Saved By Jesus!

November 23, 2007 6:56 PM

Saved By Jesus!Incrediable story out of the Arizona desert. I just feel really bad for the kid in all this. And wonder how both sides of the immigration debate will handle this.
posted by ShawnString (80 comments total)

The anti-immigration people will just ignore it.
posted by delmoi at 7:00 PM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

*ding*
posted by empath at 7:04 PM on November 23, 2007

The anti-immigration people are more creative than that. "If only there was an automated high tech security fence of cameras, help would have arrived seconds after the crash. We have those pansy ass liberals to thank for her tragic death."
posted by stavrogin at 7:07 PM on November 23, 2007

Why in the world would the Border Patrol agents ask Mr. Cordova about his immigration status? Couldn't they just act as if he was out for a walk?
posted by rdr at 7:08 PM on November 23, 2007

This is a great story, but as far as immigration goes, it doesn't change anything. Illegal immigrants are just like people at the supermarket that cut in line. Nobody likes people who cut in line.

Many illegal immigrants pay money to smugglers that could very well go toward a green card application. Lots of people wait to immigrate legally, why should the line jumpers get special treatment?
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:12 PM on November 23, 2007

Why in the world would the Border Patrol agents ask Mr. Cordova about his immigration status? Couldn't they just act as if he was out for a walk?

Because the area probably sees a good number of illegals trying to cross and it would be a logical concern. It may have just been a case of being asked by the authorities to produce ID, for all we know. And why should they "act as if he were out for a walk" and ignore their duty?
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:14 PM on November 23, 2007

Crazy story. Poor kid.
posted by GuyZero at 7:17 PM on November 23, 2007

cmgonzalez, you're right. Illegal immigration is exactly that simple. Jeez, guys, stop bein' so antsy.

Keep those empty-headed talking points coming as quickly as you can cut and paste them from LGF, y'hear?
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 7:19 PM on November 23, 2007

Yeah, just another example of how the world isn't actually split across a black and white good/evil descended-from-immigrants/currently-an-(illegal)-immigrant dichotomy. Sadly anyone nuts enough to be a hardcore anti-immigration crusader will just ignore this or employ a stavroginian line of self-affirming rationalization when confronted with it.
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 7:23 PM on November 23, 2007

cmgonzalez, you're right. Illegal immigration is exactly that simple.

Did I say it was simple? No. So stop putting words in my mouth.

But people coming in illegally is a big slap to the face of those who wait years to come here and spend a lot of hard-earned money to do so. My friend's family waited ten years after applying before they got their green cards.
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:28 PM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

....why should the line jumpers get special treatment?

I take it you mean SPECIAL treatment?

Illegal immigrants are just like people at the supermarket that cut in line. Nobody likes people who cut in line

Perhaps people who cut in line at supermarkets should stay in detention camps indefinitely as well. After all, the similarities between the two groups is mind bogglingly close.

Perhaps they don't deserve special treatment, but perhaps their basic human rights can be respected. Or do they lose those too?
posted by mattoxic at 7:39 PM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Jesus believer saved! Unfortunately you (or someone like you) weren't there. Isn't that interesting?
posted by Mblue at 7:40 PM on November 23, 2007

I don't think it's a terribly strong argument for illegal immigration supporters that illegals are good because they can help out the arrant car-crash victim in the middle of a hellish desert.

That being said, illegal immigrants are a big part of my community and an even bigger part of my livelihood, so the more the better. Right up until you get in a car accident with one. Then you're just fucked.
posted by puke & cry at 7:41 PM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

But people coming in illegally is a big slap to the face of those who wait years to come here and spend a lot of hard-earned money to do so. My friend's family waited ten years after applying before they got their green cards.

You'll need a better reason than "we had a hard time, so everyone else should too." There's nothing inherently good or "right" about inconvenience and suffering.
posted by PsychoKick at 7:42 PM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't think anyone is an illegal immigration advocate. Personally, I'm in favor of just treating everyone with decency and basic human dignaty. I'm surprised this has become such a controversial position.
posted by empath at 7:44 PM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

dignity, dignaty, whatever.
posted by empath at 7:44 PM on November 23, 2007

I expect that this random anecdote will change everybody's mind on both sides of the immigration debate. Everyone in favor will become against, and vice versa, with fervor equal to that with which they held their previous position.

And I will become a very rich man. Why? Because I own stock in several bumper sticker companies.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 7:46 PM on November 23, 2007 [6 favorites has favorites]

Did I say it was simple? No. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, sorry. I await your FPP about the complex problem of people who cut in line at the supermarket. That issue is just like illegal immigration, you know. You said so yourself.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 7:48 PM on November 23, 2007

I don't think anyone is an illegal immigration advocate.

Well I don't know about where you live but around here there are definitely illegal immigration advocates. They do everything they can to prevent illegals from being caught and deported. You can call it pro-dignity or whatever you want, but a spades a spade.
posted by puke & cry at 7:52 PM on November 23, 2007

You'll need a better reason than "we had a hard time, so everyone else should too." There's nothing inherently good or "right" about inconvenience and suffering.

Also putting words in my mouth. You misunderstand my position completely.

It's all about fairness. If I pay my fee and wait, I don't want someone else to get in for free (relatively speaking) and jump ahead in the line too. That's a double insult to those willing to do things according to proper procedure.

If I were moving to, say, France, I'd have to fill out the paperwork, pay some fees, and follow their laws. Why should moving to the US be any different?

No one, especially me, said anything about a loss of human rights, dignity, or what have you. They should be treated well, but they are still criminals.

I love how people here are jumping on me and accusing me of bigotry when I'm far from anything like that.
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:53 PM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

i had a brief heartwarming twinge when i read the story, but reading some of these comments put it out like pissing on a candle.
posted by bruce at 7:54 PM on November 23, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

That issue is just like illegal immigration, you know. You said so yourself.

No, actually I didn't. Or are you unable to discern the fact that it was a simple comparison but not an act of declaring the two equivalent?
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:55 PM on November 23, 2007

Did you waver? Left-mid-right and back? Towlie?
posted by Mblue at 8:01 PM on November 23, 2007

Does this mean if Osama gives a poor man some money to go buy food we should stop being so darned hard on them terrorist fellows?

Oh wait, it's not that simple is it?!?

I can never figure out why liberals like to think issues are always supremely complicated. There's nothing complicated about it. I want Mexicans to immigrate here legally, you don't give a darn how they get in, as long as it makes you look benevolent.

Calling people like me "anti-immigration" is a misnomer. I have zero problem with immigration. My problem is with breaking the law, which you folks obviously have no problem with, since it's helping them get a better life. It's really no different than stealing bread to feed my family, you just don't see it that way.
posted by Autarky at 8:02 PM on November 23, 2007

It's really no different than stealing bread to feed my family, you just don't see it that way.

Wow. U-turn.
Double U-turn.
Right turn after U-turn.

I'm going to rest at the speed trap to think.
posted by Mblue at 8:13 PM on November 23, 2007

It's really no different than stealing bread to feed my family, you just don't see it that way.

No, you're blinded by a closed mind, a lack of cultural understanding and awareness, total denial about how the US economy functions and operates, and a multitude of other things if you believe that illegal immigrants are stealing bread from your family. Illegal immigrants are letting you put bread on the table for your family. And until some basic underpinnings of the US economical juggernaut changes, that is how it's always going to be.
posted by Stynxno at 8:19 PM on November 23, 2007

cmgonzalez:
It's all about fairness. If I pay my fee and wait, I don't want someone else to get in for free (relatively speaking) and jump ahead in the line too. That's a double insult to those willing to do things according to proper procedure.

Immigration policies are not based on some nebulous idea such as "fairness", they are based on deriving economic and social benefit from the influx of immigrants.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:19 PM on November 23, 2007

*reads the preceding by Autarky, throws up in his mouth a little*

What parallel universe am I in that comparing Osama to an illegal immigrant considered reasonable? Especially when the only specific illegal immigrant under discussion is one who selflessly waited in the desert with a nine year old boy whose mother had just fatally crashed their van, gave the his jacket and built a fire for warmth?

But yeah, why do "liberals" insist on complicating things? It's so much easier if you just believe to what you're told! Recognizing the limits of one's own knowledge of what's good, having a healthy skepticism about and critical eye towards America's immigration policy, those things make everything so complicated. Gosh!

**Autarky, if your post was satire, I apologize in advance.
***If it wasn't, I feel really sorry for you.
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 8:20 PM on November 23, 2007

Man, sometimes I wonder if the immigration debate can't be broken up into two sections in the mind of the public:

1) The issue of dignified treatment for illegals who are caught, regardless of their time in the US, be it one week or ten years.

2) The issue of immigration laws, its process, and efficiency.

Because I really believe that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated so insensitively as has been going on lately. Some people just have to survive.

But I also agree that the laws should be enforced.

This thread, however, shows that people have difficulty separating the two issues. There is nothing complicated about the second question. A law is a law, and it will take law making (and perhaps abolishing) to change the way immigration is handled in the US.

The first issue is complicated because people so often tie the second issue to the debate. You become a criminal when you break the law. The US is very bad at affording basic human dignity to criminals.

Anyways, Jesus Manuel Cordova seemed to have basic human dignity even at risk of eventually being found a criminal. It'd be nice if he's afforded the same, despite his legal status.
posted by Mister Cheese at 8:20 PM on November 23, 2007

Illegal immigrants are letting you put bread on the table for your family.

What he said.
posted by puke & cry at 8:20 PM on November 23, 2007

*gave the his jacket = "gave the boy his jacket"
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 8:21 PM on November 23, 2007

When the systems allowing legal entry to the country are hopelessly broken but the demand remains, does it surprise anyone, pro or anti immigration, that illegal border crossing continues?
posted by rollbiz at 8:22 PM on November 23, 2007

It's really no different than stealing bread to feed my family, you just don't see it that way.

So, not so much anti-immigration as pro-starvation.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:24 PM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Immigration policies are not based on some nebulous idea such as "fairness", they are based on deriving economic and social benefit from the influx of immigrants.

Sure, but I didn't say immigration policies were based upon fairness, did I?

I said that if I pay a fee for something (a service, for example) and take my place in line, it is an insult if someone else not only gets in for free, but skips everyone else while doing so.

Take that at face value. Why is this so difficult for many of you to understand?
posted by cmgonzalez at 8:39 PM on November 23, 2007

No, you're blinded by a closed mind, a lack of cultural understanding and awareness, total denial about how the US economy functions and operates, and a multitude of other things if you believe that illegal immigrants are stealing bread from your family. Illegal immigrants are letting you put bread on the table for your family. And until some basic underpinnings of the US economical juggernaut changes, that is how it's always going to be.

I was misunderstood, sorry. What I meant was, breaking the law by coming into the country to escape harsh conditions is no different than breaking the law by stealing bread to feed your family. I didn't mean that immigrants are stealing bread from my family.

What I meant by using the Osama example was that it is a bit simple-minded to write off an entire group of people as "good" just because one member of the group is "good". That is a fallacy of composition, but people here are smart and know that.

For what it's worth, yes, the guy in the story is a nice person. He also broke the law. But apparently we're in a "the ends justify means" world. c'est la vie
posted by Autarky at 8:42 PM on November 23, 2007

Take that at face value. Why is this so difficult for many of you to understand?

Because that's a nonsensical statement in the first place.

Illegal immigrants are not getting the same things that legal immigrants are. As a legal immigrant, you get the following:
1) legal protections
2) the opportunity to participate in some form of political franchising
3) the ability to choose to become a US citizen
4) minimum wage
5) the ability to apply for certain loans and receive certain business services that illegals can't
6) the opportunity to devour more resources from the government than an illegal immigrant - just like every other US citizen.

An illegal immigrant does not have those things. If you think being able to pick strawberries and living 12 to a room is somehow equal to the anecdote immigration that you've heard, you are quite mistaken.
posted by Stynxno at 8:46 PM on November 23, 2007

Guess it is hard for me to understand, cmgonzalez, but only because I thought this thread was about the above news of Jesus Manuel Cordova saving the young boy.

Seems to me that Jesus has a big heart.
posted by LiveLurker at 8:49 PM on November 23, 2007

For what it's worth, yes, the guy in the story is a nice person. He also broke the law. But apparently we're in a "the ends justify means" world. c'est la vie

I don't think anyone in this thread said he didn't break the law. Some people may have suggested that the laws he broke aren't perfect. Is this hard to understand because people who say stuff like that are "liberals" who make everything so "complicated" with their fancy book-learnins?
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 8:52 PM on November 23, 2007

An illegal immigrant does not have those things. If you think being able to pick strawberries and living 12 to a room is somehow equal to the anecdote immigration that you've heard, you are quite mistaken.

Heh, you can keep your assumptions about my alleged "anecdote immigration". I've known many immigrants of all types, ages, origins, classes, and living situations (including reasons for leaving their countries). This is NYC, we have many immigrants from all walks of life.

No, illegal immigrants don't get the same things as legal immigrants. I've never claimed they did. However, the emphasis here is on following the proper procedure if someone wants to immigrate. Just as I would if I were permanently moving to another country.
posted by cmgonzalez at 9:10 PM on November 23, 2007

He also broke the law.

It makes me a little sad when I see people talking about "Well, he broke the law," "But that's illegal," or "There ought to be a law," like the law is morality or if all laws were perfectly enforced we'd have a better country, especially when no one in this country isn't a criminal.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:11 PM on November 23, 2007

Are you saying we should have an argument over whether it's okay to break laws that one deems are stupid? I'm game for that, but it would seem that it would greatly increase the difficulty of arguing your side.

What if the majority of people suddenly decide that child molestation is acceptable? That's not comparing illegal immigration to child molestation, I'm just trying to make a point. If people want us to open up a spot for every Mexican who wants one to hop accross the border and live with us, then they should go through the legal channels. I have no problem with immigrants, and I think we should greatly decrease the effort it takes to legally immigrate to the US. The more the merrier.

I think the laws surrounding digital music and videos are a complete load of crap, but I refrain from downloading music illegally. It's not exactly difficult, and the vast majority of people who do it don't get caught. It comes down to how seriously you take the law, I guess.
posted by Autarky at 9:13 PM on November 23, 2007

cmgonzalez:
Sure, but I didn't say immigration policies were based upon fairness, did I?

I quote you directly, "It's all about fairness," in direct reference to what you termed "proper procedure".

I said that if I pay a fee for something (a service, for example) and take my place in line, it is an insult if someone else not only gets in for free, but skips everyone else while doing so.

Take that at face value. Why is this so difficult for many of you to understand?

Taking it at face value, you quite frankly have it all backwards. A country doesn't provide service to immigrants. Rather it is the country that uses the immigrants. The immigrants are the ones who are really offering service to the country, and the country sets and enforces its immigration policy to get the best economic and social deal it can from the immigrants.

Who the "best deal" is ultimately benefiting is what's getting everyone riled up. Who really controls the country, and by extension controls the immigration policy?
posted by PsychoKick at 9:13 PM on November 23, 2007

The only reason the van left the road was because Jesus ran in front of it.

What, you think he just happened to walk by there?

Sucker.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:17 PM on November 23, 2007

I quote you directly, "It's all about fairness," in direct reference to what you termed "proper procedure".

Yes, in that people cutting in line is rude and not fair to those who wait their turn (in any situation). It was not a comment on policy origin.

A country doesn't provide service to immigrants...[snip]

I was making a general example there, not saying that a country provides a service to immigrants.

Kindly stop reading too much into the things that I am saying.
posted by cmgonzalez at 9:18 PM on November 23, 2007

So the guy broke the law. But it isn't exactly criminal law, it's immigration law. Law which is not written in stone. Law which is stretched whenever the government finds it convenient.

So here comes Jesus, illegally crossing the border. OMG! But the guy gives up his own chance to save a little boy in the desert. OMG! The illegal immigrant has just become a hero.

Last I checked, there was a serious shortage of heroes. Immigration rules are relaxed for those sorts of people of which we have short supply. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that Jesus Manuel Cordova be welcomed in to the country.

How exactly is this not obvious? You may argue that his act wasn't all that heroic. Yea, it wasn't. But it was heroic, none the less. He saved the boy's life, at great cost to himself, when he could have stole everything he could carry from the mother's body and that van, and left the boy to die, saving himself.

Mr. Cordova, you deserve a place at the head of the line, welcome to America.
posted by Goofyy at 9:28 PM on November 23, 2007

cmgonzalez:
Kindly stop reading too much into the things that I am saying.

Forgive me then, I was giving you the benefit of doubt and erroneously thinking that you might have had something more substantial to say than yet more useless, simplistic "it's not fair, it's not fair!" whining.
posted by PsychoKick at 9:28 PM on November 23, 2007

With regard to the concept of illegal immigrants "cutting in line" or, as the anti-immigration enthusiasts here in Australia like to put it, "jumping the queue", it should be noted that there is no line.

The USA does not, as a general rule, let poor and uneducated people immigrate. At all.

Yes, there are H-2B visas, but there's no "line" for those; you can try to get one of the 66,000 or so they issue each year in the few weeks it takes for all of them to "sell out" like non-transferable concert tickets, or you can wait to try again the next year. No amount of waiting guarantees you a visa.

And if you're poor and uneducated, that's about all the "line" there is.

The situation is even worse here in Australia, though the actual number of illegal immigrants is of course much smaller (not that you'd know it, if you listened to what conservative politicians have to say on the subject).

Australia does not even maintain a diplomatic presence in many of the countries from which our "illegals" come. So the "queue" is, in our case, even more of a lie.

I believe the Government-approved procedure for a poor person in Afghanistan who wishes to seek political asylum in Australia starts out this way:

1: Walk to Thailand.
posted by dansdata at 9:39 PM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Psychokick, it seems that you are purposely being thick headed and taking things out of context with cmgonzalez in a nasty way. Do you have a point to make without constantly slamming someone else's point or parsing out fragments to skew their intended meaning?

I hardly agree with your simplistic statement: "you quite frankly have it all backwards. A country doesn't provide service to immigrants. Rather it is the country that uses the immigrants. The immigrants are the ones who are really offering service to the country, and the country sets and enforces its immigration policy to get the best economic and social deal it can from the immigrants."

That is not accurate. The country isn't setting the rules for illegal immigrants, the businesses that exploit cheap labor set the rules. The taxpayers foot the bill for many of the social services, medical care and other things not provided by the employer hiring illegals. Illegals are exploited by businesses and landlords and other profiteers who take advantage of the situation while law enforcement generally turns a blind eye to it unless it is too blatant to ignore. We the people (taxpayers) pay for it, businesses profit from it, and for illegals it is worth the risk because it is still a better quality of life than what they were coming from. It is not simple at all.
posted by 45moore45 at 9:50 PM on November 23, 2007

"You may argue that his act wasn't all that heroic. Yea, it wasn't. But it was heroic, none the less. He saved the boy's life, at great cost to himself, when he could have stole everything he could carry from the mother's body and that van, and left the boy to die, saving himself.

Mr. Cordova, you deserve a place at the head of the line, welcome to America."

For doing what's right? Am I understanding you correctly? For not stealing everything he could carry and leaving a small boy to die in the desert he should now be elevated to hero status?

Is this how little we expect of our fellow human beings any more, that the simplest act of comforting a child in need is somehow seen as some sort of Herculean act that mere mortals can only aspire to?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:52 PM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Illegal immigration is a difficult issue that has no simple solution. It is not at all like line-breaking. Any politician that builds the facilities to imprison those folks has my support!

(Seriously, it is like, so Basically Evil, isn't it? Such an obvious blunt declaration that a person thinks they're better than those around them).

When it is a line for a trivial thing, like in a supermarket, or at a bank. When you just can't wait your turn with the plebians that for some nonsense reason believe that we should be given equal treatment under a fair system. When you feel that need to show that even in things that are mindlessly unimportant, like getting out of the bank 5 minutes faster, you are a superior human being.

I swear when I see those people I earnestly test whether or not I've magically become pyrokinetic in the past half hour.

When it is a line for, say, whether your family gets to survive, then line breaking becomes less a fundamentally evil act of pride and more a forgivable act of desperation, don't you think?
posted by SomeOneElse at 9:54 PM on November 23, 2007

But people coming in illegally is a big slap to the face of those who wait years to come here and spend a lot of hard-earned money to do so.

No, it's not. I can tell you this because I spent time and money to import my bride from foreign lands. Illegal immigrants aren't a slap to my face. Illegal immigrants are primarily the consequence of a long, overwhelmingly rural border that's infeasible to completely police. That's a fact of geography, not a slap in anyone's face.

People who enter "without immigrant intent *wink*," marry, and then file for AOS chap my ass. But that's primarily because it's unwise, and it's always annoying to see people do unwise things and get away with it because that encourages more people to try it and get bitten on the ass.

I said that if I pay a fee for something (a service, for example) and take my place in line, it is an insult if someone else not only gets in for free, but skips everyone else while doing so.

You've handily demonstrated that you know fuck-all about US immigration law, because what you're describing is already pretty well built into US immigration law.

If your brother files the paperwork and pays the very substantial fees, you might stand in line for 10 years or more waiting for a visa.

But if I think I might want to marry your cousin, she immediately jumps ahead of your brother and the fees, while still nonzero, are reduced. Even before we get hitched.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:58 PM on November 23, 2007

Oh look, more baseless assumptions about what I do and do not know. Once again, I was speaking generally.

Sure, there are exceptions to the general wait policy. One friend's family waited ten years, and another's family were political refugees whose process was greatly sped up on that account. Marriage and dependent rules vary the structure as well. I know far more than "fuck all" about immigration policy, thank you. I am friends with or know many immigrants and children of immigrants. I even helped one file some of his paperwork.

But tell me what I don't know again.
posted by cmgonzalez at 10:22 PM on November 23, 2007

45moore45:
Psychokick, it seems that you are purposely being thick headed and taking things out of context with cmgonzalez in a nasty way. Do you have a point to make without constantly slamming someone else's point or parsing out fragments to skew their intended meaning?

My point was that it's not an issue of fairness, and that framing it as such is ultimately useless if one wishes to change or exploit the situation. It's an issue of economic and social gain for whoever's in control of immigration policy and enforcement, in the most Machiavellian sense possible.

That is not accurate. The country isn't setting the rules for illegal immigrants, the businesses that exploit cheap labor set the rules. The taxpayers foot the bill for many of the social services, medical care and other things not provided by the employer hiring illegals.

The distinctions between taxpaying citizens, government, and business isn't that clear. Taxpayers can still exert some significant control over the country, but only if they are already part of either business or government. Compounding matters further is that business and government have become so intertwined that for all practical purposes, said businesses are the country.

Illegals are exploited by businesses and landlords and other profiteers who take advantage of the situation while law enforcement generally turns a blind eye to it unless it is too blatant to ignore.

Don't forget that illegals are easy to control, because they can be arrested them at any time. An easily threatened and controlled workforce is a huge social benefit for any large businesses and government.

We the people (taxpayers) pay for it, businesses profit from it, and for illegals it is worth the risk because it is still a better quality of life than what they were coming from.

Businesses profit from it, but it also has an extra perk for big businesses: protected markets via indirect government control over small businesses.

Small businesses eventually have to hire cheap illegal labor to remain competitive. This opens them up to legal liabilities and pressure from law enforcement that big businesses can easily shrug off. In much the same way that illegal aliens are easy to control due to their illegal status, small businesses also become easier to control due to their reliance on illegal aliens coupled with their inability to sway government to the degree that big businesses can.

It is not simple at all.

Of course not. That doesn't change the result, though. Cheap, easily controlled menial labor. Easily controlled small businesses, leading to de-facto government protection for big businesses and their established markets. All this, in exchange for paying illegal immigrants pittance wages and leaving them to shoddy public services.

The service that illegal immigrants offer makes for a pretty good deal for the country in general. Just not for any taxpaying citizen who doesn't want in on the dirty deal.
posted by PsychoKick at 11:15 PM on November 23, 2007

I've been surrounded by illegal immigrants for most of my life.

No, I don't mean I live in a house with them, or that I can go through an area and tell you who is illegal and who isn't. I've lived on the south side of Tucson for nearly 30 years. I'm white, but growing up in a heavily Mexican area, you'll be around them a lot. Even if you don't know which ones they are.

Given where I grew up, it follows naturally that most of my friends were Mexicans. (Call them Hispanic, or Latino, or Chicano - they all referred to themselves as Mexicans.) And most of them were born here, as were their parents and grandparents - up until 1848, Tucson was part of Mexico. But you would occasionally be told of a family member that was here without papers. I grew up not seeing these people as evil. I still don't. I grew up seeing them as human beings, not as criminals.

As Cordova showed, in the midst of everything else, he's still human. The rabid anti-immigration crowd out here (and elsewhere, but the noise level about it here is deafening) insist that these people be treated like dogs. No rights. Lock 'em up. Put them in tent city jails in the desert. Or even shoot 'em on sight. Build a fence. Kill anyone that tries to cross. They scream about how these people are nothing but criminals. They point to any murder or crime committed by an illegal immigrant as a sign that they are out of control, never mind the far higher number of crimes and killings committed by US citizens. They'll tell you that anyone who is here illegally is nothing but a criminal. They don't give a damn about their humanity.

But it's just not that simple. How many people, faced with trying to live on $30 a week, would go through the lengthy and expensive process to come to the US legally when they can jump the fence and make that $30 in a few hours? They've been encouraged to come here for decades, both by an employment system that lets them through with a wink and a nod, and by their own government. They are a big cog in the US economy. And this cog is made up of human beings who look at their situation and soon figure out that skirting the rules is the best way to provide for themselves and their families.

The hate has really been ratcheted up over the past few years, much of it because of the right trying to score political points with the latest hot-button issue. There is a deep-seated racism running as an undercurrent to the wave of hate. Not everyone who opposes illegal immigration is racist. But for many, this has become an opportunity for them to let their racism become vindicated. I've heard too many times that "they're destroying our culture" or that "they aren't assimilating," or similar things like that. (These were also said of the immigrants of the early 20th century. Racism is never a new thing.) On the other end, you have the open-border advocates. The clash of the two sides, coupled with the middle of the road crowd, ensures that we're never going to solve this problem. You can't keep them all out, and you can't keep them all from getting jobs. Nor can you just indiscriminately let everyone in. There's no political will to bridge the divide.

Meanwhile, the chase on the ground is still on. And people like Cordova are caught in the middle, between a country that wants him to go and a country that wants him to work in the shadows. He's only human.
posted by azpenguin at 11:16 PM on November 23, 2007 [7 favorites has favorites]

empath: Personally, I'm in favor of just treating everyone with decency and basic human dignity.

That actually comes as no surprise. :)

Goofyy: Mr. Cordova, you deserve a place at the head of the line, welcome to America."

mr_crash_davis: For doing what's right? Am I understanding you correctly? For not stealing everything he could carry and leaving a small boy to die in the desert he should now be elevated to hero status?

Is this how little we expect of our fellow human beings any more, that the simplest act of comforting a child in need is somehow seen as some sort of Herculean act that mere mortals can only aspire to?

Um... no, the praise is because he could have simply not done anything. Lots of people would just do nothing, and yes that's sad but true. What's critical is that he didn't just stop and help the boy, he gave critical help, spent the night. And he did this, the whole time knowing that when authority figures arrived his shot at getting to America would be gone. Had he just kept walking, he might have happily spent the next decade in America.

That is, by definition, selfless, and that's in short supply these days. Doing good when it costs nothing should be expected, m_c_d; but doing good at great personal cost to yourself is immensely laudable, and reflects the kind of person that would probably make for a good fellow citizen of these floundering United States.
posted by hincandenza at 11:29 PM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

this is such a sad story that I hope Brian De Palma doesn't make a movie.
posted by parmanparman at 11:48 PM on November 23, 2007

I don't care what side of the law or debate you're on, because I think we can all support a new provision in immigration law that would give men like this automatic citizenship. If you do something this selfless, this heroic, and for fuck's sake this important, you deserve it. Society owes you for making it a better place.

Any system that would take this man toss him off like so much garbage isn't a very fair one, is it?
posted by saysthis at 2:01 AM on November 24, 2007

Mike Huckabee's surprisingly sane interview on illegal immigration:

The issue that we've got to deal with is that, if you have a federal government that never deals with a secure border and then fails to do anything about dealing with people when they get employed and they can get employed with false documents, the question is, why don't you secure the border, end the sanctuary cities and amnesty, which I would do? But I wouldn't punish the children who didn't commit a crime. You don't do that in this country. We have a long history of -- we penalize law-breakers. We don't penalize their children for something they can't help.

If a child is gasping for air, asthmatic, and he's on the hospital steps, what do the other candidates suggest we do, let him sit there and gasp until he doesn't have any air left and he dies? If a child comes to our school -- and our law, by the way, in most of our states, mine certainly says you've got to educate a child if he's of child age -- what do you, break your own law and say, "No, you can't come in the schoolhouse door"?

No, you don't do that. What you do is you elect a president who will fix the problem where it needs to be fixed: at the border. But if your government at the federal government is so incompetent that it fails to secure the border, you don't then grind your heel into the face of a 6-year-old child over it. That's not what this country does. We're a better country than that.

Now, if that causes people to say, 'Well, I'm not going to vote for him,' fine. There are plenty of candidates out there who I guess would grind their heel in the face of a 6-year-old child. Not me.
posted by EarBucket at 4:07 AM on November 24, 2007

If it weren't for restrictive U.S. immigration laws, Cordova probably wouldn't have been out in the desert in the first place. So in a sense we have U.S. immigration policy to thank for helping this boy out.
posted by grouse at 6:04 AM on November 24, 2007

Economically speaking, if illegal immigration is a problem, it is an exceptionally small one. One so small that economists have trouble determining whether they are a positive or a negative on the economy as a whole. The only agreement is that the number, either way, is small.

It is inarguable that we are all far more deeply impacted by foreign policy (particularly expensive military actions), health care, tax policy and government regulations than we are by immigration rules.

Immigration is the new gay marriage. It's a way to get votes from people who hate spics.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 7:48 AM on November 24, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

The pro-immigration position that takes border crossings for granted is the most hypocritical, which explains the holier-than-thou emotional arguments. They don't have an argument because they are denying an emotional insecurity, not rationally defending a job insecurity. Notice they aren't really arguing for an orderly process to mass immigration, because that would consciously require them to admit to letting in huge amounts of other foreigners, any number of them which would take their job. This would spoil their denial. They like the idea of people illegally sneaking across to get in, because it doesn't require the self-awareness to anything more about it, while it validates the American-myth they use to cope with. This myth is a big part of their defense mechanism as an insecure American who can't even afford to strike for better wages, or quit a job to survive a disease.

Farfetched? Then let's see their hiring proposals in print if they think they have it all figured out. Right now they prefer to psychologically project racism onto their labor-issue opponents, who apparently won't agree to expand a labor fantasy into a job free for all. The self-righteousness elitism of supply-side immigration proponents doesn't ever see immigrants as labor equals at all--they see them as migrant fruit pickers who don't settle their families in local schools. It's all part of the same plantation mentality that gave us the fence, which refuses to plan and enforce a fair job site or demand benefits documentation.
posted by Brian B. at 8:04 AM on November 24, 2007

Notice they aren't really arguing for an orderly process to mass immigration,

I'm all for legal mass immigration. I would vote for a candidate with any moderately sane plan that would let pretty much anyone into this country as long as they weren't wanted by authorities in their homeland. Until that day, though, I'm going to look the other way at illegal border crossing. Why? Because fuck you, you fat spoiled pricks. You Ron Paul-loving freeway overpass-bannering cocksuckers think that because you were born here, that you're special, that you deserve citizenship. Look, I appreciate all the hard work you do at the IT desk and upselling me service plans at Best Buy, but the guy who walked across the fucking desert in the middle of summer so he could come be a line cook at IHOP sacrificed more and risked more than you could ever imagine. And if you manage to make that journey without being informed on by some hysterical shrill mom to the dropout thugs and Ordnungspolizei at the INS, fuck it: automatic citizenship. There's no fucking reason to have this sick fucking game of Running Man instead of just changing our laws to reflect the reality of the social and economic ties that bind Mexico and the U.S.

because that would consciously require them to admit to letting in huge amounts of other foreigners, any number of them which would take their job.

Are you fucking mental? If some guy who probably has no education, speaks English as a second language, and has no experience in my field is going to "take my job" I must be pretty fucking bad at it. And if that's the case, so be it. I love how Americans - yourself included - are so into free enterprise and competition until - horrors! - they have to deal with those consequences. Let them compete for my job, or your job, or any American's job. Why should we be guaranteed work just because we were born here?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:28 AM on November 24, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

azpenguin: As Cordova showed, in the midst of everything else, he's still human. The rabid anti-immigration crowd out here (and elsewhere, but the noise level about it here is deafening) insist that these people be treated like dogs. No rights. Lock 'em up. Put them in tent city jails in the desert. Or even shoot 'em on sight. Build a fence. Kill anyone that tries to cross.

One of these things is not like the others, but perhaps you'd like to demonize it so everyone thinks that it is.

I find it very difficult to imagine how building a fence is a human rights violation. It's not like the Berlin wall, that was an atrocity because it locked people in. Forcing people to stay in and forcing people to stay out are fundamentally different. You have the right to control entry into your own country.

Whether it is a good idea is an argument for another day, of course. But it's certainly not on the same level as shooting immigrants on sight.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:36 AM on November 24, 2007

Im a legal immigrant, but coming from Europe and having a degree has made becoming a citizen easy for me. At the same time I'm aware of the difficulties in obtaining a visa if you are Mexican and your education level is low. The emotion I fell for illegals is compassion: it has become difficult, if not impossible, for them to live in Mexico above starvation levels.

Since NAFTA, big corporations such as DelMonte and Green Giant have encouraged landowners to produce broccoli, strawberries, and tomatoes, instead of the beans and corn they used to grow, for the North America market. This gives us cheap strawberries, broccoli, and tomatoes but expensive corn and beans, making feeding their families so much harder.

I am generally law abiding, but I am also striving to live as a Micah 6 follower:
"What does the Lord requires of You? To do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with your God".
I wish there was a way for them to feed their family without breaking the law.
posted by francesca too at 9:52 AM on November 24, 2007

Are you fucking mental? If some guy who probably has no education, speaks English as a second language, and has no experience in my field is going to "take my job" I must be pretty fucking bad at it. And if that's the case, so be it. I love how Americans - yourself included - are so into free enterprise and competition until - horrors! - they have to deal with those consequences. Let them compete for my job, or your job, or any American's job. Why should we be guaranteed work just because we were born here?

Projecting incompetence and ignorance on the rest of the world to bolster their open-border position is the biggest denial in their argument. It was always a living wage and benefits struggle anyway, not just a job. We aren't guaranteed work because we were born here, which is the point. We have no guarantees for healthcare yet. Weirldy, proponents of illegal immigration sell the poverty of the job in their arguments for, and people think they are sincere. And Ron Paul is a libertarian, the party that proposes the open borders. If immigrants must leave their own society for reasons related to poor education and overpopulation, then jumping borders is not a solution, but a displacement of their low expectations. And it was never our problem to deserve, so the self-righteous indignation of people like the poster above is hypocritical, and not even real. It reveals a bitterness at the status quo to suggest that America should be third world. I don't deserve to live in a third world because I don't agree with it, and it's not my heritage or legacy.
posted by Brian B. at 10:43 AM on November 24, 2007

I find it very difficult to imagine how building a fence is a human rights violation. It's not like the Berlin wall, that was an atrocity because it locked people in. Forcing people to stay in and forcing people to stay out are fundamentally different. You have the right to control entry into your own country.

It's a demand argument. As long as a job awaits them, there is no argument for a fence. Let anyone come and go as they please, even for seasonal and temporary migrant work or expensive education, but permanent jobs and benefits must be documented. How the debate ignores this solution is the real reason why Karl Rove promised amnesty four years ago and created a flood.
posted by Brian B. at 10:51 AM on November 24, 2007

I'm all for legal mass immigration. I would vote for a candidate with any moderately sane plan that would let pretty much anyone into this country as long as they weren't wanted by authorities in their homeland. Until that day, though, I'm going to look the other way at illegal border crossing. Why? Because fuck you, you fat spoiled pricks.

The pro-immigration argument in a nutshell.
posted by Brian B. at 11:01 AM on November 24, 2007

the self-righteous indignation of people like the poster above is hypocritical, and not even real. It reveals a bitterness at the status quo to suggest that America should be third world.

I was not trying to be self-righteous or preachy in expressing my beliefs. I know many non-christians and non-believers that are compassionate and caring, and I know a few christians with very stony hearts.
I also do not feel indignation, self-righteous or not, toward the treatment of the illegal aliens: we do not act much different than most european countries dealing with their illegal aliens. Actually, I think that there is a lot more kindness and tolerance in this country, especially in real life situations.
I do feel that we have so much and that giving them a helping hand is simple kindness and is not going to push us into becoming a third world country.
posted by francesca too at 11:17 AM on November 24, 2007

Not you francesca, the person I was quoting.
posted by Brian B. at 11:24 AM on November 24, 2007

Mitrovarr: One of these things is not like the others, but perhaps you'd like to demonize it so everyone thinks that it is.

I find it very difficult to imagine how building a fence is a human rights violation. It's not like the Berlin wall, that was an atrocity because it locked people in. Forcing people to stay in and forcing people to stay out are fundamentally different. You have the right to control entry into your own country.

Whether it is a good idea is an argument for another day, of course. But it's certainly not on the same level as shooting immigrants on sight.

While I'm not a fan of the idea of a huge fence (for a lot of reasons), it probably got lost in context there. I should have added an "and" instead of starting a new paragraph. I was going with the rapid fire, short soundbite thing there. "Build a fence and shoot anyone who tries to cross it" is something you hear a lot out here.
posted by azpenguin at 11:34 AM on November 24, 2007

Farfetched? Then let's see their hiring proposals in print if they think they have it all figured out.

here's mine - annex mexico, if they're willing

this isn't a problem, it's an opportunity
posted by pyramid termite at 12:28 PM on November 24, 2007

And Ron Paul is a libertarian, the party that proposes the open borders.
posted by Brian B. at 10:43 AM on November 24

Look at how stupid you are.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:47 PM on November 24, 2007

A critique of the libertarian proposal for open borders.
posted by Brian B. at 2:17 PM on November 24, 2007

The official libertarian position on immigration: (bold added)

IV.1 Immigration

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

posted by Brian B. at 2:35 PM on November 24, 2007

The New Colossus:

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!"

posted by kirkaracha at 3:28 PM on November 24, 2007

I don't think anyone is an illegal immigration advocate.

Seriously. Why would anyone be in favour of large corporations being able to relocate on a whim, or open up shop somewhere just to funnel resources halfway across the world, displacing people locally in the process?

What?

They didn't legalize that, did they?
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:39 PM on November 24, 2007

A critique of the libertarian proposal for open borders.
posted by Brian B. at 2:17 PM on November 24

Jesus Christ, do you not understand that Ron Paul is a Republican member of the House? So your little sideline on the Ron Paul bit is meaningless, and, may I add, insane. And stop posting eighteen comments in a row. Hint: you can write multiple things in one comment. Take a fucking breath.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:54 AM on November 25, 2007

Jesus Christ, do you not understand that Ron Paul is a Republican member of the House? So your little sideline on the Ron Paul bit is meaningless, and, may I add, insane. And stop posting eighteen comments in a row. Hint: you can write multiple things in one comment. Take a fucking breath.

You brought him up in relation to my leanings. Your position is libertarian concerning borders, almost word for word. Most self-identified libertarians vote Republican (60-70%). Ron Paul's wikipedia page declares him to be a libertarian, and he's run as a libertarian candidate many times, forming the direction the party has taken. Also, why should anyone take your advice?

You wrote:
I'm all for legal mass immigration. I would vote for a candidate with any moderately sane plan that would let pretty much anyone into this country as long as they weren't wanted by authorities in their homeland. Until that day, though, I'm going to look the other way at illegal border crossing. Why? Because fuck you, you fat spoiled pricks.

Personally, I would prefer to let those in who are wanted by the authorities in their homeland for thought crimes.
posted by Brian B. at 9:13 AM on November 25, 2007

Jesus believer saved! Unfortunately you (or someone like you) weren't there. Isn't that interesting?

Um. Did you read the article? It didn't say that they kid was a "Jesus believer," but did say that the name of the guy who rescued him as Jesus Manuel Cordova.

'Twas a clever turn of phrase, though, for the FPP title wasn't it?
posted by ericb at 9:27 AM on November 25, 2007

*the kid* *him was*
posted by ericb at 9:28 AM on November 25, 2007