Comments on: Comments on 18696

Post number 18696

Fat Buddha — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:44:02 -0800

Economic migrants trying to cross into the U.S from Mexico are being driven to risk ever more hazardous routes. Bizarrely, the clampdown on illegal border crossing has led to an Indian (Asian) hanging himself in a Guatemalan jail. Where was that border again?

By: Bag Man

Bag Man — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:02:24 -0800

While other activists protested the border strategy, Hoover did something about it. Last year, a group he leads called Humane Borders began placing 60-gallon water tanks near well-traveled paths across southern Arizona. Why don't we help these people immigrate legally? Why don't we help these people understand and appreciate what their rights and options are? Why doesn't the US reform its laws so these people don't have to cross the desert? Fat Buddha do you have a more credible/less bias source for your argument?

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:12:50 -0800

The INS is to blame. Its impossible for decent, hard working citizens to legally enter this country and get a job. My cousing tried to get a job in the states, and the business she applied to wouldn't even consider her because of the legal fee they would incur sorting out her hiring.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:48:00 -0800

Where was that border again? You know exactly where the border is. The article clearly stated that both the Mexican and US governments didn't want anything to do with these migrants who were trying to illegally sneak into the US, so the Guatemalan government took them into their custody. Why don't we help these people immigrate legally? They should help themselves by having something of value to trade for the privilege to immigrate. Get a scholarship from an American university, find an employer who will sponsor you, etc. Why don't we help these people understand and appreciate what their rights and options are? To my knowledge, most of these people DO understand their rights; the problem is that the US won't accept them as immigrants. That's why they try and illegally cross the border. Why doesn't the US reform its laws so these people don't have to cross the desert? They could take a nice, paved road if they had a visa, green card, or citizenship. These people are trying to come here without proper documentation. Its impossible for decent, hard working citizens to legally enter this country and get a job. That is ludicrous. My uncle is coming here in December to work for his brother. It took two years of paperwork, but it's finally happening. My father and 8 of his buddies came here with a scholarship to a university. My cousin did the same 5 years ago. Another cousin recently applied for and received an F-1 to goto a local college in Maryland. Her husband, a distinguished surgeon, could not get an H-1, however, because this country already has far too many international doctors. THAT is a problem, IMHO. This country is starving for doctors but the INS rejected him, in part, I think, because too many foreign doctors are "taking jobs away from Americans". This country requires you to offer more than hard labor to enter its borders. You must be able to help our economy grow, but earning real money. I have always said that there are only three ways to get into this country: to be rich, to be educated, or to be rich and educated.

By: mikhail

mikhail — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:51:02 -0800

Why doesn't the US...? Why doesn't the US..? Why doesn't the US..? How about why doesn't the Mexican government help its own people and teach them what their options are? Am I supposed to be up in arms and angry at the US because some people are choosing illegal means to enter the country through hazardous terrain and are dying in the process? I'm not buying any claims these people are the victims of US oppression. Its impossible for decent, hard working citizens to legally enter this country and get a job. Impossible seems a bit of a stretch. And unless they have citizenship in the US, they are immigrants, not citizens. If they were citizens there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

By: hob

hob — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:53:43 -0800

Where was that border again? I'm confused. Should we send smallpox blankets or opium?

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:04:54 -0800

I strongly recommend the film El Norte for an insight into the human side of this tragedy.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:34:58 -0800

Its impossible for decent, hard working citizens to legally enter this country and get a job. Are you suggesting that they somehow have a right to, simply because they want to? And that because we choose to make it difficult or to install certain criteria that must be met or procedures that must be followed, that they are justified in going against our wishes for our own country and engaging in illegal behavior to sneak in? I fail to see any relevance to how decent or hardworking a person might be, with regard to their choice to break the law. (Some of) these who choose to cross the desert to breech the borders of another country may indeed by desperate, and I sympathize with their situations; however, we don't put guns and sacks in banks to facilitate the illegal activities of bank robbers, nor should we condone or aid in the illegal activities of these would-be immigrants.

By: betaray

betaray — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:55:45 -0800

Can some one explain to me what the US immigration policy is based on other than, "those dirty immigrants are out to ruin our country"?

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:48:43 -0800

You must be able to help our economy grow, but earning real money. Oh, yes, that IS the most important thing. Citizenship tied to income. Perhaps banishing certain American businessmen and/or their politician supporters when the economy sours would therefore be in order. As for me, I'll continue to support the hard-working, dirt-poor, illegal immigrant families from South America, Mexico, Southeast Asia, Russia, and elsewhere any way I can.

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:56:45 -0800

I'm confused. Should we send smallpox blankets or opium? ~chuckle~ Yeah. I'm curious about how many American families were able to get "sponsored" or got "H-1 visas" from Native Americans, myself.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:04:30 -0800

Can some one explain to me what the US immigration policy is based on other than, "those dirty immigrants are out to ruin our country"? Perhaps the common sense understanding of physical and economic realities leading one to conclude that everyone currently residing in other countries who would like to move here cannot be supported here?

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:22:53 -0800

I find it interesting that this whole thread has gone by without anyone mentioning the reality, which is that these people aren't coming to steal jobs americans will do, they're coming to fill the jobs we refuse to take, like migrant farming. In Seattle, there's a 4 block stretch of Western Ave where all the illegal mexicans hang out to find day-work (standard laborer kind of stuff). They are quite willing to let gringos stand alongside them, but none ever do. American immigrantion law is really just a way to get as close to slavery as we can get...it's all about ensuring cheap labor for our factory farms, which couldn't survive if they had to pay legal wages. Remember that, next time you eat some Californian fruits and veggies...just imagine how much more expensive that orange would be, if you'd had to pay the picker $6.50/hr, instead of getting away with only paying $1, cause they can't complain, being non-citizens and all....

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:29:23 -0800

It took two years of paperwork, but it's finally happening. To me, waiting two years to get hired is close to impossible. I guess I should have said "damn near impossible." My mistake. The fact is, we need immigrants. But we don't need immigrants, especially the non-citizen illegal kind, getting tax-payer funded benefits. The agriculture industry, for one, depends on them. Our roofers were all Mexican. I bet some were illegal, and my uncle has hired illegals many times in the past. Of course, illegal immigration is a big problem if you're embroiled in wars on two fronts: the war on drugs and the war on terror.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:29:31 -0800

here's something for you to think about: Having draconian laws and security to prevent people from entering the country illegally creates a thriving black market for people smuggling, just like our war on drugs. These people smugglers know all the routs and everything, and aside from the occasional death, most people can get through -- for a price. What's to prevent terrorists from using these established methods for getting into the US? Wouldn't having a more open immigration policy actually improve homeland security by killing these people smuggling operations

By: jaek

jaek — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:30:10 -0800

Can anyone compare US immigration policy to that of other wealthy nations (European and Asian)? I noticed that I assumed the American policy was much more open and liberal, but realize that I have no basis for that assumption. I certainly hear more reports of anti-immigrant violence from Europe, but don't know how much that means.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:03:23 -0800

nomisxid:I find it interesting that this whole thread has gone by without anyone mentioning the reality ... Oh, we've mentioned it.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:20:58 -0800

Immigration policies are not there to 'defend' existing citizens, or to safeguard jobs. That argument assumes that as a population grows, the number of jobs remains the same. That is just not true. Higher population = bigger economy = more jobs for the higher population. Immigration laws are there to keep out undesirables (quite simply, those who will not make the economy bigger or better) and to lock existing citizens into the country's economy. Why can't I emigrate to the US yet? Because I don't have $500k to drop into a local fund, a job offer, or fame. What US immigration law fails to appreciate, however, is that anyone who is not on welfare or sucking up state benefits is actually contributing to the economy, and could be let in safely. Why not have a visa class that exempts the holder from receiving state benefits of any kind? It'd be voluntary, but it'd be a way for those of us without PhDs to get into the country without having to marry some toothless woman from Iowa.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:21:08 -0800

these people aren't coming to steal jobs americans will do, they're coming to fill the jobs we refuse to take, like migrant farming. I don't care if they're coming to lap dance on llamas, if we need/want them, we should make it legal/easier for them to come and to stay. But as long as it is an illegal activity, it should not be tolerated with a nudge and a wink, much less aided and abetted.

By: betaray

betaray — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:39:00 -0800

rushmc: Thanks for educating me *rolls eyes*. Actually, I was hoping something more along the lines of the refutation of the points listed here, or here. I'm serious, every page I can find on restricting immigration is use supporting quotes like: "We heartily approve all legitimate efforts to prevent the United States from being used as the dumping ground for the known criminals and professional paupers of Europe." Um, yeah. So, again, I ask what's the basis of our immigration policy besides early 20th century anti-immigrant sentiment?

By: betaray

betaray — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:40:50 -0800

how come I can't spot erros until I read it on the page? that second line is: ... restricting immigration uses supporting ...

By: hob

hob — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:16:32 -0800

"We heartily approve all legitimate efforts to prevent the United States from being used as the dumping ground for the known criminals and professional paupers of Europe." Yeah, we need to keep those tired, poor huddled masses the hell out. They might try to breathe free, or something! And as for the "Our laws, right or wrong" horseshit, that's exactly the sort of crap that's turning this country into a dull, grey, lawyer-infested series of twisty little suburbs all alike, and I am completely sick of it. For god's sake, let's get some new blood and new ideas in here before we all pomp ourselves to death. Anybody coming over the border has got to be more interesting than the drones walking around here.

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:26:27 -0800

But as long as it is an illegal activity, it should not be tolerated with a nudge and a wink, much less aided and abetted. I disagree with this way of relating to the law. People must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. However, dumb laws ought to be disobeyed. Of course, there must be a balance, but the reasons these people can't immigrate legally are 1) because of the clowns on the right (and some on the left) who are ant-immigration influencing politics 2) the idiocy and tomfoolery of the INS. I'm not going to wait 20 years for the laws to change. Our roof needed to be replaced this week, not 1, 5, or 20 years from now. Only migrant workers, at least in my town, were doing any roofing last week in the 90 degree heat and the 90% humidity. Why should we deny them a chance to earn a living in our society? In summary: I don't really see it as disobeying, as much as ignoring the law, much the same way the state ignores the rights of its citizens.

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:30:20 -0800

anti-immigration, not ant-immigration This country requires you to offer more than hard labor to enter its borders. You must be able to help our economy grow, but earning real money. That's a stupid requirement, people who can do hard physical labor are still of great value to any economy. Don't denigrate the value of physical labor, it is how many eastern European immigrants pulled themselves out of poverty in this country, and in the process made it a better place to live.

By: web-goddess

web-goddess — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:11:34 -0800

As an American living overseas, my knowledge of immigration law is restricted to what I experienced trying to work in other countries. I will say this though: most other countries do seem to have a rule about preventing new immigrants from accessing welfare benefits. Australia's just given me my permanent residency, but I have to wait two years before I'll be eligible to collect unemployment. It's a pretty good system. If people back in the States are really worried about the "drain" on their resources that would be caused by letting more immigrants in, it seems like this would be a pretty easy way around that. You know, as someone who went through legitimate channels to get my visas and work permits, I feel some resentment towards those who abuse the system. Yeah, it helps to have a lot of money or be famous, but with most countries you just have to be patient, fill out all the forms accurately, and wait. Most Australians were immigrants themselves (or their parents were), so they tend to view the illegal ones as "queue jumpers". It's not so much that they're worried about jobs and stuff. It's more like, "Wait your damn turn." That's the impression I get, anyway.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:22:29 -0800

here's my immigration post from down below, yo :) sort of looks at it from a 'systemic' perspective, as opposed to the human or policy side of it i guess. as an aside the UN development programme recently released its 2002 development report which makes the case for linking development (the alleviation of poverty) and democracy. the economist had a good read of it, i think. such as, "a good part of the responsibility for progress lies with developing-country governments themselves, who need to use resources more efficiently and, in many cases, less corruptly. More accountable government should help ensure that." though they needn't limit it to developing country gov'ts i'd say! they also get to grind their free-trade axe, btw :) what's interesting wrt to immigration though i think is that immigration (legal or otherwise :) is a profoundly democratic process! and i think having more of it has the potential to promote democracy (and alleviate poverty) more effectively than any other single 'policy' or 'initiative' a government can muster! localized talent and brain drains notwithstanding of course :)

By: mikhail

mikhail — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:05:50 -0800

betaray, perhaps you can start with a few of these links. Federation for American Immigration Reform - Issues Federation for American Immigration Reform - Illegal Immigration Center for Immigration Studies - Costs Center for Immigration Studies - Wages and Poverty US Commission on Immigration Reform and just for the helluvit dmoz - Anti-Immigration dmoz - Pro-Immigration

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:17:38 -0800

One hardly knows where to begin. Fat Buddha: The border is where it is. A nation has an obligation to its neighbors to maintain security and prevent criminal incursions, even those as innocent as illegal immigration. (Mexico or Guatemala owe the US far more than they do some random guy from somewhere else.) insomnyuk: Bullshit. Sorry about your pal, but every year the US permits around 1 million legal immigrants; naturalizes a million more; around 600,000 persons to get green cards; and over a quarter of a million more through various programs such as asylum or refugee status, and the H-1B specialty-worker program. It's not the paperwork, dude, if 150,000 Mexicans (probably many speaking little English) can do it. It isn't INS bureaucracy, either: it's statutory limits put in place by the legally and popularly elected legislature, which somewhat surprisingly feels more sense of obligation to voters than to your overseas friend. betaray: You are so trolling, right? Look at those statistics again, and see which country is the largest source of legal, approved immigration: that's right, Mexico. In fact, our neighbor directly to the south accounts for 1 of every 6 immigrants, every year. Care to revise your statement? fold: Nice to know you're volunteering my tax money. Get the hell out of my wallet. This isn't about being rich, as I just pointed out; it's about being able to support yourself once you're here, rich or poor. jaek: US policy is, if anything, much more liberal than many other nations. In Europe, in particular, almost every nation has an immigration "problem" of one kind or another. For the UK, it's a liberal asylum/refugee policy that attracts many people who are really just economic immigrants; in others such as Germany it's refusal to grant citizenship to "guest workers", even indeed to their children. The European nations need immigration (as much as we do), but they're also entitled to control it. There's a large camp of (mainly Middle-Eastern) wannabe immigrants caught by France and interned just outside the Channel Tunnel; for years now there's been a problem with these people trying to walk, run, ride or otherwise sneak through that passage to get to Britain. This spring, they rioted. The US is not "anti-immigration", by any means. The US certainly ought to be "anti too much immigration". We can argue over how high the limit ought to be, but the majority opinion favors a cap -- and this is not an exceptional position. It's not clear what a country with completely open borders would look like, but it's almost certain that a country with open borders and an open welfare system would be very, very attractive to a huge plurality of the world's immigrants.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 03:04:53 -0800

And I can't resist pointing out a spooky parallel universe. Especially.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:30:35 -0800

What dhartung said.

By: MrMoonPie

MrMoonPie — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:35:07 -0800

What you say, dhartung? There are shades of gray in this issue? Neither extreme is reasonable? The US is neither the best, nor the worst? Sheesh. Newbie.

By: kindall

kindall — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:54:28 -0800

improve homeland security by killing these people smuggling operations Damn. You sure are harsh on people who smuggle operations!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:52:13 -0800

The black market on operations is costing the U.S. billions every year in lost tariff revenue alone, kindall!