Duplicate post voided. Have been having problems connecting and posting since last evening. Is anyone else experiencing a similar problem?
So, if one sees a problem with illegals flooding across the border and if one sees the problems that potentially creates for those states that are being flooded, one is anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant?
You all are aware, of course, of the publication put out by the Mexican government instructing their citizens on how to accomplish their goals.
"The Mexican government produces a similar book aimed at Central American immigrants who try to enter Mexico illegally. The book covers much of the same information about legal rights and repeats many of the warnings. It even shows a group of migrants struggling to breathe inside a truck.
But that book doesn't give the same kind of safety tips on crossing the border or advise immigrants on how to live peacefully in Mexico."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0101Comic01.html
Quote:Like, there's saying, they've got a right to look for happiness here too, just like the x generations of earlier immigrants that include your ancestors - if they wanna make it here, let them try. And then there's saying, like you were insinuating, that the US should somehow take care of all of them and ensure they won't lack anything.
Yes but the main difference is that most of our ancestors didn't sneak into the country under the cover of night, but rather came in the legal way and then started their new lives in the land of plenty.
U.S. Calls Entry Point in San Diego a Possible Security Risk
Fencing Sought to Reinforce the Border Faces Opposition From Environmentalists
By Kimberly Edds
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A03
SAN DIEGO -- A handful of people huddle along the busy Ensenada Highway on the Mexican side of the fence, peering through holes in the steel curtain that marks the U.S. border. They wait and watch.
In the distance, 12 miles away, is a postcard view of the city of San Diego. The Coronado Bridge stretches across blue waters, and the skyscrapers of downtown pierce the sky -- all just an opportunity and a short sprint away. On the U.S. side of the fence, a Border Patrol agent in a Jeep Wrangler stares back.
"They're waiting for the agent to not be paying attention. Then they make a run for it," Tomas Jimenez said. "It only takes seconds." Jumping the first fence is no great physical feat. But scaling the second fence -- angled to prevent people, not vehicles, from crossing -- is more of a challenge.
But down the road is a much more inviting passage for illegal immigrants and, the government fears, for terrorists, drug traffickers and human smugglers: a 3 1/2-mile gap where the secondary fence has yet to be completed.
With recent revelations by the Department of Homeland Security that al Qaeda operatives are looking to the Mexican border as a way to infiltrate the United States, federal officials have hastened efforts to close off the final stretch between Otay Mesa and the Pacific Ocean, in a canyon known as "Smuggler's Gulch." They contend that the area is a national security risk.
But environmentalists say completing the project, which they have battled for years, will devastate the protected marshland and delicate habitats of the Tijuana Estuary and endanger rare plants and animals.
Continued]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21825-2005Mar9.html?referrer=email
It is a question of priorities. The safety of the American public VS. endangering of rare plants and animals.
Which would you choose?
Well, au, God forbid we'd place the the California gnatcatcher at peril.
au1929 wrote:It would seem that we can have congressional hearings to define a problem and our shortcomings related to national security do not have the will to take the required action to correct them.
Or maybe the executive branch is reluctant because it sees this whole al Quaeda 'threat' from Mexico for what it is: a huge red herring. It is worth remembering that the attackers of 9/11 entered the US directly and legally. They could still have done all they did under current regulations, because none of them had a criminal record prior to September 10, 2001. (But some of them did overstay their tourist visas, as I recall it.) None of the terrorists would have benefitted from coming in through Mexico, and nothing about 9/11 would have been prevented by tighter controls along the Mexican border.
1929 wrote:I should add as long as our southern border is the path by which cheap labor enters this nation. Our business dominated administration will do nothing to close the door.
I think this is the true issue behind those threadbare 'security concerns'. Freer immigration from Mexico benefits American capitalists. They tend to be rich, which I suspect is why Bush is supporting such a policy. At the same time, it harms American workers, who are rich by international standards, but tend to be middle-class or poorish by American standards. That's why the Democrats are opposing freer immigration. Finally, the policy benefits Mexican immigrants, whom I suspect neither Republicans nor Democrats give a damn about, in spite of ample rhetoric that they do. Everything considered, open immigration is a net benefit for Americans and Mexicans, if measured in terms of total income. That's why I think free immigration from Mexico is a good thing, and why I'd like to see it continue.
I don't claim that my answer is perfect, and I'm aware that honest and intelligent people can disagree about everything I just said. But I don't understand why Americans can't seem to have a national debate on this that is honest enough to call an immigration policy an immigration policy. Why spin the thing as a national security policy, which it isn't?
Thomas
A national debate with this administration? Bush is no different regarding the American public than he is with the rest of the world. It is my way or the highway and the republican lemmings in congress obey.
Bravo, Thomas.
The following are excerpts of a speech I wrote for a Mexican top officer. They reflect both my points of view and the view of the Mexican government about the matter.
I have repeated several of the arguments given in this speech on different threads on A2K. I'll state them again, in this form, knowing that most of the seeds will fall in the desert of prejudice.
A close relationship between Mexico and the United States is a matter of facts. We share a border of more than 2 thousand miles, along which 350 million yearly crossings of people take place. We have an exchange trade of 350 billion dollars.
These facts are accompanied by common political and social values, translated into a long and steady relationship, in which agreements have been stronger and more recurrent than disagreements.
We have developed a mature, close and friendly relationship. One in which we understand that what unites us is much stronger than what divides us.
Particularly in the last fifteen years, our communication has improved drastically, with the creation of mechanisms for dialogue and negotiation in almost every imaginable area of our national agendas.
Communication among our peoples has also increased, at a geometrical pace. Among business men and women, among legislators, among scientists and scholars, among religious people, among students, workers or simple friends. Those links include family relationships, remittances of money, daily economic interaction and all kind of activities in the busiest border between two nations.
This relationship is now in a new context. On one side, we have the phenomena of world economic and cultural integration. On the other, the terrorist attacks who shook the world on September 11, 2001, in which thousands of innocent people died -among them, several Mexican migrant workers.
With the terrorist threat, security became the central issue in many democracies. Particularly, in the United States.
We understand their reasons. We are aware that terrorism violates democratic institutions and attacks the fundamental values of civilized coexistence.
Mexico actively participated and voted in favor of the 12 resolutions passed at the United Nations and the seven resolution passed at the Organization of American States, all aimed at strengthening international cooperation against terrorism.
At the same time, we consider that other problems, such as migration, cannot be dissociated from security matters.
It is known that we had differences with the United States about the military intervention in Iraq. It was so, because of the pacifist tradition of our country and because of our conviction that multilateralism is the best way to solve international conflicts.
But at the same time, during the military actions in Iraq, cooperation with the United States drastically increased, particularly on intelligence matters. We did all that was within our scope of action to
reinforce national and regional security, including measures to prevent the use of our borders for terrorist, or terrorist related, activities.
We want to work together and are working together in the matters that concern both nations. We do it under the principle of shared responsibility. On commerce, on security, and also on regulating the migration flows.
We have worked in consonance in matters like the determination of restricted nationalities, with reinforced the controls for the internation in Mexico of citizens from countries related to terrorism.
We have also implemented security actions, like Plan Centinela, (Sentinel Plan), which guards borders and coasts exposed to the interment and transit of pressumed terrorist elements, guarantees the security of strategic facilities and protects the interests and the citizens of the United States, Spain and the United Kingdom.
In March 2002, the coordinated work with our counterparts in the United States, led to "Mexico-United States Border Alliance", a comprehensive agreement, with a 22 action plan aimed at protecting strategic facilities and securing transit of people, goods and vehicles, with the use of up to date technology. Our security strategy also included the Mexican southern border.
We understand that international cooperation is a key element, in the light of the new global reality. This has clearly modulated the treatment of items in the bilateral agenda.
Border protection, for example, must include the prevention of undesirable entrances, that could represent a threat to the security of the two countries.
Nevertheless, it must also consider the actual protection, safety and integrity of those migrants which, with no criminal intent, cross the border in order to join their families or to work in the United States.
In other words, migration is not a threat to national security.
Documented migration contributes to security. It gives certainty to migrants, and also to authorities.
It's of no help, instead, that 5 million people work in the US and the American government has no record of who they are, where do they live, where do they work, when did they arrive and when will they live the country.
We have to speak about security in concrete, not in abstract terms. The security of persons, the security of migrants, which includes the respect to their basic rights and their families'.
What does this mean?
It means to understand, in the deepest sense, that migrants, regardless of their migratory status, are, first of all, human beings. People who want a better life for themselves and for their families, and want to achieve it through honest effort.
It means to understand that there's a drama behind every migration.
On one hand, the benefits of receiving remittances from a relative working in the US are a sounding gain that can not be neglected. On the other hand, disruption and separation from the family is a continuous tragedy.
There are several towns in Mexico that now -thanks to the Mexicans abroad- have more resources, but in which the head of the family is absent.
Towns in which the father figure is not there with the children on the first day of school. In which the son is not with his mother on Mother's Day. In which the community member cannot participate in the popular or religious ceremonies that are so important for the cohesiveness of the social tissue.
For the average Mexican, family unity is the centerpiece of life. Each time a Mexican decides to leave his or her hometown, the basic value structure is clearly affected.
Complete disintegration occurs when a relative is informed that his wife, husband or child has died of exhaustion in the Arizona desert, drowned in the treacherous waters of the Rio Bravo or found asphyxiated in the back of a container. In average, one Mexican migrant dies daily in his or her attempt to cross the border undocumented. This trend has persisted since 1995.
This cycle of family decomposition and death can be avoided.
For many years, driven mainly by economic reasons and family ties, young Mexican nationals used to migrate to this country to work for a limited time period, and then return to their places of origin. This cycle was repeated on a yearly basis.
But lately, the traditional "circularity" of the Mexican migrant has been drastically altered. The "deterrence and control strategy", implemented at the US southern border since 1994, has disrupted that cycle. It has forced people to stay for longer periods than they originally planned, impels them to recur to abusive traffickers who risk the migrants' lives, by taking them to isolated and dangerous spots.
On February 2001, President Fox and President Bush stated: "Migration is one of the major ties that bind our society. It is important that our policies reflect our values and needs, and that we achieve progress in dealing with this phenomenonÂ… we both believe that there should be an orderly framework for migration that ensures humane treatment, legal security and dignifies labor conditions".
As a result of the terrorist attacks, US government priorities were radically altered. So were the rhythm and the datelines agreed by the Presidents. But we are still working on the bilateral migratory agenda.
Mexico recognizes the effort of our nationals in the United States. Those Mexicans have physically left there country, but are still part of the nation. Because of their cultural identity, because of their religion, and because of their traditions.
They are worthy of decent living conditions.
They should be capable of going to their country and back to their jobs in the US, without having to go through torments and without beings victims of humiliations.
They work from dawn to dusk. They contribute, both sides of the border. They deserve recognition and justice.
Resources are better spent in the combat of drug trafficking, of organized crime and of terrorism, than in the erection of barriers or the multiplication of patrol cars. Resources must be used to fight death and it's messengers, not to become an ally of them.
ACLU to monitor Minuteman
CLAUDINE LoMONACO
Tucson Citizen
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona plans to monitor an upcoming civilian patrol along the Arizona-Mexico border.The observers will trail volunteers of the Minuteman Project throughout April as they patrol the border along Cochise County for illegal immigrants.
"We will be there to make sure they're not abusing anybody's rights," the ACLU's Ray Ybarra said.
A team of lawyers will be on hand to file civil cases against Minuteman participants if abuses occur, he said.
The ACLU is planning hourlong training sessions over the next month for volunteers in Tucson, Douglas and Phoenix. For more information, call (520) 364-1188.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=030905a4_brf.aclu
__________________________________________________________
I'll be very surprised if even 10 ACLU lawyers show up to monitor anyone. Especially once they discover there aren't any 5-star hotels in the middle of nowhere.
from article
Quote:"We will be there to make sure they're not abusing anybody's rights," the ACLU's Ray Ybarra said.
Who is committing the criminal act?The people policing the border or those illegaly entering the US.
Quote:I'll be very surprised if even 10 ACLU lawyers show up to monitor anyone. Especially once they discover there aren't any 5-star hotels in the middle of nowhere.
JW, why so negative? Smile a little!!!
And, If you RTFA, you'll see that it's the
observers that do the monitoring; the lawyers are there to file the cases.
Details matter!
Cycloptichorn
tommrr wrote: Yes but the main difference is that most of our ancestors didn't sneak into the country under the cover of night, but rather came in the legal way and then started their new lives in the land of plenty.
Probly because that was still actually reasonably
possible. Those who now "sneak into the country under the cover of night" do so because Green Cards are extremely difficult to get for a Mexican or someone from further south - one problem that those who immigrated before the 20th century simply did not
face.
Nimh
Quote:Those who now "sneak into the country under the cover of night" do so because Green Cards are extremely difficult to get for a Mexican or someone from further south -
And you think it is acceptable? If you own a car and someone wants one but can't afford it. Is it acceptable for them to steal yours?
Cyclops - I
am smiling. I keep picturing those ACLU types wandering the desert looking like Wile E. Coyote with a briefcase in their paws.
Wile E. Coyote, ACLU lawyer, at your service!
Quote:Probly because that was still actually reasonably possible. Those who now "sneak into the country under the cover of night" do so because Green Cards are extremely difficult to get for a Mexican or someone from further south - one problem that those who immigrated before the 20th century simply did not face.
So just about every time I hear some talking head spouting off about something that doesn't support their particular agenda, they often use the line, "We are a nation of laws". Well, last time I checked, there is a law against just wandering into this country. Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of "laws that are convenient to my particular agenda?".
au1929 wrote:Quote:Those who now "sneak into the country under the cover of night" do so because Green Cards are extremely difficult to get for a Mexican or someone from further south
And you think it is acceptable? If you own a car and someone wants one but can't afford it. Is it acceptable for them to steal yours?
I dont quite see the parallel. What does a Green Card-less immigrant "steal" of yours, the moment he crosses the border?
Quote:I dont quite see the parallel. What does a Green Card-less immigrant "steal" of yours, the moment he crosses the border?
Well, to be frank, resources. They take resources out of the economy.
Now, the fact is that in many cases they add resources back IN to the economy in the form of super-cheap labor, but you won't hear that side of the equation coming from the righties.
Cycloptichorn
tommrr wrote:So just about every time I hear some talking head spouting off about something that doesn't support their particular agenda, they often use the line, "We are a nation of laws". Well, last time I checked, there is a law against just wandering into this country. Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of "laws that are convenient to my particular agenda?".
Although in my ideal world, people would not need permits to live where they want to live, I accept that realistically, they're necessary - especially if we want to preserve any of the rights and achievements that the citizens of the country have arrived at through the years, especially since FDR's time. Basically the dilemma Thomas sketched. In a world of free migration, there could be no, say, Social Security or a minimum wage or anything like that - it would be unaffordable. So two of my ideals clash, and thus I accept that some form of immigration controls are necessary. And that means in turn that illegal immigrants do need to be turned back, yes.
Where I differed with you and the others here (barring Thomas and fbaezer) is that I dont blame those poor folks for
trying. I would too, probably, in their shoes. People will go to where they think life is better - it's human nature. They want the best for themselves and their children, and thus they come to take the jobs the US employers offer to illegal workers. I dont think they're bad people for that.
And where did everyone else, save Thomas and fbaezer, blame those poor folks for trying????????
