, Republicans, Democrats, etc. are in the pocket of big business, at the expense of the middle class.
if we truly wanted to end illegal immigration, or at least curb it, we could easily do it (penalizing the employers for starters).
The May Day March in Mexico City was larger than any of the marches in the US. Every year ten of thousands people march in Mexico on May Day calling for justice. There is a low level civil war going on in the Chiapas (sp) province of Mexico. In case you have not noticed the US media does not cover Mexican politics.
Thanks for the info.
The people marching in the US were people who live in work in the US. Most of course are here legally.
Disagree. The majority of the people marching were illegal immigrants.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico.
I think, before we do #2, maybe we should work on fixing that at home too.
Actually we are workin on it at home. I don't mean to be flip, but poverty in America comes with cable TV. In the US there are food stamps, food banks and soup kitchens, not in Mexico. If you have no money in Mexico you don't eat, and a lot of people have no money there. As the richest nation in the world I believe we have an obligation to our neighbor to the South.
There is a third and perhaps the best way, open the boarders between the US and Mexico.
You paint a rosy picture of the US.
The US has it's own problems to deal with. We have our own poverty and our own problems. We need to handle our own situations first before we could even think about absorbing the entire poor population of another country.
Comments
Agreed 100%
Watching those fools out there building that crappy fence, seems like such a waste of time.
This was tried in the 90s, business threw a fit and the feds backed off.
There are 2 ways to reduce immigration from Mexico. One is jail empoyers who hire undocumented workers. Two is an end to poverty in Mexico. All other solutions are even more unworkable and unethical.
I think, before we do #2, maybe we should work on fixing that at home too.
And Stayle - I think you're under-estimating the anti-immigrant (legal or illegal) sentiments that have emerged. One of the KEY underpinnings I've seen raised by the anti-immigration side is the idea that America is "losing its character" on account of rising immigration rates (legal and otherwise) as well as the increase in Spanish-speaking residents. That said, I agree that it should have been that the data I cited was for legal immigrants rather than looking at the financial impact/burden imposed by undocumented immigrants.
um...so you're for the bill then, right?
Here's some more info I dug up, mostly about illegals and their impact upon the U.S.
From the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Illegal immigrants have very little effect upon U.S. wages.
From 1980 to 2000 wages in the U.S. were reduced by 4% by all immigration.
The only group that would see a large increase in pay if illegal immigrants disappeared would be high school drop outs that could see a 3-8% increase in pay. That would average out to about an extra $25/week
Illegal immigrants have very little impact upon unemployment in the U.S.
Even in cities with large illegal immigrant communities like NYC, Chicago and LA they have minimal impact upon wages
A Harvard economist estimated that illegal immigrants overall add about less than 1% to America???s wealth
Pew Hispanic Center findings on illegals:
78% of illegals are from Mexico and Latin America
Less than 25% are young single men. Most are young working families.
Illegals make up less than 5% of the U.S. workforce, [/b] mostly work in low skill jobs. 24% of farming, 17% of clearners, 14% of construction, 29% of roofers and dry wall installers, 27% of butchers and food processors, 12% of food preparation
Illegal male workers arriving in the past 5 years earn about $480/wk, legal immigrants $700/wk, immigrants who have become U.S. citizens earn $930/wk
B*ll* -
Not taking you to task, but here's a red flag as to the proviso of legal immigration...
Here's the dilemma - and Canada's immigration policy is symptomatic of this - most immigrants are fiscally driven, as in they wish to improve their financial status and most of them are coming from lower socioeconomic rungs; the exception would be those fleeing persecution/civil strife/war/etc.
The manner in which Canadian immigration policy is designed bars a lot of these interested would-be-immigrants from being able to do so legally - the Portuguese that Canadian immigration has been boring down on are from the Acores, that set of islands that is equidistant from mainland Portugual as it is from northern Africa - and despite its majestic physical scenery, it's pretty improverished and uneducated - and the reason why Azorean cuisine masquerades as Portuguese food you find in North America (in Toronto, Fall River, New Bedford, etc.) is b/c folks from Lisbon and Porto just aren't leaving b/c their lifestyle is comfortable enough - Italy is the same: Calabria, Sicily - rarely from the industrial north let alone the agriculturally rich Puglia region or Tuscany for that matter... Canada's present policy is based on a point system and awards points for education/skills/etc. - if you're comfortable (financially and otherwise) in your home country, is there any overarching reason to leave? Really? Look @ the number of graduate students from China who no longer stay in the country they study following graduation in recent years - given China's booming financial prowess...
If you're going to promote legal immigration, you may very well need to revise your criteria to reflect the qualifications of those looking to migrate: poor, uneducated, etc. - you're not going to tempt the educated elite that current requirements are positioned towards...
Dolo - dude, you're throwing up strawmen again.
No one has even implied EVERYBODY. What has been noted is that there is a vocal SEGMENT of the anti-immigration lobby whose concerns deal in racial overtones. By no means has anyone said that EVERYBODY who opposes immigration - legal or otherwise - is a stark, raving racist.
Jesus, you really are a terrible polemicist.
Vitamin - I know you're in Egypt but please come back. We need some far smarter conservatives.
In my experience living here in Chicago, it's a common theory held as truth. I gathered this by talking to friends, reading local Spanish media like La Raza, and reading the signs of protesters.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Stayle here. I don't think the MAINSTREAM of the movement is making this argument, but I wouldn't push it purely out to "the fringe" especially since, even if it's just a vocal small minority...it's a very LOUD minority.
P*t*r,
I agree with you. The Canadian immigration deal IMO, is a different story than the US. Just off the top of my head, 3 things slightly bother me.
1. That Canadian officials mostly push for educated or skilled immigrants. Or immigrantes that already have family in the country that will post bonds (Right term?) for them. On the topic of educated and skilled immigrants, the Canadian government doesn't seem to help in any way to get these people working in their field. Most end up with jobs that are so far from what they are trained in. It's not a good look. But the government should also be helping poor and displaced immigrants (A certain number each year) and placing them in programs to help them get started in this country. You just can't take the people who can afford it or who are educated or skilled.
2. I believe that the government should be trying to encourage immigrants to work/live in areas of the country that really need then. Instead they mostly all hub around major urban centres. Mind you, not force them to go there. But offer some kind of major incentives to go there. The government has talked about this in the past, but I don't think they have ever really done anything about this. And they should.
3. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that while many stay in this country. I bet there are a good number of immigrants that do come to this country, and use it as a stepping stone for gettings into the US. Where they end up using any benifits available and then bolting for better paying jobs. Hell, it worries me in just the amount of citizens in the health care field that do this.
Like I said, I am not against any form of legal immigration. But reading what you just wrote, I wish there were people like you running the show. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the clarification.
In a Capitalist system such as the US, there needs to be a constant influx of unskilled, "low level" workers, either by immigration or by birth. In the Capitalist system, the population never stops growing, ever.
So, one might say 'if we always need an influx of unskilled workers, what's the problem with illegal immigration?' I'll explain:
There is an immigration quota here in the US, established at 700,000 people per year by the 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT). This means that the US gov't has determined that in order for our economy to operate and for our standard of living to remain intact, 700,000 people are allowed to immigrate here per year.
So why is the number limited to 700,000? The majority of people who wish to immigrate are poor. There are only a certain number of poor families that the US can absorb without the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roadways and other tax-based services) becoming strained.
So, in addition to the 700,000 people that immigrate here legally each year, you have the estimated 1,000,000 - 3,000,000 people immigrating here illegally each year. These illegal immigrants are mostly poor folks that consume a vast amount of resources that are set in place for US citizens & legal immigrants. The immigration quota is thrown off balance, and the US infrastructure takes the hit. Who ends up paying for the resources such as Medicaid and education that the illegal immigrants consume? The American middle class family.
Switching from facts to my opinion....There are a couple things that irk me about the illegal immigration protests. Why are these people coming here by the millions and marching in the streets making demands of the US gov't? Why are they not marching by the millions in their countries of origin, demanding the same from their own governments? Mexico, for example, has vast natural resources from coast to coast and a willing workforce. So why are they not protesting themselves out of poverty?
Furthermore, and I hope not to offend people, but it does bother me when the illegal immigrant protesters invoke the name of MLK and compare their "cause" to the civil rights movement and the struggles of African-Americans. I don't even know where to begin with that....and I don't want to get into it here. But it does bother me a great deal.
On the latter note - you're certainly not the only person bothered by this. I've been trying to wrap my head around this and have been talking with some friends in the progressive left. The gist is this: Can the immigration rights movement succeed without the involvement - let alone endorsement - of African Americans? And the answer seems to be "yes." And this should be considerable cause for concern on multiple levels.
On the former note: I don't think it's that simple. To me, as the child of immigrants, I don't really think of the term "American" as distinguishing between native-born and immigrant-born. I mean, my community of Asian Americans is majority foreign-born - that doesn't make it any less "American" in my eyes (though I certainly know, for many, even someone like my daughter - who technically is fifth generation American on her mother's side - is still "foreign" because she's Asian. But I digress). So I think immigrants in the U.S., regardless if they came here legally or not, are entitled to see themselves as part of American society, ESPECIALLY if they're part of the labor force. Therefore, it's not a simple matter of asking why they're not in Mexico City but rather, in Los Angeles instead.
As for "protesting themselves out of poverty" - look, I don't want to be an asshole in saying this, but isn't that a rather hopelessly naive question? You think poverty can be overcome with sheer will? You think people risk live and limb to come across the border to do back-breaking work because they lack the will to get themselves out of poverty in their home country? I mean, c'mon.
I suspect that the condition of addressing prospective immigrants w/ skills/etc. is partly based on Canada's declining birth rate amongst those already residing here - the sentiment is to attract people w/ the ability/ies to fill those positions once they're vacated and no longer able to be filled by people who aren't here b/c they aren't being born... Coincidentally, Putin mentioned in a speech yesterday I believe that Russia faces a major crisis w/ regards to its population and is trying to encourage women to have children w/ financial incentives/etc. - it's a losing proposition tho' given that Scandinavian countries have been attempting to do so for years w/ only temporary results - Sweden was able to halt the downward trend for only 2 to 3 years before it resumed once more... Better you put away $$$ for when you retire versus depending on your pension/etc.
This is a predicament that also confronts governments and newly minted health care workers - specifically physicians - even if you were able to persuade them to reside in an underserved part of the country for a stretch of time, most jettison themselves to urban locales immediately following the expiration of the term in question... And as a lead-in to your point below, consider the number of physicians who complete their medical training (schooling primarily) in Canada and then look south of the border to continue their career - it's positively Machievellian in tone in that they pimp the resources of the country to their benefit... If you're going to study in Canada, then the country itself should be the beneficiary of the education you've received - especially in a field such as medicine given the costs of training absorbed by taxpayers...
See above - Canada by and large for a lot of immigrants is the second resort - and if anyone thinks I'm disparaging the country, I'm not - even the colloquial reference to the U.S. in the Chinese language translates roughly to 'Golden Mountain'... It's been that way for the better part of the last 100 + years and the mentality continues to pervade as such...
what about the illegal immigrants who have american-born children? should they be protesting in mexico, not here?
when our govt treats people living in this country as second-class citizens, they should protest. granted, we are talking about people who came over "illegally", but that seems like a technicality considering our govt's WILLING decision to turn a blind-eye to it.
if we truly wanted to end illegal immigration, or at least curb it, we could easily do it (penalizing the employers for starters). until that happens, its hypocritical for us to employ illegals and give them less rights. if there was a poster for like in America, you'd have an illegal somewhere bussing tables...so its crazy to see raids going on in restaurants. there are how many millions of illegals here? give me a break.
the resurgance of the immigration issue is bush's wag the dog. there is some interesting debate in this thread, but if we are talking political issues, lets focus on our ciminal administration. anyone notice who bush just appointed as the cia chief?
The May Day March in Mexico City was larger than any of the marches in the US. Every year ten of thousands people march in Mexico on May Day calling for justice. There is a low level civil war going on in the Chiapas (sp) province of Mexico. In case you have not noticed the US media does not cover Mexican politics.
The people marching in the US were people who live in work in the US. Most of course are here legally. The catalyst for the marches was a bill in congress that would raise penalty for illegal immigration to a felony. Because of the size of the spontaneous protests the Rs quickly removed that language. Bill Frist and Hasert then released a statement saying it was all the Ds fault.
I would love to see on a thread on the appropriation of MLK. It seems to me that the African American community does not like seeing his image or words invoked by other struggles. Every struggle from immigrant rights to anti-Starbucks wants to use MLK. I'd love to hear opinions in another thread if anyone is interested in talking about it.
Actually we are workin on it at home. I don't mean to be flip, but poverty in America comes with cable TV. In the US there are food stamps, food banks and soup kitchens, not in Mexico. If you have no money in Mexico you don't eat, and a lot of people have no money there. As the richest nation in the world I believe we have an obligation to our neighbor to the South.
There is a third and perhaps the best way, open the boarders between the US and Mexico.
This is a very short reply to your query.
It's not just that African Americans are concerned about how the imagery and icons of the CRM (Civil Rights Movement) are being co-opted by other (non-Black) social movements. I think this is a relatively small issue. The BIGGER issue is: how is it that we're talking about the NEXT CRM when, you know, the old CRM hasn't really been completed yet? In other words, I think African Americans are wary over the idea that there's a mass civil rights movement underway that's trying to borrow from their tradition when the fight for social justice for African Americans is still far from over. They feel, in a sense, passed over, and that's no small deal when you're talking about the stakes involved here.
you attempted to use figures on general immigration as ammunition in opposition to a bill only relevant to illegal immigrants. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
Dolo, you're becoming the next Sabadabadooodoooo.
you attempted to use personal attacks as ammunition in opposition to facts. Its clear who the terrible polemicist is.
Are we sure he's not the first Sabadabaddoodoo???
Focusing on Mexico, from where the majority of illegal immigrants come from...you would be hard-pressed to find political-minded people that follow Mexican politics that would not admit that their government is corrupt. They need to somehow, someway eliminate this culture of political corruption. Like I said, we're not talking about a vast desert with no food and water. Mexico has excellent resources, and, in my opinion, the only thing keeping the country in perpetual poverty is their corrupt government.
Call me optimistic, but I do believe that poverty can be overcome by sheer will - the sheer will to reform your own government and economy via protesting, rioting, or whatever it might take.
The Mexican government has an agenda to push their poor into the United States, illegally, legally, it does not matter. When they are here, they send money back to Mexico at the rate of $22 billion per year, Mexico's second highest source of income.
Source please?
That's just the problem, KVH, it's not that they are second class citizens, they are not citizens at all.
It is most definitely not a technicality. Please see my earlier post about the immigration quota. We are talking about real data and economic facts. Re: our government turning a blind eye....I agree. Bush, Republicans, Democrats, etc. are in the pocket of big business, at the expense of the middle class.
Agree.
Thanks for the info.
Disagree. The majority of the people marching were illegal immigrants.
Legal immigrants have no reason to protest.
You paint a rosy picture of the US.
The US has it's own problems to deal with. We have our own poverty and our own problems. We need to handle our own situations first before we could even think about absorbing the entire poor population of another country.
they do if they care about what's going on!