Deserts are dry? Sue.

May 11, 2002 12:07 PM

Deserts are dry? Sue. "The families of 11 immigrants who died [while] illegally crossing into Arizona from Mexico have filed a $41 million claim against two federal agencies, saying the government's refusal to put water out in the desert contributed to the migrants' deaths." Do they have a case?
posted by darukaru (53 comments total)

Well, no. Whatever you might think of US immigration policies, these migrants were illegally crossing and knew so. Should authorities really go out of their way to make illegal activities safer just because they know people are going to engage in them anyway?

It's a shame that they were led to their deaths by smugglers, but in any case it would seem as if the point is relatively moot:

But of those places they requested to place water stations, none of them would have helped the poor people who perished there," said spokesman Tom Bauer. "In fact, the closest proposed water area for a water station was 12 miles and two mountain ranges away from where the migrants were found dead."
posted by UnReality at 12:32 PM on May 11, 2002

It's sad that these people died.

As to the case: perhaps the U.S. should supply a few planes for illegal immigrants. Or maybe an air conditioned mall? Oh no, I got it: the American scientists should put their heads together and change the climate along the border to make it more habitable to human beings. Yeah, if anybody should get sued it's the scientists for not doing their job.

If the claimants should win this case, I'll be a little ticked. Hey! Maybe somebody should sue Mexico for not giving people strugglers the proper training. It would be the humane thing to do.
posted by ashbury at 12:41 PM on May 11, 2002

I'm upset that the government has failed to pay my rent and buy me a Porsche. Maybe I have a case too.
posted by bingo at 12:52 PM on May 11, 2002

Should authorities really go out of their way to make illegal activities safer just because they know people are going to engage in them anyway?

I dunno. We hand out needles to IV drug users.

How about just acknowledging that immigration from Mexico is inevitable and necessary and not imposing a de-facto death penalty for people whose only crime is to try to make a better life for themselves.
posted by vacapinta at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2002

The danger of crossing the desert is well known. It is also well known amongst Mexican migrants that when they arrive in the US they will be "illegal". However, the legality of coming to the US is a fairly moot qualm. It should be apparent to anyone by now, that the majority of Mexicans who risk life and limb don't do so so because they dream of being leeches and tax burdens. There is a whole convoluted structure of reasoning at work here. It's obvious that the US's stance on Mexican migration comes from both sides of its mouth. Sure, it's illegal and there is some token law enforcement. But widely, it is understood by politicians that many of their constituent businessmen would fail due to lack of viable workforce. By viable, I mean cheap, if not slave-like, labor. And by having them remain undocumented is a win-win for the economy of the US. They pay taxes, contribute to social security, yet realize none of those benefits. Harvests are harvested. Dishes are washed. Profits are made. Throw in a little occasional INS action and most everyone is appeased.

Do they deserve to have water stationed for them out in the desert? I believe they do. Do I think these folks have a $41 million dollar claim? On the basis of the sheer racism of the system that allows and then again "disallows" them here, I'd like to think they did. If anything at all, a dialogue of the truth of how this system works (not perceptions that keep us all appeased) needs to be had and the racism needs to be called what it is.
posted by crasspastor at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2002

Those water stations would have to be guarded though. ; )
posted by crasspastor at 1:04 PM on May 11, 2002

The immigration issue is a red herring. What if they were there legally? Is it the responsibility of the government to make every possible activity safe?
posted by electro at 1:21 PM on May 11, 2002

BTW, we give clean needles to IV drug users not to mitigate the risk to them, but to mitigate the risk to everyone else.
posted by electro at 1:22 PM on May 11, 2002

there is a relatively large (Christian, that i know of) community here in tucson that works hard year round to try and make sure immigrants aren't dying as they try to find a better life in the US.

southside presbyterian church (tucson)

some of their programs:
humane borders
the sanctuary movement

the sanctuary movement is pretty interesting. (good link, another link) it got to be nationwide, i believe. the pastor at southside got into some big legal trouble years ago for giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants. he still gives a moving sermon, and his son's wife was my 6th grade science teacher.

anyway, even if the government can't find a way to help monetarily, there are folks along the border making sure these people don't die.

on preview: it's sad to go out with the congregation to one of the waterstations we'd set up a month ago and find it tipped over or punctured. what sort of person goes out of their way to do that?
posted by carsonb at 1:22 PM on May 11, 2002

Thanks so much for that info carsonb. I followed your church's link to borderlinks and am impressed. I now have an idea for my next vacation. If I can afford it. Good work you're doing down there brother.
posted by crasspastor at 1:47 PM on May 11, 2002

The immigration issue is a red herring. What if they were there legally? Is it the responsibility of the government to make every possible activity safe?

exactly. And needle exchange programs aren't to prevent suits! Charities or non-profits are welcome to provide water to immigrants if they want to help, like similar organizations supply needles, but people cannot expect the government to guarantee their safety when they engage in dangerous activity. Only if the government had advised people to take such action while withholding information about risks could they be considered responsible.

Maybe you could argue the gov't should put a sign up saying "warning: desert is dry", like those consumer warnings about not taking a bath with your electric hairdryer etc, but even that's more ridiculous than the analogy, as the government did not produce the desert for it's own profit.
posted by mdn at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2002

Why not walk-in medical stations in case they too are needed? Question: illegals usually come North to earn money tosend down to impoverished families. Who foots the bill for the lawyers to sue the U.S. govt? Ah, contingency suit. Perhaps it is time to re-enaqct the scene and put the lawyers in the desert.
posted by Postroad at 2:20 PM on May 11, 2002

to guarantee their safety when they engage in dangerous activity

You make it sound as if they went on a recreational hike. People are crossing the desert because the government has clamped down hard on other more accesible areas of the border. In essence, the government, though it did not "produce the desert for it's own profit" is certainly using it as a means to end - less patrols and fences are needed because nature has provided a natural barrier, in this case a lethal one.

The INS knows that desert crossings will be attempted. It also knows that people will attempt to scale barbed-wire fences. That doesnt mean it should place deadly electric shocks on the fences nor should it allow people to die in the desert if it can be prevented by reasonable means. (Yes, I know, one is passive and one is active but I do not make a moral distinction)

Theres an element called human compassion missing in everyone's equations here. Whenever you call on charities to do something, you're just trying to foist a problem onto someone else.
posted by vacapinta at 2:39 PM on May 11, 2002

Preposterous. Shall we just cut to the chase and run air-conditioned buses for them? They choose to attempt to do something dangerous and illegal and selfish. It is entirely appropriate to hold them responsible for that choice. The romantic motive of "seeking a better life for themselves" is irrelevant. If I should rob a bank because doing so would demonstrably better my life, should that action be approved and abetted? If they really wish to improve their lives, they should attempt to do so from within the system, by calling for and supporting the kinds of political and economic systems and reforms that will have a lasting positive impact on the Mexican society. Not as romantic, perhaps, but a great deal more ethical and, on a larger scale, effective.

I met some of the hardcore sanctuary types when I lived in Tucson in the early 90s. They struck me as very kind-hearted but terribly naive and misguided, and many of their activities were self-admittedly criminal.
posted by rushmc at 3:20 PM on May 11, 2002

...a dialogue of the truth of how this system works (not perceptions that keep us all appeased) needs to be had and the racism needs to be called what it is. --crasspastor

You've got an interesting take on the issue. I don't agree with you, though. Yes, illegal aliens do provide a hidden workforce and source of income to some, including the government. I don't believe that the gov would spend the billions of dollars to tacitly allow "x amount" of Mexicans over the border. It just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, it makes no sense for the government to aid and abet illegal aliens by giving them the tools to survive such arduous treks.

Whenever you call on charities to do something, you're just trying to foist a problem onto someone else. --vacapinta

Foisting the problem onto the government is the same thing, isn't it? You don't have to deal with it because somebody else is payed to do it for you. At least with charities you know that most of the people there care about what they are doing.
posted by ashbury at 3:29 PM on May 11, 2002

You make it sound as if they went on a recreational hike. People are crossing the desert because the government has clamped down hard on other more accessible areas of the border.

the goal, remember, is keeping people from not coming into the country. this is too simple of course, as you said before, since many powerful people in america absolutely do want illegal labor. the government putting water in the desert is an upsetting idea to people though, because it would show that the government is indeed undecided about the issue. if you honestly don't want people coming into the country then putting water for them to cross the desert is stupid. if you do want them in the country then blocking the easy ways to get in, and forcing people to go to the desert, where there is water waiting is stupid. there is no way the government can put water in the desert and really have any sort of position on immigration that would stand up to scrutiny. people want the government to be efficient, so most people wouldn't want water in the desert.

when people call for charities to do things they are not shoving the problem elsewhere, they don't exclude themselves from these charities, people look to charities to help people regardless of their situation. for the government to help these people would imply inconsistencies in policy, for a charity to do so would not.
posted by rhyax at 3:30 PM on May 11, 2002

rhyax: your post strikes me as cynical but, ultimately, I have to admit, truthful.

I would like to see water in the desert for simple, humane reasons that transcend politics. No, this wont lead to medical clinics or air-conditioned buses or oasis-like luxury resorts - thats a tired old argumentation tactic. I'm just talking about preventing needless deaths.
posted by vacapinta at 4:17 PM on May 11, 2002

yeah, i really find it hard to support the idea of putting water barrels in the desert just in case someone who is already breaking the law realizes they forgot their canteen. should we put water/food depots and little tents all along the highway so hitch hikers don't die from neglect? how about putting a glass case in a bank, with a little hammer next to it and a gun in the case with a few rounds of ammo, and a sign that says "break in case of emergency" so as not to leave a bank robber in a sticky situation. or what about boats and supplies left out in the gulf of mexico for cuban immigrants... we surely can't ignore their needs too.
posted by ggggarret at 4:18 PM on May 11, 2002

Preposterous. Shall we just cut to the chase and run air-conditioned buses for them?

Yes. The agriculture, service and janitorial sectors and everything else that benefits by having clean office restrooms, apples, cherries and lemons waxed and stacked high at every American supermarket and a plethora of dining out choices should see to it that these people are treated humanely.

Every peice of food we as Americans place in our mouths was likely touched by a Mexican making less than $7.00 an hour. Explain to me rushmc, how we'd do it without them.

I mean, the above is far easier than tackling the real problem of course. Which begins by one asking: How is it that the desperation is so bad for our neighbors to the south that invariably, at least one member of every impoverished Mexican family must make the dangerous trek northward to the richest country in the world just so their family back home can eat? Care to address that? Or is it that just the way the cookie crumbles in a globalized "free market"? Some have, some don't, deal with it. I am dealing with it and I beg to differ. We're talking about real people here, who are dying in the desert as they voyage here to maintain America's world renowned, extravagant and wasteful way of life.
posted by crasspastor at 4:29 PM on May 11, 2002

Theres an element called human compassion missing in everyone's equations here.

Come on, vacapinta! No one's saying they deserved to die. We're just saying that government isn't responsible to guarantee their survival.
posted by electro at 4:36 PM on May 11, 2002

Every peice of food we as Americans place in our mouths was likely touched by a Mexican making less than $7.00 an hour. Explain to me rushmc, how we'd do it without them.

It is interesting to see you arguing in favor of this underclass system, rather than decrying it as exploitation. Or is that Step 2? First we facilitate the establishment of an underclass of illegal immigrants (who are quite frequently, if you are not aware of it, abused and ill-used), then we point at it and say how unfair it is, and since it exists (partially through our own efforts or lack thereof) then we fund programs to mitigate/eliminate it, allowing tens of thousands to piggyback up the economic divide on the ladder of our illogic?
posted by rushmc at 4:41 PM on May 11, 2002

We're talking about real people here, who are dying in the desert as they voyage here to maintain America's world renowned, extravagant and wasteful way of life.

Again, you are phrasing things in such a way as to deny their fundamental responsibility for the choice to come, which infantalizes them and does them a supreme disservice as human beings.
posted by rushmc at 4:46 PM on May 11, 2002

rushmc. . .

"I mean, the above is far easier than tackling the real problem of course. . ."

First thing's first. The world can't be changed in one fell swoop. I think, focus on humanizing the system first, evening the playing field a touch. Then, Oh Baby! We'll talk unions (perhaps even multinational worker's unions). We're not there yet, nor alas, do I think we ever will be. It'll be fun trying though. Moreover, every post isn't necessarily a full and comprehensive expostion of the poster's ideals. I'm merely arguing one thing at a time. Though, I thought I made it clear just how strategically exploitative I think the system is.

Again, you are phrasing things in such a way as to deny their fundamental responsibility for the choice to come, which infantalizes them and does them a supreme disservice as human beings.

No, I'm phrasing things in such a way to shed light on the choiclessness many in Mexico feel. Do you think they enjoy it, leaving their families, friends and homes behind? Sure, some assimilate, but many more have yearnings of being happy at home in Mexico. That, first and foremost, is my concern.
posted by crasspastor at 5:07 PM on May 11, 2002

crasspastor, how desperate are they? I know that they are desperate enough to brave the border, but I don't know why. Could it be a question of social politics? I don't know much about Mexico but I do know that Mexico and the US have different socio-political systems. Perhaps the financial gain, tho low to us, is more than enough to offset the dangers of going north. Perhaps it's another case of using what America has without keeping the American values; a syphoning of American wealth to keep the Mexican institution of family alive and well. Could it also be that there are enough Mexicans in the US that every Mexican knows somebody who has done well for themselves amongst the Gringos and want a piece of the action? I think that this exploitation is a well-used two-way street.
posted by ashbury at 5:19 PM on May 11, 2002

Come on, vacapinta! No one's saying they deserved to die

Oh, alright. I guess I was just struck by the huge gap between the overwhelming support for the niece of a wealthy and respected artist in a neighboring thread and what I percieved as a devil-may-care attitude about what I perceive to be a major human-rights tragedy.

Also, see this excellent series by the Village Voice.
posted by vacapinta at 5:23 PM on May 11, 2002

You're saying ashbury, that when a Mexican child is young and is asked what he want's to be when he grows up he stoutly declares, "I want to syphon American wealth to keep the Mexican institution of family alive and well by filling baskets with lemon leaves in the hot Fresno sun for more than 12 hours a day. And in fact I'm going to drop out of secondary school early just so I can!"?
posted by crasspastor at 5:27 PM on May 11, 2002

crasspastor, you seem to suggest that the US has anything to do with the socio-economic conditions in Mexico. Fact is, Mexico is not the 51st state, it is a sovereign nation that governs its own affairs in the same way we all expect that other countries should not interefere in our internal affairs. The US is not the babysitter of the world, nor should it be.

Secondly, the argument that there's somehow a tolerance of illegal Mexican immigration for the purpose of cheap labor for large corporations is fallcious at best. In the first instance, there are pretty strict regulations against hiring illegals. I'm not naive enough to believe they are 100% effective, but certainly, the illegals are more likely to find undocumented jobs as housekeepers or the like. In addition, NAFTA has already legalized the use of slave labor by allowing the exportation of jobs to Mexico in the first instance. That such slave labor can be had in Mexico is the fault of the Mexican government. That US companies can use that to their advantage is the fault of Bill Clinton.
posted by faith at 5:34 PM on May 11, 2002

How desperate are they?
Easy.
posted by crasspastor at 5:34 PM on May 11, 2002

Jesus. I'm going away after this for awhile. This is tying up my day.

Secondly, the argument that there's somehow a tolerance of illegal Mexican immigration for the purpose of cheap labor for large corporations is fallcious at best. In the first instance, there are pretty strict regulations against hiring illegals.

I work in the service industry. I will tell you first hand that it is easy in the extreme for an undocumented Mexican worker to get a job anywhere, save Hawaii and Alaska. Fallacious at best? Explain that faith. In order for something to be fallacious or glaringly untrue is for there to exist evidence otherwise. Yet, the evidence in this case is a defacto, unwritten, industry-wide, well understood rule. You can say all you want that there are "strict regulations against hiring illegals", but the truth of the matter is completely different. Just found this at Pacific News Service.

This accompanying webpage to Michael Moore's Awful Truth show also (indirectly) underscores how much a non hard and fast body of laws regulates the stream of undocumented workers from Latin America.
posted by crasspastor at 5:51 PM on May 11, 2002

Secondly, the argument that there's somehow a tolerance of illegal Mexican immigration for the purpose of cheap labor for large corporations is fallcious at best

Really? (I'm getting tired too)
posted by vacapinta at 5:55 PM on May 11, 2002

I work in the service industry. I will tell you first hand that it is easy in the extreme for an undocumented Mexican worker to get a job anywhere, save Hawaii and Alaska.

Then you should be finding fault with the service industry. U.S. law requires that employers take a photocopy of a job applicant's Social Security card (or green card or other documentation authorizing one's legal status) and have tax documentation filled out. If they are failing to get this information, they are in violation of the law and prosecutable. In my experience of jobseeking over the past 5 years, these requirements are uniformly enforced and non-negotiable. If you want to rail against greed, why not do so at the level of the capitalist employer willing to break the law to maximize his profits, not just at the vague "societal" level?
posted by rushmc at 6:10 PM on May 11, 2002

First thing's first. The world can't be changed in one fell swoop. I think, focus on humanizing the system first, evening the playing field a touch. Then, Oh Baby! We'll talk unions

So you admit my contention, then, that turning a blind eye to (or even abetting) illegal immigration is merely a disingenuous first step toward integrating untold numbers of foreign nationals into American society in a manner which circumvents all of the legal channels for accommodating them?

Don't get me wrong, I love foreign nationals and am quite pro-immigration, but I strongly believe that if you have to be sneaky, dishonest, and criminal to accomplish a thing, then you are violating serious ethical boundaries. If you wish to accomplish certain goals or effect certain changes, then pursue them out in the open, through the proper channels, don't try to sneak them in the back door.
posted by rushmc at 6:16 PM on May 11, 2002

crasspastor, your statements on the immediate question are indistinguishable from those of a person seeking to maximize their ability exploit the labor of illegal aliens.
posted by NortonDC at 6:23 PM on May 11, 2002

If you want to rail against greed, why not do so at the level of the capitalist employer willing to break the law to maximize his profits, not just at the vague "societal" level?

capitalist employer willing to break the law to maximize his profits=american society

ha, now i'm being cynical vacapinta

perhaps even multinational worker's unions

why have i never heard that idea before? that's great.
posted by rhyax at 6:27 PM on May 11, 2002

crasspastor, I'm not saying that it's the ambition of poor families to send any and all to the fields. Nor am I saying that they set as a goal the deliberate use of American wealth and opportunity. I am saying that they see the Land of the Free as a better option than staying within their own country. Obviously they feel that their options are better in the US, despite the 12 hour days, the lack of formal (Mexican) education, the deathly conditions of border crossing.

Feh. What does it matter when someday North America is going to be borderless?
posted by ashbury at 6:53 PM on May 11, 2002

In my experience of jobseeking over the past 5 years, these requirements are uniformly enforced and non-negotiable

Have you ever worked picking strawberries? Don't worry, if you ever do. the documentation is easy to obtain. There's a brisk business in fake docs only blocks from where I live. They only have to be good enough, not to convince the employer, but to allow the employer to convince officials that he was convinced by them.

It's all a game of cat and mouse. The INS plays. Employers play. Politicians play too. We play too implicitly whenever we buy our cheap fruit (any grower that uses legal workers must raise prices and, inevitably, go out of business). Who, exactly, is violating ethical boundaries in all of this. Why does everyone want to pick on the people at the bottom? Because they are easy targets.

Society has *already* accomodated these people. They are already part of our infrastructure and affect everything we do and how we are able to live our lives. The system works. Why fix it? Any politician that dares recommend that we formalize this system by making the resident illegal aliens legal faces an inevitable anti-immigration backlash.

I'm sorry to shake things up but I have a lot of first-hand experience in this (as, apparently does crasspastor). This is how things are. No theoretical hand-waving about ethics and morals will make this go away. Its a complex problem with no easy immediate solution. I'm just asking that we dont automatically scapegoat those who already benefit the least.
posted by vacapinta at 7:04 PM on May 11, 2002

NortonDC:

Things I've written in this thread:

--Sure, some assimilate, but many more have yearnings of being happy at home in Mexico. That, first and foremost, is my concern.

--No, I'm phrasing things in such a way to shed light on the choiclessness many in Mexico feel.

-- On the basis of the sheer racism of the system that allows and then again "disallows" them here, I'd like to think they did. If anything at all, a dialogue of the truth of how this system works (not perceptions that keep us all appeased) needs to be had and the racism needs to be called what it is.

Ohhh. Ah-ha! This may be what you're alluding to Norton:

-- "Every peice of food we as Americans place in our mouths was likely touched by a Mexican making less than $7.00 an hour. Explain to me rushmc, how we'd do it without them."

I see. I'm supposed to have a pat, indefensible, in-tow with the left answer am I? I'm not thankless. I understand the system in which we live isn't going to be changed overnight. I can't even get myself out of the financial rut I'm in. How am I supposed to do it for millions of undocumented workers? Do I agree with the system as it has "(the) ability (to) exploit the labor of illegal aliens"? Hell no. I'm not going to be able to change it alone. As it is, I work within the system and I firmly believe that it can be equalized. Hence, as I've had to already reiterate NortonDC, "I mean, the above is far easier than tackling the real problem of course. . ." Which I use the following rhetorical question to demonstrate:

"Which begins by one asking: How is it that the desperation is so bad for our neighbors to the south that invariably, at least one member of every impoverished Mexican family must make the dangerous trek northward to the richest country in the world just so their family back home can eat?" This wealth disparity so that millions of people must travel thousands of miles from home to subsist is what needs to be addressed.

I've said it all. Right here in this thread. I'm sorry, but on this issue I take extreme offense being taken to task with tu quo ques and strawmen. I've stated my case. In fact, I could go on and on and on. It is a very dear issue to me.
posted by crasspastor at 8:48 PM on May 11, 2002

i'm in a hurry, so i'll catch up on this thread later tonite, but...

how desperate are they? I know that they are desperate enough to brave the border, but I don't know why. Could it be a question of social politics? I don't know much about Mexico...

i live less than an hour away from the border (if i drive like batman), and have visited mexico on many different occasions. for pleasure, for work, on 'mission trips,' etc. i think it's something you have to see to believe. even on the border, and in 'tourist' towns like rocky point (puerto penasco), absolute filth and poverty--the kind that makes one ill to see on television in a far away land--is 20 feet behind every liquor store and crappy motel that caters to the american visitors.

that that kind of life exists in such close proximity to the amazing wealth just across the border is sickening to me. have a nice trip to cabo san carlos some day, and after you've docked the boat and sat in a shaded bar for a few hours take a trip down a sidestreet on the way home to your villa on the beach. there you'll find all the desperation you need.
posted by carsonb at 10:48 PM on May 11, 2002

Jolly, crasspastor. None of that changes the validity of what I said: "your statements on the immediate question are indistinguishable from those of a person seeking to maximize their ability exploit the labor of illegal aliens."

The immediate question is the propriety of requiring the US government to put water in the desert for the use of illegal immigrants.

You argue for the alleged business necessity of the presence of the illegal immigrants (many of their constituent businessmen would fail due to lack of viable workforce. By viable, I mean cheap, if not slave-like, labor), then you argue for cheap measures to increase the size of that population, and finally you clothe your arguments in the language of compassion for the underclass you seek to enlarge.

It's perfect. MidasMulligan is off taking notes somewhere.
posted by NortonDC at 10:56 PM on May 11, 2002

i think it's something you have to see to believe. even on the border, and in 'tourist' towns like rocky point

Travel down a bit more and I think you will discover that Mexican border towns are exactly the WRONG places to use as your models for what life in Mexico is like....
posted by rushmc at 11:16 PM on May 11, 2002

No theoretical hand-waving about ethics and morals will make this go away.

Certainly not. Theoretical hand-waving doesn't make ANY problems go away.

Consistent, rational, and ethical policies and behavior, uniformly enforced, often do, however. And throwing up your hands (those darn hands are getting a real workout!) and giving up on doing what's right and appealing to an emotional sympathy for the plight of the poor, innocent people ("think of the children!") moves one even further from a viable and lasting solution.
posted by rushmc at 11:19 PM on May 11, 2002

Consistent, rational, and ethical policies and behavior, uniformly enforced, often do, however

Then, perhaps, I am your new hero. I've worked in programs to inform legal immigrants of their amnesty rights. I've helped dissuade potential border-crossers by informing of the true risks involved and the minor benefits to be had. In this case, I have never given up on doing what's right and I have never engaged in criminal activities. Do not confuse me with those naive and misguided people you once met. I am neither of those.

I wish I could believe, perhaps as you do rushmc, that laws are fair and uniformly enforced and justice will always prevail. I really, honestly wish I could live there with you.

It's the hypocrisy of the U.S. government on this matter that continually appalls me. Enforcements at the border are done sporadically and then only when there is a large cry from constituents. Rarely is it effective in decreasing the traffic, though usually it is effective in increasing fatalities.

I would like to see more attention given to the larger picture, the economic interdependency of the U.S. and Mexico which, yes, must be dealt with at a larger level, perhaps in negotiations between Bush and Fox. What I often see, and you have seen me express frustration about this in this thread, is the tendency to point at illegal immigrants as common criminals who have manufactured this problem all by themselves, at the expense of ignoring the larger economic forces at work and the tacit, unspoken agreements between the US and Mexican government to further this madness.
posted by vacapinta at 11:52 PM on May 11, 2002

Are you then calling me a hypocrite NortonDC? And on what grounds?

Don't tell me I'm clothing my argument in shit. My argument's right there plain as day. How really, do you dare, to define the impetus in my forthright statements? I've never noticed before, as I've never really had a go around with you, but arguing with you is much like trying to stir up a fight with old Dr. Sbaitso.

I argue for the business necessity of undocumented migrant workers because understanding that that is the canvas on which their civil rights, as of this moment, must be painted on.

then you argue for cheap measures to increase the size of that population

I'd like to know where I've demonstrated this absolute falsehood about my personal character. What's a "cheap measure"? And how and why would someone so concerned with the economic plight of the working class in general, let alone that of Mexico, be so bent on increasing their numbers? Explain to me where I alluded such.

Jolly NortonDC. Do you have anything to lend to the discussion or do you prefer to flame me?

It's perfect. MidasMulligan is off taking notes somewhere.

Therefore I'd better zip it? There could be a thousand right wing dictophones taking notes right now. None of that changes the situation a whit. Other than that the distractions and noise they make must be tempered. How is that done?

Travel down a bit more and I think you will discover that Mexican border towns are exactly the WRONG places to use as your models for what life in Mexico is like....

He did holmes.

have a nice trip to cabo san carlos some day, and after you've docked the boat and sat in a shaded bar for a few hours take a trip down a sidestreet on the way home to your villa on the beach. there you'll find all the desperation you need.

I can also vouch for Guadalajara, estado de Yucatan and Acapulco where I have a few friends. Good thing this thread is in English. Thanks for the heads up Norty.

:::Must better learn to hide my pro business bias:::
posted by crasspastor at 12:37 AM on May 12, 2002

One impact that this migrant economy has is that the dollars earned in the US are sent home as remittances. Typically a family builds themselves a house with this money. Rather than investing remaining capital in starting a small business, the return on your time is far better to go back up north and temp in the US again. Hence the Mexican economy gets some odd distortions as a result of these dollars.

Don't know if anyone else has tried living on the wages south of the border, but it becomes evident in less than a year that the only route to getting financial stability for your family is to send one person up north to work. Once you have the basics of house, and possibly a vehicle, then you can come back home and get by on a job that basically pays grocery money. Can't tell you statistics, but I've spoken to plenty of Latin Americans who've come back home after working in the US. If you can get enough capital to get set up with the basics, life down there can be a lot better than it is in the States. If you're one of the people who ends up in the servant class, working for the folks who earn dollars, it's miserable.

" ... if you have to be sneaky, dishonest, and criminal to accomplish a thing, then you are violating serious ethical boundaries."

Sometimes life puts individuals into difficult positions where ethics become a luxury. This is one of the reasons I believe in putting together a strong social safety net, making work pay, and making it possible for people to get by by doing the right thing.

We're really being sneaky and dishonest by refusing to deal honestly and openly with immigration status. The fact that so many people are on false ID certainly came back to bite us on 9-11.
posted by sheauga at 12:38 AM on May 12, 2002

If we start building campgrounds for the Mexicans, wouldn't we also have to provide Haitians and Cubans with Boston Whalers and handheld GPS?

After all, fair is fair.
posted by groundhog at 5:58 AM on May 12, 2002

As much as I'd like to see this case thrown out, the families do have a case: historically the border guards have left water in other areas, according to the article. They chose not to at these other locations and were told of possible consequences. But if you look at previous types of cases of this nature, establishing a prior history of action is pretty damning, even if such actions were not law or not officially sanctioned.

But as I said, I hope the families lose in this case, as sad as their situation is.
posted by Qubit at 7:27 AM on May 12, 2002

crasspastor - Are you then calling me a hypocrite NortonDC? And on what grounds?

Step 1) Go fishing for the personal attack I have so far neglected to deliver.

Don't tell me I'm clothing my argument in shit.
How really, do you dare, to define the impetus in my forthright statements?

Step 2) Attempt to shut down your opponent and keep him/her from participating in the discussion.

(FYI: this is a good start, but you've left a lot of room in your use elevated speech. Why not go all the way and throw in "sir" a few times, maybe a "deign" or two. The world never tires of Usenet argument styles, does it?)

I've never noticed before, as I've never really had a go around with you, but arguing with you is much like trying to stir up a fight with old Dr. Sbaitso.

Step 3) Reveal the motive (wait, is that like defining an impetus?) behind including Step 1: It would look pretty bad if you started slinging personal insults and I stuck to discusing your comments instead of you.

My argument's right there plain as day.

Yes, your core is position is easily determined: the US government should be required to place water in the dessert for the use of illegal immigrants.

Unless you think I've misrepresented your stance on the core question, I'm not sure why you included the above sentence.

>>then you argue for cheap measures to increase the size of that population
>
>I'd like to know where I've demonstrated this absolute falsehood about my personal character.

First of all, for that to be a falsehood, you would have to say that putting water in the desert for the use of illegal immigrants during their illegal immigration would be ineffective. If the water stations were effective, then the result would be more successful illegal immigration, which would "increase the size of that population."

Second, what you quote there contains no judgement of your character, so I can't address your demand.

What's a "cheap measure"?
That refers to water stations.

And how and why would someone so concerned with the economic plight of the working class in general, let alone that of Mexico, be so bent on increasing their numbers? Explain to me where I alluded such.

That's the point: I don't know that you're the least bit concerned about them. I don't know your motives, and have never claimed to in regard to your stance on water stations. That is at the core of my original observation: "your statements on the immediate question are indistinguishable from those of a person seeking to maximize their ability exploit the labor of illegal aliens." That statement does not speak to your motivations. It points out that the water stations you argue for would make exploitation of illegal immigrants easier and more prevalent regardless of the motivations behind those arguments.

As I've disscussed above, I do not know your true motivations. My opinion is that it is more likely you're being honest than dishonest. If that opinion is accurate, then it follows that you should be concerned that your stance on the immediate question is, as I originally pointed out, "indistinguishable from [that] of a person seeking to maximize their ability exploit the labor of illegal aliens."

If I'm wrong and you are being dishonest about your motivations (meaning you are hoping to increase opportunities to exploit illegal immigrants), then my comments serve to show how an arguement for increased opportunities to exploit an underclass can be couched in terms of altruistic compassion.

But why should any of that stop you from trying to shut down my participation in discussion? Clearly I have nothing to contribute.

do you prefer to flame me?

I'd have to start to find out. It is possible that if you keep baiting me we could find out.

>>It's perfect. MidasMulligan is off taking notes somewhere.
>
>Therefore I'd better zip it?

Step 4) Put words in your opponent's mouth in the same discusion in which you accuse him of employing strawmen. Neato.

But, addressing the question anyway, I'd prefer that you think about and comment upon what it means that your position on this makes it easier for people whose values you don't seem to share to exploit the people you say you wish to protect.

Good thing this thread is in English. Thanks for the heads up Norty.

Step 4a) Misattribute comments to me, while denigrating my language abilities.
posted by NortonDC at 7:57 AM on May 12, 2002

I wish I could believe, perhaps as you do rushmc, that laws are fair and uniformly enforced and justice will always prevail.

LOL Go to my profile and pick 2 or 3 of my posts to read at random. I think you will quickly see that your statement doesn't even come close to representing my beliefs. What I DO believe is that laws SHOULD be fair and uniformly enforced and that justice SHOULD always prevail. That's quite a different thing.

It's the hypocrisy of the U.S. government on this matter that continually appalls me.

And me. But beyond that, it is ALL hypocrisy that appalls me, including that on the part of the do-gooders who are blind to the effects and implications of their aiding foreign nationals in their efforts to break U.S. laws and "get around the system," rather than working to address the problems in the current system.
posted by rushmc at 8:12 AM on May 12, 2002

Sometimes life puts individuals into difficult positions where ethics become a luxury.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

We're really being sneaky and dishonest by refusing to deal honestly and openly with immigration status.

I agree with this. But it applies equally to the government and to those seeking to circumvent it.
posted by rushmc at 8:15 AM on May 12, 2002

rushmc: your last two posts place us in complete agreement. Thanks for a civil discussion that did not degrade into ad hominem attacks.

I agree with you that ethics is never a luxury. (But I would point out that laws themselves can be unethical in which case civil disobedience becomes the ethical course - thats a topic for another thread)

This thread reminds me of those old situation puzzles. A man dies in the desert. How did he get there? Why did he leave his family behind? There's a larger tale here and more than enough sneakiness and dishonesty to pass around.

*opens door, leaves thread*
posted by vacapinta at 11:31 AM on May 12, 2002

"Sometimes life puts individuals into difficult positions where ethics become a luxury."
I strongly disagree with this statement.

Purely for the purpose of providing a counterexample: I would not under most circusmtances consider it ethical to kosh someone over the back of the head and relieve him of his wallet, but I will damned well do so if it's a choice between that and, say, my baby starving to death. Relativism? Perhaps. Machiavellian? Potentially. But nonetheless, the stone truth as far as I'm concerned.

To be fair, that's not much of a counterexample, but I did want to point out that while "ethics as luxury" isn't necessarily the right term, there are perfectly legitimate and justifiable reasons to engage in otherwise unethical behavior.
posted by majick at 11:42 AM on May 12, 2002

there are perfectly legitimate and justifiable reasons to engage in otherwise unethical behavior.

The key is in the "otherwise." When you change conditions, you change the criteria for judging ethics.
posted by rushmc at 4:50 PM on May 12, 2002

Wow. Willing to sue already? They'll make great Americans!

Things you should also sue the Government for:

• Not removing mountains, thereby allowing people to have climbing accidents.
• Building bridges, thereby allowing people to commit suicide from them.
• Not astroturfing deserts, forests, jungles, and any other place with unpredicable surfaces.
• Not fencing off beaches, thereby allowing people to drown.
• Not banning all modes of transport other than walking, thereby allowing people to be in traffic accidents.
• Not banning walking, thereby allowing people to trip and hurt themselves...

posted by Neale at 7:44 PM on May 12, 2002