What should be done about illegal immigration?

For the record... I don't care much about this case. My concern is with immigrants who aren't drug trafficers-- that is the people whose only crime is crossing the border and are living good lives, working hard and raising families.

I hope that we all agree that these people shouldn't be shot.

My only interest in this case is the guilty pleasure in watching the veins pop out of the heads of the people who say they want laws enforced-- who now have to defend people who have been found guilty of breaking the law.

0 Replies

ebrown, I share your sentiment. I've known many poor people in Mexico who may have come to the U.S. in order to feed their families. They are honest, hard working people who are filling a niche here. I see three alternatives. Leave them alone and enjoy the benefits of their underpaid work (they must be helping us with our struggle against inflation); develop a comprehensive immigration policy; or help Mexico with its economy and corruption so that workers will be able to remain in their country and make a living.

0 Replies

Some clarification:

1. I blame our government for not enforcing laws they establish concerning illegal immirgration.
2. If I lived in Mexico and had the opportunity to come into the US to find work, because there's no work to be found in Mexico, I'd probably do the same - as an illegal alien.
3. I don't blame the Mexican or anybody else that comes into the US illegally to seek a better future for oneself and his/her family.
4. We need the Mexicans to work on our farms and other service industries where Americans refuse to work for whatever reasons.
5. I have grown up with Mexicans in Sacramento in a neigborhood where very few whites lived.
6. I have worked with Mexicans on farms all over Sacramento and San Joaquin valley to pick fruit during the summer months with all my brothers while attending grade school.
7. Many service industry jobs in Silicon Valley are being performed by Mexicans. a. I'm not sure how they survive on less than $15 per hour wages in this area. b. I find Mexicans to be hard workers. c. I also see many Mexicans working as cooks and chefs in many different ethnic restaurants - even Japanese restaurants (as sushi chefs)
8. I personally hope our government will establish fair processes for law-abiding illegal immigrants to become citizens of our country.
9. We have Mexicans in our family, but also Chinese, German, Italian, English, Dutch, Spanish, Polynesian, and Irish.
10. We're one big happy family.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Given the two countries physical/economic/social proximity, I'm not sure their perceived differing ideologies/backgrounds makes a whole lot of sense, does it?

Well, I guess two cultures or two nations or two people etc can believe that they are different when the differences aren't really very significant. Imagine two narcicists.

Right so if we are willing to accept that these claimed differences are in pragmatic sense rather meaningless, and if we are willing to accept that despite this the two countries polices are presumably at odds when it comes to immigration, this suggests to me something's gotta give. That being either real differences will emerge or more of a meeting of the minds will take place, and if as I suspect a meeting of the minds is the more likely of the two, it brings to question what overall North American policy might emerge in relation to legal/illegal immigration, n'est pas?

0 Replies

Good for you, C.I.. You are the family of the future.

As I see it, the opponents of Mexican migrant workers are the xenophobes. Many businesses want them, and the Bush administration, in response to the needs of business, wants to find a rational means of admitting them to the economy.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

blatham wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Given the two countries physical/economic/social proximity, I'm not sure their perceived differing ideologies/backgrounds makes a whole lot of sense, does it?

Well, I guess two cultures or two nations or two people etc can believe that they are different when the differences aren't really very significant. Imagine two narcicists.
Right so if we are willing to accept that these claimed differences are in pragmatic sense rather meaningless, and if we are willing to accept that despite this the two countries polices are presumably at odds when it comes to immigration, this suggests to me something's gotta give. That being either real differences will emerge or more of a meeting of the minds will take place, and if as I suspect a meeting of the minds is the more likely of the two, it brings to question what overall North American policy might emerge in relation to legal/illegal immigration, n'est pas?

I don't think so.

First, it's hard to imagine what set of circumstances might prevail such that the deep strains of xenophobia in America would become much reduced, particularly where the promotion and continuation of this xenophobia/nationalism is such an effective political tool.

And second, I don't see any significant force or impetus driving the US and Canada to suddenly conceive a need for mutual coordination of aligned immigration policies.

Am I missing some question or some point in what you are suggesting?

0 Replies

An excellent article on this subject in today's San Jose Mercury News by the paper's Editorial Board. My comments in BLUE to summarize content. They offer the following key principles:
1. A path to legal status for immigrants already here illegally.
2. A temporary guest-worker program for agricultural and other low-skilled workers.
3. An overhaul of the H-1B visa program; increase for much needed workers.
4. Reform the "green card" system; increase the caps to accommodate more workers to bring family members here.
5. Tougher enforcement of immigration laws. HURRAY!
6. Fair treatment for children. Another HURRAY!

The current system hasn't been overhaulded in over two decades. It's about time congress and Bush pass a immigration bill soon.
They need to follow up the new legislatioin with enforcement.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Chumly wrote:
blatham wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Given the two countries physical/economic/social proximity, I'm not sure their perceived differing ideologies/backgrounds makes a whole lot of sense, does it?

Well, I guess two cultures or two nations or two people etc can believe that they are different when the differences aren't really very significant. Imagine two narcicists.
Right so if we are willing to accept that these claimed differences are in pragmatic sense rather meaningless, and if we are willing to accept that despite this the two countries polices are presumably at odds when it comes to immigration, this suggests to me something's gotta give. That being either real differences will emerge or more of a meeting of the minds will take place, and if as I suspect a meeting of the minds is the more likely of the two, it brings to question what overall North American policy might emerge in relation to legal/illegal immigration, n'est pas?

I don't think so.

First, it's hard to imagine what set of circumstances might prevail such that the deep strains of xenophobia in America would become much reduced, particularly where the promotion and continuation of this xenophobia/nationalism is such an effective political tool.

And second, I don't see any significant force or impetus driving the US and Canada to suddenly conceive a need for mutual coordination of aligned immigration policies.

Am I missing some question or some point in what you are suggesting?

it's a speculation as to what the future might bring in terms of further integration between the US and Canada, despite the artifice of separate countries.

It would not surprise me to see them become more and more aligned as time goes on, to the point of being one country within the next 100 years or so, if not officially then for all intents and purposes, heck in many ways we are closer to that pragmatic reality than the artifice of politicization would have one generally believe.

Can you tell the difference between many Canadians and many Americans in a casual setting? I cannot, and I've traveled a goodly portion of both the US and Canada a number of times by motorcycle. Air travel really does not put you in touch with all the people along the way as the road does.

As to the "significant force or impetus" I suggest not only is that inherent in our commonality, but as discussed perceived differences are more politicized than actual.

Thus my above arguments as to more similar immigration policies going forward.

Some few podium pounders and other miscellaneous talking heads does not a country-wide attitude make, but it surely generates "news" and gives political science classes something to "learn".

0 Replies

An interesting example of politicos spouting Canadian separateness from the US while Canadians themselves acting more as per North American "sensibilities" is that there were upwards of 40,000 Canadians serving in Vietnam (mostly in the US forces) and Canada made 2.5 billion dollars (big money in those days) selling war materials for the Vietnam war, all of course under the dubious guise of neutrality.

0 Replies

Cicerone wrote:

2. A temporary guest-worker program for agricultural and other low-skilled workers.
3. An overhaul of the H-1B visa program;

One of the key points of the progressive movement-- on both the immigration issue and the labor issue, is that any worker in the US should have full rights and a path to citizenship.

The reason this is so important is it is workers without rights that drive down wages and working conditions far more than anything else.

I have a good job full rights (as an American citizen). Because I have these rights, I can demand a competitive salary. If I am unhappy, I simply go elsewhere.

Some will argue that more workers mean lower wages (and this is debated). But compare this to the effect of workers without rights.

If my company can hire immigrants with the same rights as me... these workersl also be able to demand a higher salary. As they are able to integrate into society... they will have a house payment, a car payment and kids they want to send to college. All of these things will push them to not accept lower pay or rights.

However, if these immigrants aren't able to change jobs, then they will have to accept the salary the company offers them. They are stuck there anyway. If they aren't here permanently, then they won't have a house or kids in college... so this lower salary will probably be "appropriate", and those of us in this field will be really screwed.

I don't mind competing with other Americans, or with people who have the same rights and needs as I do. I do mind competing with worker who are forced to work for lower pay with no abillity to demage higher wages nor incentive to do so.

This is certainly true for the higher wage, IT work that I do. It is also true for low wage agricultural jobs.

People with rghts don't work in sweatshops.

0 Replies

Browne
Should we send them passage money?
By Peter Allen
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
April 16, 2007

CALAIS, France - A refugee center is being built in Calais despite condemnation that it will become "Sangatte 2" and lead to a fresh influx of illegal aliens into Britain.
The center, taking shape on wasteland close to the town's main ferry port, is being built by charities to offer free meals, showers and advice to hundreds of refugees camping out in woodland and living in poverty in the town.
Although the center will not provide overnight accommodations, it has drawn protests from Britain, where opposition politicians fear it will become a stop-off point for thousands more illegal aliens attempting to enter Britain.
Comparisons are being made with the infamous Sangatte Red Cross Center, which closed in 2002 under an agreement between the French and British governments.
Before its closure, illegal aliens regularly made the short walk from Sangatte which housed 67,000 over three years to the nearby Channel Tunnel entrance to try to jump onto slow-moving trains or hide inside trucks crossing to Britain on ferries.
Reports suggest that gangs of human smugglers are preparing to target those using the new center.
"I'm sure the charities behind this center have the right intentions, but ultimately, they are creating another hub for people wanting to enter the U.K. unlawfully," said Richard Ashworth, a member of the European Parliament from Britain's Conservative Party.
Mr. Ashworth said he was urgently trying to arrange a meeting with the communist mayor of Calais, Jacky Henin to discuss the issue.
"Sangatte 2 will provide the French authorities with an opportunity to pass their own problems on to us again," said another European lawmaker from southeastern England, Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party.
A report by the charity Medecins du Monde warned of a "major humanitarian crisis" if the illegal aliens in Calais were not given shelter.
About 1,500 refugees live in squalid makeshift camps including one in the woods nicknamed "the Jungle" next to the new center.
Yesterday, dozens of them many from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Iran watched the new center take shape, with workmen hauling prefabricated sections into position.

"The center will give us hope. There are vulnerable people among us, including women with babies. The winter was terrible, but now we hope we can look forward to a place which will welcome us," said a man who identified himself as Ahmed, an 18-year-old Somalian.
A spokesman for Calais Town Hall said, "The general consensus here is that it would be preferable to have a permanent center where charities could care for the migrants instead of them sleeping rough in local woods."
A spokesman for the French Interior Ministry said it was "unaware" of the new center, which was agreed upon at the local level.

0 Replies

The new centre would offer food, showers and information and advice for about 500 foreign nationals who sleep rough in Calais - thanks for bringing this up here, au!

0 Replies

Au,

I thought that through all the hate... that maybe you and I might share an opposition to temporary guest workers who are the easy to exploit and certainly bad for American workers.

Can you agree with me on even this one thing?

0 Replies

Something few people bring up is the impact the additional immigrants will have on our environment. For instance, the Colorado River no longer empties into the Pacific, because it is drained dry by farmers, cities, etc., along the way. What impact will 100 million more people have on the availability of water or drinking, irrigation, etc. It won't be many years before we are as short of water as China is now.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Something few people bring up is the impact the additional immigrants will have on our environment. For instance, the Colorado River no longer empties into the Pacific, because it is drained dry by farmers, cities, etc., along the way. What impact will 100 million more people have on the availability of water or drinking, irrigation, etc. It won't be many years before we are as short of water as China is now.

This is a non starter. Desalination is a simple procedure, already less than twice the price of other methods of filtration. Apathy is the only reason everyone on earth doesn't have suitable drinking water.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Something few people bring up is the impact the additional immigrants will have on our environment. For instance, the Colorado River no longer empties into the Pacific, because it is drained dry by farmers, cities, etc., along the way. What impact will 100 million more people have on the availability of water or drinking, irrigation, etc. It won't be many years before we are as short of water as China is now.

The decimation of the local environment in the Vancouver area is a prime example of Canada's open arms immigration policy, and it reflects your position as well.

0 Replies

Water scarcity is merely one example of the downside of an exploding population. There is also the matter of insufficient farm and timber land, watershed, mining resources, park land, air and water quality, etc.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Water scarcity is merely one example of the downside of an exploding population. There is also the matter of insufficient farm and timber land, watershed, mining resources, park land, air and water quality, etc.

None of which pose a difficult problem in the United States.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Au,

I thought that through all the hate... that maybe you and I might share an opposition to temporary guest workers who are the easy to exploit and certainly bad for American workers.

Can you agree with me on even this one thing?

Brown I am neither against increased legal immigration or a guest worker program. What I am against is a path to citizenship for those who have entered the US illegally.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Water scarcity is merely one example of the downside of an exploding population. There is also the matter of insufficient farm and timber land, watershed, mining resources, park land, air and water quality, etc.
None of which pose a difficult problem in the United States.

Agreed. We have literally gigantic amounts of land which remain uncolonized and basically underutilized. It will be some time, and some number of immigrants, before we can fill up our land to the extent that the entire rest of the civilized world has done so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know