Undocumented

June 10, 2006 5:11 AM

Princeton Salutatorian - Undocumented Immigrant. Dan-el Padilla Peralta, Princeton '06, has achieved many academic honors. He is also in the US illegally. He has now spoken out. "[A] former roommate of mine wrote that illegal immigrants constitute a drain on American resources and a threat to the jobs of native American workers; that they are intentional law-breakers who should not receive considerate treatment from the government; and that existing laws concerning illegal immigrants should be rigidly and more consistently enforced, even if this results in behavior that could be characterized as inhumane. I was taken aback by his words, but they provided me with the impetus to speak out and emphasize the inhumanity of such a perspective as well as the misinformation it is based upon."
posted by caddis (70 comments total)

wow, I hope the guy gets his situation sorted. Or alternatively, marries an American.
posted by ruelle at 5:39 AM on June 10, 2006

Dan-el? Is he from Krypton?
posted by delmoi at 6:21 AM on June 10, 2006

Nice speech. Bright guy. But: how did he pay for private schools in NY? Used this and that facility--all on the taxpayer's tax bucks. So though many of us our sympathetic to the hopes, dreams, aspirations of illegals (not undocumented: illegals) this very large number of illegals constitutes a drain on the American economy. And yes: they do jobs others will not take. Why? Because farm work, for example, exempt from minimum wage law. And they are willing to work for much less of a salary without benefits and this encourages businesses and private parties to hire them to save money much as manufacturing seeks cheaper workers overseas--again, at the expense of American workers. And please don't believe the myth that retrain ing and new job opportunities take care of those laid off...the facts do not bear this out.

My son is going to pay a hell of a lot to go to a good college; we can afford it becasue my wife and I worked hard all our lives and the colleges tell us no financial money for us because we can afford it; but if we could not pay the bill, we would get lots of help at some other famiy's expense. Socialism at its best but not the capitalism the schools business will teach my kid.
posted by Postroad at 6:24 AM on June 10, 2006

But: how did he pay for private schools in NY?

Postroad: can you explain to me how private school education costs taxpayers money?

Anyway, the tax issue is completely ridiculous. In America, public school is provided for all, for free. Most of the parents there are paying less in taxes then the cost of educating their children. In fact, the cost of educating poor children far exceeds their parents' ability to pay. Why should it be different for poor Americans and undocumented immigrants? (there is no technical reason to use one term over the other, calling them 'illegal' is only used to make them sound worse).

My son is going to pay a hell of a lot to go to a good college

That's only because you have a lot of money. Those "good schools" don't charge tuition to poor students, because they can afford not to. Harvard doesn't charge any tuition to students who's parents make less then $40k/year, or so.

If you think that's unfair take it up with their boards of directors, whiner.
posted by delmoi at 6:33 AM on June 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I saw when reading this that some would immediately latch onto his being supported through welfare, through taxpayer funds. And to that I say: how much did your humanity cost for you to trade it so easily? This man's life cost you a few dollars, maybe, but in exchange we recieved this scholar and thinker. Humanity and America is better off with your parsimony thwarted, with your spiteful selfishness denied and with our laws broken.
Not all immigrants will be like this man, though many of them have the potential to be. If we are a great nation, as I believe we are, is not our duty to greatness over greed? Is not this man's life worth your dollar, Postroad?
You talk about your child being able to go to a good school because of your work. Peralta went to good schools because of much more his hard work than anyone elses. You have striven to give your child every advantage, no doubt. How is that nobler than this man's striving for himself? His breaks laws, but laws are not the measure of morality, and when a law impedes the common good, it is good to break it.
If you have a care for America, the Peraltas should be encouraged, not scourged. If you have a mind for the good, you should celebrate him, not excoriate. To blather and blame here makes you an enemy to man, and a friend only to yourself.
posted by klangklangston at 6:45 AM on June 10, 2006 [3 favorites]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--- The New Colossus

Have those last few lines been scratched out yet? After 103 years you'd think the Government would be keen to cancel the open invitation ...
posted by kaemaril at 6:47 AM on June 10, 2006

But: how did he pay for private schools in NY? Used this and that facility--all on the taxpayer's tax bucks.

The education of a Princeton salutatorian is a use of my tax money that I am perfectly happy with.
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:47 AM on June 10, 2006

An astounding story. Thanks, caddis.

That said, it's far from clear to me that there's a clear-cut Lesson to Learn from this story. Should exceptionally talented illegal immigrants be allowed to leap to the head of the line? Does that include, or come at the expense of, illegal immigrants who are really good at, say, painting, or delivering the mail, or welding?

Now, I'd like to see immigration law brought into closer conformity with reality (5% or whatever of the country being illegal hardly seems like sensible policy) and morality (what good thing do we do for humanity or America by booting out an otherwise law-abiding 25-yr-old because his parents brought him into the country illegally 20 years ago). I guess I hope this story brings more people to those conclusions.

Poastroad, your worry about paying for your kid's college seems to have led you to overlook the concept of worthwhile investment, the fact that illegals pay some taxes while they're here, and the fact that private schools are not public.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:53 AM on June 10, 2006

How much is enough though? When 500m live in the USA? 1bn? Can the door really be held open so easily?
posted by A189Nut at 6:54 AM on June 10, 2006

The education of a Princeton salutatorian is a use of my tax money that I am perfectly happy with.

Amen to that. I have refrained from coming to many conclusions about this issue, but I think a very general, necessary set of principles is often tossed aside by all sides of the immigration debate. Those principles are those which this country was founded upon; the dignity of man, the equality of all, and the right of each and every one to pursue happiness. Immigration is a touchy issue for some justified, and some not so justified reasons. But in the end, I think legislation should support legal immigration, and provide a means and a motive for potential immigrants to join the American society and better it.

What upsets me is when people complain about illegal immigrants that are willing to do the necessary work in life that they themselves don't want to do.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 6:58 AM on June 10, 2006

How much is enough though? When 500m live in the USA? 1bn? Can the door really be held open so easily?

Sure it can, if you care about people and not just Americans. Because that's what it boils down to. You want a nice, cozy life for people lucky enough to be born within the borders of a certain country, and everyone who happens to have been born on the other side of an arbitrary border can fuck off.

And that's humane?

Fuck nation states. Why do we set capital free to roam the world as it wishes, but chain living, "free" human beings within borders?
posted by Jimbob at 7:19 AM on June 10, 2006

A189Nut: I think 500,000,000 would be enough.

Seriously though, enough what? Productive, happy citizens?
posted by jaronson at 7:21 AM on June 10, 2006

At a certain point isn't it just breaking the law because it suits the person breaking it? Justified however well it may be, it is still the law, it is not an unjust law and he broke it for his comfort and convenience.

Yeah, I was speeding officer. But I was speeding because I have a really important job interview that could set me up for the rest of my life. So you see what I did wasn't wrong, it is your law that is wrong. You should be glad I was speeding because when I get that job, my taxes will pay your salary so you can write even more tickets for people who were speeding for less important reasons.

Deport him and make him wait ten years.
posted by 517 at 7:28 AM on June 10, 2006

Speeding may endanger other's lives. How, exactly, did his illegal immigration harm us?
If, again, you see people as people and not as parts of nation states, it is an unjust law.
(C'mon, free market capitalists, labor should be able to flow unimpeded!)
posted by klangklangston at 7:31 AM on June 10, 2006

Change for the better has always been brought about by those brave enough and willing to challenge such "law".
posted by Raoul.Duke at 7:32 AM on June 10, 2006

It was an analogy klang. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

He broke a reasonable law for his convenience.
posted by 517 at 7:35 AM on June 10, 2006

> The education of a Princeton salutatorian is a use of my tax money that I am
> perfectly happy with.

No doubt. Be it noted that a fellow like this is probably a threat to some citizen's job, just as that citizen thinks he is. (Assuming our hero follows da money and finds a way to stay in the US, which I expect some rich+influential Princeton alum will now arrange, rather than taking his brilliance and education back to the D.R. where he's really really needed.)
posted by jfuller at 7:37 AM on June 10, 2006

"He broke a reasonable law for his convenience."

Try not to beg the question regarding reasonable.

"Be it noted that a fellow like this is probably a threat to some citizen's job, just as that citizen thinks he is. "

C'mon, conservative, who's entitled to a job? (Though I agree that he is more needed in the DR).
posted by klangklangston at 8:17 AM on June 10, 2006

517, this guy really didn't - I'm not going to argue with (or agree with) your point in general, but this guy was brought to the US country as a minor - all he's done since turning 18 is stay in the country he grew up in. But of course, it's not about this one guy.

Really, I think this is just one more issue that we (meaning the two sides that disagree) will never be able to agree on, since there is a fundamental difference of opinion that is essentially a matter of belief: Are Americans worth more than people who are not Americans? If yes, we need strict immigration enforcement. If not, we should do what's best for people in general (which may or may not be strict laws - I don't know). Substitute "Americans" if we're talking about any other country's immigration issue.

Good luck ever changing anyone's answer to the emphasized question. I know mine isn't changing.
posted by pinespree at 8:20 AM on June 10, 2006

The unemployed person who bicycles down the street is using the road facilities without paying taxes. This offends me. Much more than the employed, tax-paying illegal immigrant who deigns to be out in public.

/snark

Anyway, if this guy is a student at Princeton, doesn't that qualify him for a student visa, thus ensuring that he would not be an illegal immigrant, but rather a legal resident alien here for educational purposes?
posted by deanc at 8:28 AM on June 10, 2006

deanc, you have to apply for a student visa in the country you're coming from. At least, that's my understanding. He'd have to go back to the DP and apply. And, if he's denied, he would not be allowed to re-enter.
posted by dobbs at 8:41 AM on June 10, 2006

Another relevant issue missed is the fact that this student's visa status is a matter between him and the federal government. It is not necessarily a concern of Princeton University. Princeton is, for all intents and purposes, a business. It's not Wal-Mart's job to check the visa status of its shoppers before letting them into the store. Why should we expect different out of Princeton?
posted by deanc at 8:50 AM on June 10, 2006

It was an analogy klang. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

But it was a good analogy, because speeding is as serious a violation of the law as illegal immigration.

It's a violation of the law, but a very minor one. In fact, under current law, no illegal from Mexico are deported unless they commit felonies, which would also cause a legal immigrant to be deported if they're not yet a citizen.

It's important to point that out, illegal immigration legally is not a crime, it's a civil infraction, like speeding or getting a parking ticket. Laws people break for their convenience all the time.
posted by delmoi at 8:54 AM on June 10, 2006

Nice speech. Bright guy. But: how did he pay for private schools in NY?

He had a benefactor. I forget the name at the moment, but there was one. He did not use tax dollars to attend private school in New York.

I can't say I'm in favor of relaxation or lack of enforcement of immigration laws, but if anyone deserves amnesty, it's this guy.

Should exceptionally talented illegal immigrants be allowed to leap to the head of the line? Does that include, or come at the expense of, illegal immigrants who are really good at, say, painting, or delivering the mail, or welding?

Yes. Most countries give preference to prospective immigrants based on their skills, as far as I know.
posted by oaf at 8:58 AM on June 10, 2006

Oh, the name of the benefactor is right there in the article. Cowen.
posted by oaf at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2006

wow, I hope the guy gets his situation sorted. Or alternatively, marries an American.

From the WSJ: "David Loevner, who chairs the selection committee for the Oxford scholarship, says Mr. Padilla has received several "unsolicited proposals from well-meaning classmates." Mr. Padilla says he has declined them all."

The education of a Princeton salutatorian is a use of my tax money that I am perfectly happy with.

No federal money was harmed during the making of this prodigy.

taking his brilliance and education back to the D.R. where he's really really needed.

They need classicists in the DR? Cool, I know some people looking for jobs. This guy's way too smart to give back, though. I'd trade twenty high-school dropouts and fifteen middling mythologists for him.

Fuck nation states. Why do we set capital free to roam the world as it wishes, but chain living, "free" human beings within borders?

Exactly.

Deport him and make him wait ten years.

Fuck you. Good, now we've both expressed our opinions.

Here's a fact to back mine up: CIS (the new INS) has a specific law for cases like Padilla's. "Regulations allow the immigration agency to accept a non-timely change of status application under certain circumstances." These exceptions include "a clause for 'extraordinary circumstances.' [Padilla's lawyer noted] that Mr. Padilla was abandoned by his father, his mother was ill and the family was homeless, [which goes a long way] to justify why [then four year-old] Mr. Padilla didn't file an application for status adjustment in a timely fashion -- 17 years ago."
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:11 AM on June 10, 2006

Can the door really be held open so easily?



Same song, different era (and target group).
posted by ryoshu at 9:14 AM on June 10, 2006

The central assertion is that there is a group of people who are a net drain to society, consuming more in services than they, as a group, contribute. The scalpel by which this group would be excised from society as a whole is their status as an illegal resident. It is a very simple scalpel, and it would cut out many people who are contributing much more to society than average. Nevertheless, it is a politically parsimonious scalpel, since the group it cuts out is already identified as "criminal" to some extent.

A much more accurate though politically impossible scalpel might be income taxes. Treat taxes like dues for membership in the club of US society. We could identify people failing to make a positive contribution to society by the amount of tax they paid, averaged across the number of dependents they claim. If it is less than a certain threshold, their membership is revoked and they are invited to go join some other club (and live somewhere else). Simple, effective relief from an infestation of leeches, regardless of birthplace. It would also allow tax-paying "illegals" to continue being happy, productive citizens here. Heck, we could even bestow citizenship after they successfully pay their dues for a few years. But I suspect even the least politically astute among us would envision a problem or two with implementing such a policy.
posted by gregor-e at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2006

But: how did he pay for private schools in NY?

The Collegiate School (which he attended) has an endowment of $55.6 million and provides $2.7 million in financial aid annually. It "offers a generous financial aid program for students in every grade....no applicant should assume that a Collegiate education is out of reach for financial reasons."
posted by ericb at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2006

Ericb— But that financial aid could have gone to someone who looked like me! It's not fair!
posted by klangklangston at 10:22 AM on June 10, 2006

gregor-e: That's an interesting idea, here's another.

It seems to me that most people who oppose illegal immigration do so because Mexicans just annoy them in one way or another. Sure, they all claim they're not racist, but let's be realistic. The complaints about any Mexican can be made just as easily about any Poor American.

But why not just ban people base don their measurable annoyance level. The government can set up a toll free number where Americans can complain about one another. Anyone who gets 100 complaints in a 12 month period gets booted out of the country. (of course, complaints would need to be based on face to face interaction, so people can't start internet banishment campaigns)
posted by delmoi at 10:27 AM on June 10, 2006

"What upsets me is when people complain about illegal immigrants that are willing to do the necessary work in life that they themselves don't want to do."


There are no jobs Americans will not do. There are no fields of employment that have a majority illegal workforce. The crux of the issue is that employers often don't want to pay wages that will attract legal citizens to do the dirty work. If you support the exploitation of cheap, illegal labor and the suppression of wages for the working class that's fine but spare us the bullshit.

"They need classicists in the DR? Cool, I know some people looking for jobs. This guy's way too smart to give back, though. I'd trade twenty high-school dropouts and fifteen middling mythologists for him."

We need classicists in the US? I wasn't aware there was a shortage.
posted by MikeMc at 11:04 AM on June 10, 2006

This was a great read and story. I appreciate his perspective and it is educational to be reminded that not all illegals are a burden on the system. Some can be superstars and that used to be the strength of our nation. Taking in all and providing an opportunity to thrive and succeed.

delmoi, the funny thing is that many of those "annoying Mexicans" aren't. I was talking with the guy who built my fence, a guy who looks just like a Mexican and he had lots of choice expletives for the demonstrations, especially the displaying of other nation's flags.

But, on the other hand, a large scale version of Survivor would be an interesting social experiment, say 500 people instead of 16? I doubt it would scale well to 300 million though, the idea of "Complaint Syndicates" comes to mind.
posted by fenriq at 11:04 AM on June 10, 2006

What, no mention of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (and former member, SCOTUS judge Sam Alito)?

It's a nice story. The kid is obviously bright. But I hope he realizes that Princeton is using him for PR. Which is fine, because that goes with the territory--community colleges do it with their success stories too, on a smaller scale. He'll be laughing all the way to the bank, it might just be a few years until he gets his documents sorted out.

At least we can all agree this would never happen at Dartmouth.
posted by bardic at 11:36 AM on June 10, 2006

"...Fuck you. Good, now we've both expressed our opinions...

Sweet.
posted by 517 at 11:38 AM on June 10, 2006

It seems to me that most people who oppose illegal immigration do so because Mexicans just annoy them in one way or another.

It also might be that some of us have immigration to another country in our future, and are annoyed about others breaking the rules when we plan to follow them (and spend about $2000 in the process, from what I understand).
posted by oaf at 11:44 AM on June 10, 2006

If you feel you can break them without significant penalty (both legal and cultural), I encourage you to do so. If you don't feel like you can violate the law because of a percieved risk, I don't see why you'd begrudge those who do. You don't try to deport lottery winners, do you?
posted by klangklangston at 11:51 AM on June 10, 2006

The crux of the issue is that employers often don't want to pay wages that will attract legal citizens to do the dirty work.
And therein lies the reason the whole illegal immigration issue in the US will never, ever be dealt with in anything other than a knee-jerk, appease-the-angry-constituents-with-troops-and-sound-bites manner.
No politician who wishes to be re-elected in this country is ever going to suggest (much less legislate) employers raise wages in order to attract "legal" residents. The nations south of the border are a vast employment-pool for low-wage employers and no-one in Washington is going to do anything to seriously change that.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:55 AM on June 10, 2006

Thorzdad gets it.

Immigration is yet another easy divide-n-conquer issue for both the Reps and Dems, probably a bit easier for the former though, although it was funny to see Bush fumble, expecting the base to back him up on a "middle way" when in fact many, many of them really would like to see mass deportations.

From a free-market standpoint, illegal immigration is the perfect antidote to those pesky government regulations like minimum wage, health care, payroll taxes, and workplace safety. I wish the actual working/lower class in America would wake up and realize that the free marketeer ideology warriors of the Republican party really don't give a fuck about them--it's not contempt even, they just don't care. If you're enough of a sucker, as an owner of business of any size, not to take advantage of the many benefits of illegal labor, you're also a sucker to the philosophical sons of Milton Friedman.

The analogy to drugs can't be overstated--you'll never cut off the supply (heroin, illegals) as long as there's demand, in this case on the part of our "heroes of industry," mostly in the form of well-to-do contractors and restaurant owners who can increase their own profits through cutting corners. These are exactly the same people that Bush (and Clinton before him) like to line up for photo-ops up on stage whenever they give a talk on improving the American economy.

The Republicans are too afraid of their "free market always good" constituency to change the structual issues, the Democrats are afraid of being branded "socialists" for standing up for the basic legal rights of American workers (as in, written in the law, not suggestions). This issue will never go away, and the moral thing to do, at the very least, is not to further shit and spit upon the illegals who are coming here for very American reasons like working hard and improving their lives.
posted by bardic at 12:08 PM on June 10, 2006

We need classicists in the US? I wasn't aware there was a shortage.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:14 PM on June 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you support the exploitation of cheap illegal labor and the suppression of wages for the working class...

If the reason that it's bad is because it's illegal, you have a bit of a chicken-egg problem (i.e., if it were a legal exploitation of poor people, it wouldn't be any better). If, on the other hand, the legality of it is irrelevant (as is the case) you would do well to leave that part out, since it dillutes your point.

How much is enough though? When 500m live in the USA? 1bn?

As Malthus explained, animals will keep coming to the watering hole as long as there's enough resouces to be had. You don't need to set an arbitrary limit on the incoming population, since a massive influx of desperate people would create an employer's bonanza of cheap labor, thus eventually decreasing the likelihood of someone entering the country to find work to such an extent that they'd stop coming.

Note: this is if you believe there's no positive net effect of having so many new people, ideas, talents and skills entering the country (a zero-sum system). Which I don't.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:20 PM on June 10, 2006

Bardic, why do you mention Dartmouth? I'm just curious as I grew up there and know quite a few alums that would certainly rally a good cause such as this.
posted by fenriq at 12:22 PM on June 10, 2006

As to anotherpanacea's link, that proves nothing, since there will inevitably be scores of applicants for those positions. Ask anyone who's stuck looking for work in academia.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:25 PM on June 10, 2006

Dartmouth is often thought of as the most conservative of the Ivies. Anecdotally, editors of conservative weeklies at Princeton end up editing conservative monthlies in DC.
posted by bardic at 12:27 PM on June 10, 2006

(This piece on Reagan apologist and conservative mouth-piece on Dartmouth alum Dinesh D'souza is unintentionally hilarious.)
posted by bardic at 12:29 PM on June 10, 2006

Interesting, thanks for the info and link, bardic. I'd grown up assuming all Ivy League students were something like idiot savants or something (sorry for the term if anyone's offended), bright as whips in the classroom and nearly retarded out in the real world.

But they used to have good parties!
posted by fenriq at 1:09 PM on June 10, 2006

FWIW, I have a good friend who graduated from Dartmouth and he doesn't fit any stereotype regarding the school or Ivies in general, beyond the fact that his parents are wealthy.

Did you ever see JD Salinger at the bookstore?
posted by bardic at 1:11 PM on June 10, 2006

There are no jobs Americans will not do.

A Job Americans Won't Do, Even at $34 an Hour.
posted by lilnemo at 1:38 PM on June 10, 2006

$34 an hour is a lot. But not so much when the average home cost is $701k. (Or, it would take about 10 years at that wage to afford a home, if the home was your only expense).
posted by klangklangston at 2:41 PM on June 10, 2006

I've never met a person who paid cash for their house. Banks would be very upset if that ever became the norm.
posted by bardic at 2:45 PM on June 10, 2006

$34/hour to work for a landscaper? I smell a little bit of bullshit in those flower beds. She says she'd pay up to that much, but I truly doubt it. Maybe she'd pay that much for a foreman or crew manager. Maybe. But $34/hour for the general labor you see carting shrubs and mulch around the yard (and that's the implication in the story)...no way.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:56 PM on June 10, 2006

Thorzad: If you read the article, you'll see she (as a government contractor) is required by law to pay $34 for regular employees and $14 for trainees, and can't have more trainees then regular employees.
posted by delmoi at 3:09 PM on June 10, 2006

The catch is that to get her $34.24 an hour, you have to live in Southern California.

There are some things that just aren't worth it. This is one of them.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:22 PM on June 10, 2006

"If the reason that it's bad is because it's illegal, you have a bit of a chicken-egg problem (i.e., if it were a legal exploitation of poor people, it wouldn't be any better). If, on the other hand, the legality of it is irrelevant (as is the case) you would do well to leave that part out, since it dillutes your point."


The legal status of workers is relevant as it allows employers to dodge many wage, tax, health and safety regulations. Wages are only a part of the total cost of employing someone and being able to hire people that aren't in a position to complain about getting screwed is an attractive option for many businesses. The biggest obstacles to immigration reforms are the construction trade groups, the agribusiness trade groups and the restaurant/hospitality trade groups. Why? Because meaningful reform would threaten their endless supply of cheap labor that keeps their costs down and profits up.
posted by MikeMc at 3:56 PM on June 10, 2006

"A Job Americans Won't Do, Even at $34 an Hour."

From the article:

"...the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit research organization, estimated that a quarter of the landscape workers were undocumented."


That seems to indicate that 75% of landscape workers are citizens or legal residents, so how is it that only illegals will do these types of jobs?
posted by MikeMc at 4:03 PM on June 10, 2006

bardic: if you are driving across country, wave at Portland. You will have met someone who paid cash for her house. It can be done.
posted by Cranberry at 4:39 PM on June 10, 2006

Civil_Disobedient: As Malthus explained, animals will keep coming to the watering hole as long as there's enough resouces to be had. You don't need to set an arbitrary limit on the incoming population, since a massive influx of desperate people would create an employer's bonanza of cheap labor, thus eventually decreasing the likelihood of someone entering the country to find work to such an extent that they'd stop coming.

Note: this is if you believe there's no positive net effect of having so many new people, ideas, talents and skills entering the country (a zero-sum system). Which I don't.

Well, letting economics set the limit works fine as long as you don't mind the consequences it has on your economy. If you do allow the system to level out as you suggest, what you end up with is wage levelling across the planet, with third world wages being the result (they outnumber us by far, so they will set the levelling point.) You'd end up with a country with severe poverty for anyone who does not do a job a third worlder cannot. The poverty will not be as bad as the worst off third worlders have now, but it will be much closer to that level than the current poverty level here.

This is also not to mention the non-economic consequences: severe overpopulation, ecological destruction, sprawl, mass ghettos, and an increase in crime rates (due to poverty if nothing else). Since a good, stable ecology and undeveloped natural areas are essential for our well being, I believe anything that causes our population to grow is severely detrimental to our well being. So I'm against mass immigration on that basis as well (as well as uncontrolled breeding both here and elsewhere.)
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:04 PM on June 10, 2006

Undocumented workers are good for the economy. Seriously. But surely they're bad for high school dropouts(pdf)? Nope. Well, maybe a little bit. But it's our own fault: we should legalize them so they can pay taxes.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 PM on June 10, 2006

Keepin' out the furriners is one of those issues that's magnetically attractive to that portion of every nation's population that I like to laughingly call "dimwitted jackwads".

Just today, some dude I've never heard of decided to add me to his list of recipients for a

>>>>formatted
>>like
>>>this

version of a slightly famous piece of poetry that exemplifies the worldview. Hateful and bigoted and racist and all that, of course, but also factually wrong, since it's a rare country that lets someone walk across the border without papers and sign on for welfare the next day. But the dimwitted jackwad audience is happy to assume that this is in fact the core of the problem. Plus, of course, them all jabberin' away in that lankwidge of their'n that decent folk cain't unnerstan.

I didn't bother pointing my random-forward dude to any information about this, not least because the subject line for the forward-mail was "So true!!!". I just told him to go away. But there are millions like him, and they vote (especially here in immigrant-lovin' Australia, where voting's compulsory, though not very solidly enforced), and the people they vote for are, by definition, cynical demagogues who're just after power so they can do whatever the heck it is that they really want to do, which is not likely to closely resemble the wishes of any voter, wise or dumb.

So, once again, it becomes clear that it really is a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.

Hm. Why do so many of my comments here end on this "and that's why we should line up our leaders and shoot 'em" sort of note?
posted by dansdata at 8:54 PM on June 10, 2006

People who live and work in the country illegally -do- pay taxes. If they're working with fake ID, they pay payroll taxes, including FICA. The FICA they pay is particularly important to note, becuase unlike people working under their own SSNs, no portion of the money they pay into the social security system will ever come back to them. Even if they're being paid under the table, (a practice on which illegal immigrants do not have a monopoly) they still pay sales tax, various excise taxes, etc.

What is this miraculous contribution that we, the officially recognized citizens of the U.S., are making? The one that makes us net economic positives and the undocumented folks net economic negatives? I really need to know, because I think I'm about 33 years behind on mine.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 9:41 PM on June 10, 2006

Why is everyone talking as if this boy - and he is a brilliant young man, but he is still a very young man - took it upon himself to break the law? He was a child -- a tiny child at that. He was a little kid. He was suposed to file immigration papers, at an age when most children are stilll learning to draw the alphabet? How ridiculous can this get?

This point was made above, but not strongly enough. This boy has done nothing. It's not even like he committed a crime as a minor -- he didn't chose to come to the US, he was taken there. He had something done TO him. If a child is used a a drug mule, do they go to prison? Yes, he has had opportunities he would not otherwise have had; so does the child of a drug kingpin who has more money because of that illegal activity. Do you throw the child in jail?

The only thing he has done as an adult is to not be caught for 4 years. He did reveal his status to Princeton, he did not lie about his status to any one.

The argument about illegal immigrants is a fraught one - but has nothing to do with this case.

Every country should just give amnesty to all illegal immigrants who were made illegal immigrants by the actions of their parents. They had no choice, they cannot be held responsible.
posted by jb at 2:53 AM on June 11, 2006

"A Job Americans Won't Do, Even at $34 an Hour."

That's the headline. But the article says that all of her workers are either American citizens or landed immigrants, they are just not white. 75% of people working in landscapping are American.

So being Latino = Not American, according to the LA times.

As for the job, I would apply for it, but only if it were weekends and evenings (I have a job that pays less, but I really like it). But I'm actually not American.
posted by jb at 3:08 AM on June 11, 2006

I'm in favor of the guy staying in the U.S. and applying for citizenship or residency just like everyone else who is here illegally.

But I don't believe the U.S. immigration law should be applied differently to him, just because he's an academically accomplished guy and has been offered an Oxford scholarship. Whether or not we agree with U.S. immigration laws is beside the point; the fact is that, if he or anyone else in his situation leaves the U.S., he will not be allowed to return for ten years.

He is asking for special treatment because he is the Princeton salutatorian. For him to be granted special treatment on this basis would be undemocratic.
posted by jayder at 2:25 PM on June 11, 2006

So though many of us our sympathetic to the hopes, dreams, aspirations of illegals (not undocumented: illegals) this very large number of illegals constitutes a drain on the American economy. And yes: they do jobs others will not take. Why? Because farm work, for example, exempt from minimum wage law. And they are willing to work for much less of a salary without benefits and this encourages businesses and private parties to hire them to save money much as manufacturing seeks cheaper workers overseas--again, at the expense of American workers.

It seems to me that you've got this backward.

The illegals are not leeching off the American taxpayer.

The American taxpayer is leeching off the illegals.

You say it yourself: these people do low-paying shitwork without benefit of health and safety standards.

Your personal standard of living is higher, because you rely on immigrants to work the farms, sew your shirts, build your houses. You can not afford to live like you do and pay well and ensure health and safety all at the same time.

So the occasional illegal manages to get himself a good education on your one millionth percent contribution to the American taxbase. Wow. Cost you a whopping thirty-ninth of a penny to subsidize José while at the same time benefiting by the near-slave labour of hundreds of his illegal compatriots.

America has a problem with illegal immigration, to be sure. But surely the problem is not with people like Dan-el Padilla Peralta!
posted by five fresh fish at 2:33 PM on June 11, 2006

Frank Rich: How Hispanics became the 'new gays.'

Dollars and Dreams: Immigrants as Prey.
posted by ericb at 3:10 PM on June 11, 2006

I am working with detained immigrants awaiting deportation in DC and Virginia jails this summer. This guy will probably regularize... but then again he might end up in a detention facility for a couple of years fighting his case as do hundreds of people across the country. It is unlikely the ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) will follow through with him to avoid exposing their rather unjust practices -- although I think that would be a great idea just so that the American public could maybe follow how crude and horribly badly managed the deportation process actually is.


For those who are unsympathetic towards the young Princeton grad, place yourself in the shoes of a young boy who came to the US when he was 4 and a half years old, who is the son of parents who don't master the English language, who grew up without his father present, and had enough character to graduate from one of the nation's leading schools.

Lastly, for those of you who have your panties in a wad about your tax money, think about this: with a huge (and unending) supply of illegal immigrants, and more and more enforcement, there is a high demand for detention facilities. Contractors (some of the same that are in Iraq and beloved to our Vice Prez) are making quite a bit of cash off of this business. Meanwhile families are being shattered and lives destroyed.
posted by pwedza at 11:06 PM on June 11, 2006

Besides, without immigrants and poor people, who will fight in our army?
posted by klangklangston at 6:56 AM on June 12, 2006

If he is so smart, let him become an officer in the Army and earn his green card.

My Fathers parents had to fit under a quota, but just because these asses are from the same hemisphere they get a free pass?


It's not about us hating mexicans. It's about how many of you seem to hate Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Australians.
posted by Megafly at 3:30 PM on June 12, 2006

The only "free" passes the US gives is to Canadians. Not quite free, but damn cheap. I paid $6 for a student visa while UK citizens pay much more and Indian citizens pay over 100. Discrimination on where you're from is standard in international travel/visas.

As for this boy - he's suposed to join the army because his parents made it so he couldn't just apply? He's done nothing wrong.
posted by jb at 3:41 AM on June 13, 2006

Also, the Australians and Europeans have nothing to complain about -- they already have visa waivers and are treated much better and charged a lot less when it comes to visas. Interviews may be waived, etc. (That's where the costs add up).
posted by jb at 3:43 AM on June 13, 2006