What should be done about illegal immigration?

This may be true in other parts of the country, but certainly not in California. If the illegals are forced out of California, the crops rot on the vines. It happened last year.

This may be a case of one of the planks of the Republican Platform working too well. For years they have pressed immigration and tight borders. Now the people want them, but funny enough, the people that it will hurt most, is the Republican base! Ironic as it seems, they are the ones that hire them most. That's why you see Bush pushing the "Guest worker program" now. The hate and bigotry program blew up in their faces, and now they have to backpedal and try to fix it.

I just love Karma!!

Anon

So, we go without grapes and wine for a year. That won't kill us. And, next year, they'll know they have to hire citizens, people that pay taxes, and that have half of their FICA paid by the employer.

Yeah, I like the karma thing, too. I believe in it whole heartedly.

You aren't. If you pass a law saying that immigrants have no right to any of those things, and in turn completely open America for immigration again, that's fine with me. Is it fine with you too?

Why would it require that we "in turn completely open America for immigration again?"

How disgustingly Libertarian of you.

Thomas,

California passed Prop. 187 while Gov. Pete Wilson was in power. It was later declared unconstitutional.

Squinney,

It goes well beyond Grapes and Wine, better take a look at California Agriculture.

BTW, an immigration crackdown would crush any Republican power they hold in this State, so go for it ... I would love to see those hypocrits kicked in the ass!!

Anon

I may be over-simplifying, but, when the men of WWII returned to find their women working, what happened? Men found other jobs. The economy and work force adjusted, spurring new technologies, industries and ways of doing things.

Again, I'm over- simplifying, but wouldn't the same likely happen if 11,000,000 ILLEGAL immigrants were to be sent home.

And, just imagine if we went back to having our kids mow the lawn, wash our cars, and do the household tasks most of us did in our youth, rather than hiring illegal immigrants. Maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have a population of overweight, lazy people that feel entitled to things they haven't earned by the sweat of their brow, and that can't relate to the hardship of others around the world.

Who was picking the grapes 50 - 75 years ago?

The Okies . . .

Yeah, I read something about that. :wink:

Jesus Squinney, How old do you think I am?? I really don't know that Cal Ag. was near as important then, I doubt it!

Anon

Cringe away Sqinney. As you can tell I am very involved in the immigrant rights movment and there are plenty of comparisons.

There is an unquestionable racial component to the immigrants rights question. I am not saying that everyone who opposes a path to citizenship for immigrants is racist.

I am saying that many of the people who are opposing amnesty are using race based arguments. The attacks on "multi-culturalism"; the assertion that European immigrants of last century all came legally; the stereotypes of Mexicans seen on this board; the scapegoating of "illegals" for Americas problems.

These are all features of the anti-civil rights movement.

The other feature is the role of the Latin American community of American citizens. They feel strongly that racism is a big part of the anti-immigrant movement and you are now seeing civil rights groups like La Raza playing the same role the NAACP playing.

And look at the opponents to the immigrants rights movement.

The KKK is very active as are the Religious Right. Neo-Nazis are showing up at pro-immigrant rallies.

The opposition to immigrant rights seems much the same.

ebrown - Right on.

It was important to someone. Important enough that it grew to be the force that it is today.

My last post was in response to Anons "I really don't know that Cal Ag. was near as important then, I doubt it! "

Another similarity with the civil rights movement is the effort to dehumanize people.

The use of the word ILLEGAL to refer to a person is very similar to the anti-civil rights use of the Negro. When they had an illegal (I am avoiding the all caps thing) bus boycott they were referred to as hoodlums.

One challenge of the civil rights movement was to show that protesters and African-Americans alike were real human beings, individuals with a name.

Likewise our challenge in the immigrant-rights movement is to show that the people you are referring to with the noun "illegal" (as if this was their very identity) are real people with real stories.

I will show you Edgar and Paulina and Jean-Marc-- very real people who, although they have commited the crime of crossing the border without permission-- are simply people who are trying to make a life for themselves.

If you knew their stories, you may sympathize; you may be grateful for what you have; and you may even be understanding of people who do what they have to for a better life for their families.

This is why the sign now seen at protests "Yo Soy un hombre" ("I am a man") is completely appropriate.

Once you understand that these are human beings, then we have won.

squinney writes


LOL, it's okay squinney. It won't ruin you for life or anything. But you do prove my point, I think that you don't have to be an old dyed-in-the-wool Reagan conservative like me to have an appreciation for the law of the land. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue or a Republican vs a Democrat issue. It is a right vs wrong issue requiring that we think through the hard questions as well as the easy ones for us.

ebrown wants to administer compassion without any consideration for the law.

Others want to administer the law without concern for what to do with the 11 million illegal who are already here, and a few in this camp are also cognizant of the logistical difficulties this imposes

Then there are Thomas and the Libertarians who seem to be saying scrap the law, open the borders and let everybody in.

And then there are those in my camp who still ask questions re the best way to do whatever is ultimately decided. I cannot agree that anybody or any group should just be able to thumb their noses at what most believe is a just law, and I don't know a single soul who is lacking in compassion for those deserving of it. Many if not most of us actually work in fields that attempt to make the world a bit better for those most deserving of having things be a little better. And in a post 9/11 world, I think it imprudent to just open our borders without restriction and without question of those who come into the United States.

I am convinced however, until we agree on what the law is to be, andor whether the existing law shall be enforced, we will never get to any other issues and there will be no significant consensus.

(Acknowledging before he chimes in that Setanta is of the opinion that I'm not entitled to an opinion, or at the very least any opinion I express is dictatorial while his, of course, is just an opinion.)

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but that is an unwarranted assumption on our part. Never doubt the capacity of conservatives to lack the least shred of empathy and human decency.

Don't worry, Fox, your snotty characterizations notwithstanding, very little of what you write merits a response--you just drone on with the same drivel constantly, so it suffices to only occasionally point out your idiotic premises.

The title of this thread is "What should be done about Illegal immigrants."

Ebrown - you, like the papers and news coverage are co-mingling legal citizens that immigrated from South America with illegal immigrants, which only muddies the argument. There is a huge difference between rights for legal immigrants, and rights for illegals. And, THERE IS a path to citizenship for legal immigrants. Is there supposed to be an exception for Mexico that we don't allow for any other country?

What other country in the entire world has millions of people pouring across it's borders and then demanding to be made citizens? What other country just shrugs and says "Okay. I guess. Since you're here now."

Law law law. The plaintive all emcompassing cry of those who want to push illegals away. "I have nothing against them, but they are breaking the LAW." Otherwise, they could all come over here and we'd be happy, huh? I wonder how many would change their story if the law said different and the same number of people came, legally. My guess is, there would be a new cry other than "LAW."