50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:44 pm
This is an interesting article from the New York Times December 16, 1907.

Quote:

While the exclusion laws have rendered practically nil the immigration from China, the immigration from Japan, though relatively not great has doubled in the last year. This increase is significant too, because it comes in the face of regulation adopted by the American Government, with the assent of Japan, which it was supposed would curtail the immigration of Japanese to this country very materially.

Commissioner Sargent presents official reports made by Inspectors sent to Mexico and Canada to study the situation with special reference to the coming of Japanese to America through these countries. The reports show that thousands of Japanese landed in Mexico during the last year and ultimately gained admission surreptitiously in to this country.

While the regulations concerning Japanese immigration have tended to reduce the number of regularly admitted immigrants, thousands of Japanese still are coming into the country by stealth.


http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990DE4DF113EE033A25755C1A9649D946697D6CF
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:46 pm
@ebrown p,
1907? ROFLMAO

Now, provide us with illegal immigration from all other countries during that same period?

Also, how does that law in 1907 (and 1924) relate to immigration laws of today? Any semblance? Illegal immigration vs legal? Give us the whole picture - if you can?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I was simply responding to your request.

cicerone imposter wrote:
How many other (than Chinese) Asians were illegal immigrants since 1906? I want to see you back up this claim?


A report on illegal Japanese immigrants from 1907 fits the bill.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:56 pm
@ebrown p,
So what's your point? That some Asians got into the US illegally? What about all those others? Do they count or don't you? Your myopia about Asians tells me more than you need to say about you. What's your point? Because there once existed exclusion laws, do you seriously believe that was the right thing to do? Considering the fact that most illegal immigrants were not from Asia?

Compared to what has happened during recent decades, our country now happens to be the biggest welcome mat for immigrants.

The issue today has no resemblance to 1907 or 1924. The preponderance of legal immigration happens to come from Asian countries.

What's your point?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
My main point is that anti-immigrant hatred (that once was directed toward Japanese people including your grandfather) hasn't changed much. Nor has the use of ethnic/race based fear mongering to affect public policy.

- Japanese immigrants were called an "invasion" and were considered a threat to American culture (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).

- Japanese immigrants were accused of being unwilling or unable to assimilate (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).

- Japanese immigrants were accused stealing jobs, and bringing disease and crime (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).

There were even fearful claims that Japanese immigrants were going to change the face of California (sound familiar?) Of course this is coded now-- Hispanics are going to make California a "third world country" (I never heard "third world" used to refer to a color in any other context).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:13 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown wrote:
Quote:
- Japanese immigrants were called an "invasion" and were considered a threat to American culture (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).


How far back do you go to prove your point? How relevant is it to today's world? I've never heard of Hispanic immigrants a threat to American culture.
Are you also afraid of gays and lesbians getting a marriage license?

ebrown wrote:
Quote:
- Japanese immigrants were accused of being unwilling or unable to assimilate (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).


So, do you still believe in those myths?

ebrown wrote:
Quote:
- Japanese immigrants were accused stealing jobs, and bringing disease and crime (just like Hispanic immigrants are today).


What jobs were "stolen" by the Japanese? Please provide credible documentation for them? Are you a conservative fear mongering idjut?

ebrown wrote:
Quote:
There were even fearful claims that Japanese immigrants were going to change the face of California (sound familiar?) Of course this is coded now-- Hispanics are going to make California a "third world country" (I never heard "third world" used to refer to a color in any other context).


Yes, the Japanese did change the face of California be developing the truck farming industry. If you see a negative in that, please explain it to me?

Here; educate yourself:
Quote:
The World War II evacuation of Japanese farmers from the Pacific Coast caused a staggering labor shortage created by the U.S. Government itself, which then wrestled with forced transfer of confiscated farmlands to new “non-Japanese” owners and lessees. Most of the new “owners” were naturalized European immigrants, or Americans from the Dust Bowl region of the southern United States.

WRA photo No. A-66 taken in Penryn, California, November 10, 1942Nobumitsu Takahashi, agricultural coordinator for the Japanese-American Citizens League, warned, as internment began in 1942, that removal of the Japanese would disrupt the California vegetable industry. Japanese truck farmers, he said, produced crops valued at 40 million dollars annually and interned Japanese “stand to lose approximately 100 million dollars in investments” because of confiscation or forced sale by the U.S. Government.

The California Farm Bureau was quoted by The News, saying that Japanese farmers were responsible for 40 percent of all vegetables grown in the state, including nearly 100 percent of all tomatoes, celery, strawberries and peppers.

Lawrence Hewes, regional director of the Farm Security Administration, charged with confiscating or selling Japanese land holdings, said FSA field agents had registered 6000 farms totaling approximately 200,000 acres. The FSA received applications to acquire vacated farms from more than 2000 farmers. Hewes said more than 1000 Japanese farms, totaling 50,000 acres, were transferred to new owners during March 1942.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:15 pm
@ebrown p,
I wrote:
My main point is that anti-immigrant hatred (that once was directed toward Japanese people including your grandfather) hasn't changed much.


Do you want to respond to the point? (In that last post, you appear to be switching sides.)


0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am on the side of immigrants-- I am arguing the hate rhetoric from anti-immigrant groups is completely off base (whether we are talking about the anti-Japanese rhetoric of 100 years ago, or the anti-Hispanic rhetoric of today. And, as I have shown, much of the rhetoric from 100 years ago is very similar to anti-immigrant rhetoric you hear today.

If I were alive at the time your father immigrated, I would have defended him just as strongly against these attacks and fought for his rights (regardless of his status).

More importantly I would have argued against the hate rhetoric coming from the anti-immigrant groups of the day. The fact that Japanese immigrants have done so well doesn't hurt my argument. Quite the contrary, it would have proved my point.


Anti immigrant rhetoric from 100 years ago wrote:
Thousands of fair minded and well meaning people who were biased and ignorant on the question of Japanese immigration have during the last year, entirely changed their views on the subject. They have learned the truth that the Japanese coolie is even a greater menace to the existence of the white race, to the progress and prosperity of our country than is the Chinese coolie.

But if there has been danger from Asiatic imigration to our state before, that danger has not lessened now.

On the contrary it has increased.

The great calamity which befell San Francisco will furnish the Orient with lurid tales of opportunity for employment and profit. California, the land of fabulous wealth, revenue and mountains of gold, and San Francisco with its wonderful wages will be exploited before the ignorant coolies until they will come in ship loads like an endless swarm of rats.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:32 pm
@ebrown p,
The only issue today is the illegal immigration that happens to be mostly Hispanic from Central and South America. Most look at the legal and illegal issues concerning this subject. It's up to our government to a) live by standing laws, b) enforce those laws, or c) revise those laws. How this issue will be viewed in history is another subject that I have no interest in pursuing.

There are many facets to this subject with many different viewpoints. Mine is only one; our government has failed this country by not enforcing its laws.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 05:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The issue is that hateful, and ultimately racial, rhetoric has always been underneath immigration laws and their enforcement. However, immigrants have found ways to flourish and contribute to our country in spite of these laws (and at times breaking them). The Japanese experience is one of the many American immigrant stories that should be celebrated. But so are the Hispanic and Arab-American stories.

Today's rhetoric, like the rhetoric of 100 years ago, is designed to incite fear and hatred. It includes lies about the number of "illegals" in prison, fantastic claims that leprosy being spread by immigrants, the constant use of inflammatory words like "invasion".

When a national television host claims that Miami (a largely Hispanic city) is a "third world" city, the intent is not without doubt. When people suggest banning Spanish (even though millions of Americans speak Spanish) this has nothing to do with being "illegal". When a Supreme Court Justice is criticized for how she pronounces her name...

Anti-immigrant rhetoric has always been about "us" versus "them", where one side presents itself as real "Americans" under attack by aliens. This was as true in your grandfather's time as it is now.




cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 06:12 pm
@ebrown p,
I'm well aware of the on-going rhetoric of hatred and fear. However, what we are talking about is legal and illegal immigration in today's environment. Regardless of how we see this issue, we are hopeless when our government doesn't do anything in the form of legislation (enforcement) or border control.

There will always be discrimination; that's a human trait.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 06:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quite the opposite, the on-going rhetoric of hatred and fear makes it impossible to make sane immigration policy (or to fix the insane policies). Our current immigration laws continue to evolve in the direction of not caring about families or even discouraging illegal immigration.

This is why on these threads there is no discussion (outside of fear-mongering) of what is best for the country. There is no discussion of "permanent bars" and other knee-jerk enforcement methods that actually encourage illegal immigration (if you are here, have family connections and no chance of getting back, you are going to plan to stay).

This is why on this thread there has been no balanced discussion about the controversial 287(g) provision (getting local police to act as federal immigration agents) which is opposed by many law enforcement agencies as hampering their mission to local communities.

An honest discussion on immigration reform is going to take an honest look at all sides of the issue; asking how policies affect American communities and families, weighing national needs versus the human cost of enforcement.

What you get instead is the same fear-mongering, hatred and anti-immigrant hysteria that we have seen here that demonizes not only the immigrants for breaking the law to get here, but also the Hispanic community in general for asking for understanding and moderation.

Pro-immigrant groups tend to be moderate. Most say there is a need for border security and that the country should say who comes in or not. You can have border security without the need to break families and fill prisons.

If we could somehow get rid of the prejudice, hate and fear it would be much easier for use to agree on a sensible, humane approach to regulating immigration.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 09:15 pm
Amnesty for illegal aliens
Issues

Vernon Briggs, a Cornell University labor economics professor stated:

"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor; it rips at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the rules is penalized... a guest worker program guarantees wages will never go up, and there is no way American citizens can compete with guest workers."

An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their act of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working using false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status for their breaking the law. In January, 2004 President Bush Proposed an earned legalization program for illegal aliens. This is an amnesty under another name.


Tidal wave of illegal immigration.

For over 200 years, the United states only granted amnesty in individual cases and had never given amnesty to large numbers of illegal aliens. Then in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who had evaded law enforcement for at least four years or who were working illegally in agriculture. This resulted in 2.8 million illegal aliens being admitted as legal immigrants to the United States.

Because of chain migration, those granted amnesty have brought in an additional 142,000 dependents - relatives brought in to the United States to join their family members.

The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet since 1986, Congress passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens:

The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 - a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 - an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 - an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 - an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
The Late Amnesty of 2000 - an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 - a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.
An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal immigration into the United States. After the 1986 amnesty, illegal immigration increased significantly. Census Bureau 2000 data indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with approximately 8-11 million illegal aliens now currently living in the United States (up to 12 million, according to Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge).

Yet an amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied. An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. Amnestied illegal aliens have no sponsor to support them financially. Instead, by enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.

According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, the total net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the former illegal aliens, less their tax contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty.

Congress has paved the way for more amnesties. In 2001, Mexico's President Vicente Fox began to lobby the United States to "regularize" the status of millions of illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. Both U.S. political parties, in attempts to pander to the Hispanic vote, speak of amnesties in various forms for illegal aliens.

By granting amnesties, Congress has set a dangerous precedent that threatens homeland security. Our normal immigration process involves screening to block potential criminals and terrorists from entering the United States. Yet millions of illegal aliens have avoided this screening and an amnesty would allow them to permanently bypass such screening.

President Bush's January, 2004 guest worker plan announcement - really an amnesty for illegal aliens - directly caused at least a 15% to 25% increase in illegals entering the United States.

Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans oppose amnesty for all illegal aliens and that Hispanics are less likely to reelect President Bush if he supports amnesty.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 09:29 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate, What do you think of this statement?

Quote:
Why isn't Haiti like Jamaica or Barbados? Those places certainly have their problems, but they're not dystopian like Haiti.....

My guess is that Haiti's so screwed up because it wasn't colonized long enough. The ancestors of today's Haitians, like elsewhere in the Caribbean, experienced the dislocation of de-tribalization, which disrupted the natural ties of family and clan and ethnicity. They also suffered the brutality of sugar-plantation slavery, which was so deadly that the majority of slaves at the time of independence were African-born, because their predecessors hadn't lived long enough to reproduce.

But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn't stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers.


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTU0MjIyMGVjNjU1ZjIyOTgyZmVhMzdiMmRhM2MwYmI=
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 09:58 pm
@Advocate,
That's one reason why discussions on illegal immigration is a time-waster; we can't expect our government to do the necessary law enforcement and border control to keep our borders secure. It's becomes more meaningless when they pass interim legislation that gets illegals off the hook while those who apply legally must wait their turn. It's all screwed up, and nothing can get done unless our government makes the effort to follow existing laws and border control. Even then, they have ways of circumventing those controls with amnesty provided by congress.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone,

Do you still not understand why the "Us versus Them" argument is both false and damaging?

It is wrong on many levels when anti-"illegal"-immigrant groups claim to speak for Americans-- as in "we can't expect our government to do the necessary law enforcement", as if all Americans -- or even a majority of Americans oppose the earned legalization that was a campaign promise of Obama (and part of many successful election efforts).

The fact is that the majority of Americans are moderates on immigration. Polls that ask the opinons on a moderate plan that includes a "path to citizenship" along with border security consistently show a majority of Americans support CIR. (Of course the stacked polls-- do you support illegal immigration, or do you support amnesty, will get different results).

Check the real information for yourself.
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Again, you give the "us versus them" to immigrants saying that giving CIR will be unfair to legal immigrants in spite of the fact that legal immigrants, when polled, strongly support a path to citizenship (incidentally . there is strong support for CIR in the Asian community).

If "we" all agreed with you, "we" would elect officials that would pass these laws. The last immigration bill (that "you" said was an amnesty) had majority support in Congress. It took a filibuster to stop it.

Drop the Us versus Them bullshit. "We" are just as much Americans as you are.

((How Advocate, who claims he voted for Obama, posts garbage from Krikorian is beyond me.))
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:33 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Hispanics are less likely to reelect President Bush if he supports amnesty.


This little claim from Advocate's propaganda piece is also funny. Bush got 9% more of the Hispanic vote in 2004 than he got in 2000. (Of course Obama, who strongly supported what the CIS folks call "amnesty" got stronger Hispanic support then Bush).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:47 pm
@ebrown p,
All I'm saying is, it's beyond my control, and what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future are also beyond my control. I offer my opinion just as simple facts as I see them.

How can it be both false and damaging? I accept the fact that I have no control over illegal immigration, past, present or future.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well you could stop enabling people who are spreading lies-- particularly when similar lies have done so much damage to immigrants (both legal and illegal) over the past 100 years.

And it would be even nicer if you could, instead of parroting one sided knee-jerk responses to the fears driven by anti-immigrant hysteria, look at the complex issues faced by immigrant families and communities.

Our current immigration policies are a insane patchwork driven by balancing business needs with thinly-veiled racial fears. There are many legal immigrants and American citizens who are hurt by our inability to fix our immigration system in a reasoned and balanced way.

President Obama has it about right; a solution that is reasonable, addresses needs of American families and communities and is politically feasible (provided we can somehow quiet the fear mongering).

roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:08 pm
@ebrown p,
I missed it. What is Obama proposing?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 01:01:35