What should be done about illegal immigration?

Back on topic:

I have said repeatedly that I believe the majority of illegals in the United States intend nobody any harm and their worst crime is thumbing their noses at U.S. law. I also know, with some first hand experience, that a minority of illegals, but in numbers large enough to be significant, both intend and do significant harm.

In the news this week are accounts of a large illegal immigrant round up that has netted some very unsavory characters and some 55 illegals working in secured areas at airports. Even the most hard nosed pro-amnesty members should think about that. See HERE

The following piece underscores one of the additional 'elephant in the room' facets of the issue. It is politically incorrect to talk about it of course. But I wonder how many of you will admit that it should be talked about?

Pinkerton worked in the Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses and has been on the Newsday staff for awhile now.

Here is the link to Lovato's piece that he cites:
http://app.thenation.com/doc/20060619/lovato

James P. Pinkerton
'Movimiento' aims to take back America
June 15, 2006

Advocates of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico do their best to present a mellow American flag-waving image to the public. But when they gather in semiprivate, they communicate much differently to each other. Perhaps they need to be even more careful.

In the big pro-immigration marches this spring, Hispanic activists sought to present themselves as "civil rights" advocates in the gentle and inclusive tradition of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Oh sure, some of the recent marchers went "off message," carrying Mexican flags and calling for "reconquista," but for the most part, the demonstrators were well-behaved.

But offstage, as it were, a different and harsher truth comes out. It's not a "movement," they tell each other when cameras aren't watching, it's a "movimiento" - and that Spanish-language phrasing speaks volumes about the true tilt of pro-immigration activists.

How do I know this? On Tuesday, I attended a panel discussion entitled "The New Immigrants Movement," part of a "Take Back America" conference convened in Washington, D.C., by the left-wing Campaign for America's Future. The event was open to anyone, although fewer than 100 people showed up. But to give you a flavor of the meeting, here are the surnames of the people on the panel: Lovato, Salas, Contreras, Lopez, Ramirez and another Lopez. All Hispanic - and some quite angry.

Consider the words of Roberto Lovato, identified as a writer for New American Media, describing itself as "the country's first and largest national collaboration of ethnic news organizations." Speaking first, Lovato declared that he had problems with the words "civil rights." Why? In part because that phrase had been used by black Americans half a century ago - it was their term. But mostly, he continued, the term is inapt because today "a lot of the members of the movement were political revolutionaries in countries such as Nicaragua and El Salvador." And that's why, he concluded, "this is not just a civil rights movement - this is the northernmost expression of a continental rights movement."

Got that? This is "the northernmost expression of a continental rights movement" led by "political revolutionaries" from Nicaragua and El Salvador. Could Lovato have gotten carried away? Could perhaps I have misquoted him? Fortunately for the sake of a verifiable record, Lovato made the same argument in an article, "Voices of a New Movimiento," in the June 19 issue of The Nation magazine. And how do I know about this piece? Because it was handed out to all attendees of the breakout session.

And on Page 11 of the Nation article, Lovato writes the following, reinforcing his argument that immigration is a "quintessentially global issue." About this global issue, he declares, "Reframing it as a 'new civil rights movement' risks erasing its roots in the Latin American struggles and history." Is that clear enough? Then, for good measure, Lovato's article cites the "radical" efforts of one Miguel Ramirez, who left El Salvador in 1979 and now heads up Centro Hispano Cuzcatlán in Queens. The transnational experience of Ramirez and others, "shows that the U.S. movimiento is ... the northernmost expression of a resurgent Latin American left."

Is that what we want to let into the United States?

In fairness, no others on the panel were as vehement as Lovato - although none took issue with his radicalism. More typical was Rudy Lopez, from the group Wellstone Action, based in St. Paul, Minn. "In spite of the makeup of the panel," Lopez told the audience, "this is not only a Latino movement." But then he proceeded to discuss key electoral states, providing the robust Spanish pronunciation of California, Texas and "La Florida."

This is a free country. Advocates for unlimited Hispanic immigration are free to advocate a radical, even revolutionary, worldview - indeed, they do the rest of us a favor when they do. Because then we are free to oppose them.
SOURCE

We should be sympathetic towards Illegal immigrants? These are the people primarily spoken about in terms of who and why we need a strict immigration policy and a program to stop illegal immigration.
_______________________________________________

Agency nabs illegal immigrants across U.S.
By ANDREW RYAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 14, 4:04 PM ET

BOSTON - A swarm of federal immigration agents sped silently, headlights off, down a Boston side street early Wednesday and surrounded an apartment house.

"Police! Policia! Police!" yelled Daniel Monico, a deportation officer, holding his badge to a window where someone had pulled back the curtain. "Open the door!"

Moments later, agents led a dazed-looking Jose Ferreira Da Silva, 35, out in handcuffs. The Brazilian had been arrested in 2002 and deported, but had slipped back into the country. He now faces up to 20 years in prison.

In a blitz that began May 26, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested nearly 2,100 illegal immigrants across the country. Officials said the raids are aimed at child molesters, gang members and other violent criminals, as well as people like Da Silva who sneaked back into the country after a judge threw them out.

The crackdown is called Operation Return to Sender.

"This sends a message," said Monico, standing outside the gray Victorian apartment where Da Silva had been hiding. "When we deport you, we're serious."

An Associated Press reporter and photographer accompanied a fugitive task force as it made Operation Return to Sender raids Tuesday night and early Wednesday.

The operation has caught more than 140 immigrants with convictions for sexual offenses against children; 367 known gang members, including street soldiers in the deadly Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; and about 640 people who had already been deported once, immigration officials said. The numbers include more than 720 arrests in California alone.

More than 800 people arrested already have been deported.

"This is a massive operation," said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for immigration enforcement or ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. "We are watching the country's borders from the inside."

The government has conducted similar large-scale immigration sweeps from time to time. On April 20, agents rounded up 1,100 illegal immigrants in 40 cities.

In New England, officials said the Operation Return to Sender sweeps have caught more than 150 people, including 75 who had come back after being deported.

ICE has a network of 35 fugitive teams across the country. The 2006 budget increased that number to 52, and the Bush administration is pushing for 70 by 2007.

The challenge, agents said, is staggering.

There are more than 500,000 "fugitive aliens" who have been deported by judges and either slipped back into the country or never left. There is often a disconnect between local and state prisons and the federal government that allows illegal immigrants to serve time and be released without being transferred to federal officials for deportation.

The work that led to the series of arrests over the past 20 days began last winter. Agents in Boston, for example, began scouting targets four months ago, conducting street surveillance and following up leads from confidential informants.

"It's a lot of preparation, and it's a lot of patience," said Jim Martin, deputy director for ICE's New England field office. "All for a couple minutes of adrenaline."

During the raid late Tuesday, the federal squad, which includes a Boston police sergeant detective, wore bulging bulletproof vests and stiff Kevlar gloves to protect their hands from needles, knives and rusty fences.

Badges dangled on chains around their necks as they passed around wanted posters and shined flashlights on the face of a 24-year-old Latvian man who had served prison time for assaulting a police officer.

The team moved in the dark, climbing fences and hiding behind parked cars to encircle a three-story house in Boston's Allston-Brighton neighborhood. All at once they emerged from the shadows. A half-dozen agents filled the front porch, their knocks on the door echoing down the block. The target had moved, the agents learned, and a team split off and caught him in Weymouth, about 15 miles south of the city.

Another man caught in the recent blitz was a Salvadoran gang member who was convicted in a stabbing that left a 13-year-old boy paralyzed. Agents caught him working at Budget Rental Car at Boston's Logan Airport.

"The problems with immigration aren't going to be solved overnight," Raimondi said as the team sped toward another raid. "You start chipping away at it ... The more teams we get up and running, the more dangerous people we are going to get off the streets."

McG writes


Yes. I can deeply care about and be sympathetic to the situation of peaceful people who are just trying to get ahead. It is these I hope some provision is made for them to go home and come back legally so that they can live here truly free and with all the privileges to which they are entitled.

I cannot, however, agree that their crime--violating U.S. immigration law--can just be ignored or that the penalty be reduced in favor of amnesty. For every person that we want to be here who benefits from such a policy, we run the the very real risk of providing amnesty for the thugs and thieves and more dangerous people as cited in the article you posted.

I think far better to enforce the law and retain policies that allow us to keep control of the issue, but we should also come up with policies that make it much easier for those people we want to be here to get here.

Easier???? Nothing worth while should ever be "easy".

I work with a gentleman who has LEGALLY been here 14 years, working and raising a family. He is sitting for his exam today in hopes of gaining his citizenship today.

He WANTS to be an American and followed the rules.

Those who are here illegally who only want to be IN America, there can be no amnesty, no shortcuts.

To do so will cheapen the efforts of my friend and new American citizen.

I agree that American citizenship should be neither easy nor cheap. Years ago when I was helping people complete the requirements for citizenship, the good people then were willing to denounce allegiance to their former countries, eagerly swore their allegiance to this country, its flag, and its Constitution, and they were fully prepared to do whatever was necessary to learn the language and legally support themselves and their families. It was a long and arduous process, and every single one thought the effort was worth it.

However, given that we have virtually full employment in this country with illegal workers here, it is obvious that we need those workers. I think those of us who appreciate and value the rule of law think those workers should be here legally, but realistically it would make sense to make it easier (and quicker) for them to enter the country legally. I still think they should have to go home and come back legally, however.

After proper background checks and applications are processed, I don't see any reason that we should not admit as many people as can be productively assimilated as we need those people. I don't see why it should require many years to complete that process. I do think the deserving who are already on waiting lists should be the first ones let in. The path to citizenship can then be as arduous as it needs to be.

woiyo wrote:
Easier???? Nothing worth while should ever be "easy".

I work with a gentleman who has LEGALLY been here 14 years, working and raising a family. He is sitting for his exam today in hopes of gaining his citizenship today.

He WANTS to be an American and followed the rules.

Those who are here illegally who only want to be IN America, there can be no amnesty, no shortcuts.

To do so will cheapen the efforts of my friend and new American citizen.

As far as what your opinion about legal/illegal immigration to our country, it's most likely that congress will disappoint most of us that disagrees with the laws they have already established but not enforced, and the current legislation now being worked on - and doing nothing to enforce past and current laws. Border control is only part of the problem which congress fails to address.

Woiyo,

Is your immigrant "friend" registered to vote yet? We will be by to talk to him about immigrants and Republicans...

<< ebrown wonders if this isn't like the famed black friend of yore>>

Trust me, he is extremely annoyed at those who think like you and would enjoy nothing better to "knock" some sense into your thick little head.

Same with my Italian and Mexican relatives. (Those of Spanish descent can trace their American bloodlines back a lot further than I can.) The first generation got here legally and, while they think there is room to relax the time it takes to immigrate legally these days and so do I, they are 100% opposed to rewarding in any way those people who come illegally.

My intermittent part time housekeeper and friend is here with a green card and is waiting for citizenship status. She worked hard to learn English and get a small but profitable housekeeping business up and running. She sometimes watches the news with me when she is here and shakes her head. She's doing it legal. Why shouldn't everybody else have to do it legal? She understands those who want to bring in their families without all the red tape or those who want to keep illegal friends and relatives here--she doesn't have that particular problem--but she thinks everybody should have to obey the law.

People like her I think are people anybody would be proud to share a country with.

Yeah. Yeah....

and I know some Christians who believe in loving their neighbor too (and these are the Christians that I am proud to share a country with).

By a two to one margin, legal immigrants support a path to citizenship for their "illegal" counterparts.

Deal with it... the majority of the legal immigrant community and the Latino community of American citizens think that your side is not only wrong, but motivated by racism.

Fortunately, those you describe represent a MINORITY VOICE in our system of Govt. Therefore a majority of a minority is useless when talking to the voting public.

That is a concept foreign to you.

Your side is basically going to be filibustering what I think is a reasonable compromise. Your so-called "majority" was unable to get its now infamous bill (HR4437) passed and it is now politically dead.

The latest polls say about 60% of Americans would support a solution that includes a path to earned legalization for people who have been here for a long time and put down roots.

So the result is that nothing will happen... because the Republican majority in the House is going to use procedural tricks to kill a bill that according to polls is acceptable to a majority of Americans.

I hope that your willingness to accept the majority party view is consistant in that glorious day when Americans get fed up with the current do-nothing majority party.

Woah! After around 50 pages of abscence I can see that this thread is officially going in circles. Im still betting on 300.

e_brown wrote:
Your side is basically going to be filibustering what I think is a reasonable compromise. Your so-called "majority" was unable to get its now infamous bill (HR4437) passed and it is now politically dead.

The latest polls say about 60% of Americans would support a solution that includes a path to earned legalization for people who have been here for a long time and put down roots.

So the result is that nothing will happen... because the Republican majority in the House is going to use procedural tricks to kill a bill that according to polls is acceptable to a majority of Americans.

I hope that your willingness to accept the majority party view is consistant in that glorious day when Americans get fed up with the current do-nothing majority party.

You're one of the few on a2k that really understands what's going on with the immigration bill in congress. It doesn't matter what the majority of Americans think about legal/illegal immigration, because congress will do nothing even if a bill comes out. We already have immigration laws, but they are not enforced.

ebrown...

Why is it racist to want the laws enforced?

Is it racist if the laws about stealing cars are enforced?

How many other laws,and what other laws,are racist just by being enforced?

Tienes razon Pohl. Es un gasto de tiempo.

mm is an expert at straw man arguments.

MM can distinguish between a straw man argument and a valid analogy. He definitely used the latter for the basis of his argument.

Fox, You are probably still unawares of the unequal treatment of our legal system against minorities. Shame on you!

Now CI's statement is a straw man argument. You might study it against MM's statement and figure out the difference.