50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:34 am
Your goal from Day 1 is to throw the law out the window and meke some fuzzy liberal-headed notion of compassion the number #1 priority.

You have absolutely refused to see or accept any observation or arguments that your version of compassion is not compassionate in the bigger picture.

And no conservative on this thread that I've seen, regardless of your vehement accusations, has played the race card even once. You have.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:44 am
Quote:
And no conservative on this thread that I've seen, regardless of your vehement accusations, has played the race card even once.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:45 am
And I guess I didn't really even expect you to know what 'playing the race card' means. But the article I posted this morning explains it pretty well.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:48 am
Actually, the article revel posted (previous page) explains it much better.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:51 am
Perhaps conservatives on these threads have not used racist comments in the immigration issue, however, the same cannot be said for the right wing pundits on TV who are forming the debate. The more heated up the debate gets the more the blatant they are getting. I don't know why some of these guys are even given a forum and air time to vent their hatred.

Anyone wanting proof of the above, just do a google search on racist slurs, immigration and pundits.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:58 am
revel wrote:
Perhaps conservatives on these threads have not used racist comments in the immigration issue, however, the same cannot be said for the right wing pundits on TV who are forming the debate. The more heated up the debate gets the more the blatant they are getting. I don't know why some of these guys are even given a forum and air time to vent their hatred.

Anyone wanting proof of the above, just do a google search on racist slurs, immigration and pundits.


Internet trolls intentionally pad Google to produce a large number of hits on any particular inflammatory subject.

But do your own Google search. Type in Democrat racist comments or Democrat race quotes or some such phrase and actually read the direct quotes.

Do the same with Republicans.

You might be really really surprised. I have done this and while there is valid criticism of people in both parties, the Democrats are much MUCh better at racist comments than are the Republicans.

But evenso, this is not about racism or racist remarks.

It is the attempt of people like ebrown to deflect the real issues and try to make it an issue of racism. It isn't. It has nothing to do with racism no matter how much some may attempt to make it that.

And that's why my article posted today is better than yours to address that subject.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 11:37 am
I do not doubt that leftist make racist slurs just as much as rightist (don't know quite how to phrase it) do. However, it is the right wing who introduced the racist card in the immigration issue by making racist comments when talking of immigration issues. It's simple logic foxfyre if you could get your head out of the box long enough to see it.

Quote:
Michael Savage, for instance, who is well known for his racist, sexist, and homophobic diatribes, has recently directly appealed to white supremacist sentiments in airing his views on immigration on his radio talk show. During broadcasts last week, he described "the immigration invasion" as having a "racial element," stating specifically that "our brown brethren" are out to replace whites. Savage described whites as more "enlightened" than minorities, implying this gives them a right to rule and to use force to remain in the majority. He described immigrants from Mexico as "drug lords." For his part, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who was being interviewed during Savage's racist fit, appeared to agree with Savage.

Savage's argument ignored the question of jobs or wages. It had nothing to do with finding ways to improve life for workers in the US or in Mexico and other countries where economic hardships imposed by "free trade" agreements like NAFTA often make migrating to the US seem appealing. Savage's outburst had nothing to do with corporations that want to pay workers less in order to increase their profits, and that actively seek out workers in other countries to entice them here.

Savage accused immigrants from Mexico and Central America of "erasing the white person" and wondered "what will America look like?"

For good measure, in the next day's program, Savage proceeded to hurl anti-Semitic slurs at former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and homophobic attacks on government workers who might be gay.

One could easily say that Savage should wipe the spittle from his mouth and seek medical attention. He could be easily dismissed if he didn't have so much company and if the mainstream media weren't so willing to publicize these views.

Fox News mouthpiece John Gibson also chimed in last week. Reviving the "race suicide" theories of the anti-immigrant backlash of a century ago that have become the mainstay of white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations, Gibson lamented the declining relative birth rate of whites. Appealing to fears of the survival of white "civilization," Gibson urged his viewers to make more babies. Unfortunately for his dream of racial supremacy, the average age of his viewers is well past the normal human age of reproduction.


source

here is a list of Buchanan racist comments in connection with immigration.

Michelle Malkin
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 11:57 am
Revel please go straight to the sources and read or listen to what these people are saying, not what some Leftwing hack says they are saying. See their remarks in context.

Buchanan is who he is, but speaking the truth about the conditions related to a particular ethnic group is not racist no matter how much somebody wishes to make it so. Does he cross the line into political incorrectness at times? He most certainly does. And I suspect he may be a bit anti-semitic but that is not conclusive.

(My favorite Pat Buchanan story is the day he was to speak to an America First rally and drove up in his Mercdes. Smile)

Malkin I would guess doesn't have a racist bone in her body.

Savage is an absolute maniac in his passion and phrases things in ways I find offensive, but put his remarks and meanings in context, and they are not racist. They are speaking a truth in a politically incorrect way.

It is racist to attribute a particular negative connotation to any group of people based on their skin color, ethnicity, or country of origin BECAUSE the people are of a particular skin color, ethnicity, or country of origin..

It is not racist to acknowledge that those who are doing wrong or are causing a problem are of a particular skin color, ethnicity, or country of origin.

Examples:

It is racist to say that black people are incapable of helping themselves.
It is not racist to say that certain groups of black people have failed to help themselves.

It is racist to say that all Irish are drunks.
It is not racist to say that the drunk is an Irishman.

It is racist to say that Mexicans want to take over America.
It is not racist to say that most members of La Raza advocating that are Mexican.

It is racist to say that Mexican people are dishonest, irresponsible, or illegally opportunistic.
It is not racist to say that most or all of the women are Mexican who show up at American emergency rooms to have anchor babies.

It is racist to say that followers of Islam are terrorists.
It is not racist to say that terrorists these days are mostly the radical element of Islam.

It is racist to say that Mexicans are the problem and should be stopped from entering America.
It is not racist to say that most of our illegal immigration problem comes from or through Mexico and that is the border we most need to shore up and protect.

It is racist to say Hispanic people can't be or won't be good Americans.
It is not racist to say that all who want to be Americans must obey the laws, speak English, and assimilate their ethnicity seamlessly into the American culture.

It is racist to say that Caucasians are smarter and/or more capable than other races.
It is not racist to say that Caucasions are as good as anybody else.

It is racist to say that American citizenship should be reserved for any particular group, race, or socioeconomic group.
It is not racist to say that immigration policies should apply equally to everybody and in the long term that will result in the best possible outcome for everybody.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 07:29 am
Whatever you say foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:11 am
Perils darken a shadow economy

http://i3.tinypic.com/286tzt3.jpg http://i4.tinypic.com/286u05w.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:12 am
Since some won't register with the Chicago Tribune, here's the online version of the report (from the frontpage and page 7 of today's print issue):



Quote:
Perils darken a shadow economy
Illegal immigrant workers, the health-care system and taxpayers all pay a steep price


By Stephen Franklin and Darnell Little
Tribune staff reporters
Published September 4, 2006


Raul Rosas lies in pain in a dark, foul-smelling hovel that resembles a shallow cave more than a basement.

Paralyzed in a workplace accident five years ago, he survives by selling fruits and vegetables from a wheelchair on a Chicago street corner. But now he is sick with a stomach infection and can't buy medication because he has no way to get to a drugstore.

Since losing the ability to walk, Rosas' life has shrunk to the barest existence. He is a veritable ghost, and a depleted one because he is an illegal immigrant and therefore ineligible for all government assistance beyond emergency room care.

"It is very hard," he said dejectedly, turning his crumpled body away.

When an undocumented worker has an accident or gets sick, it puts pressure on the families, who must do without a paycheck, and it puts pressure on the public health system, because the workers are less likely to have insurance.

This is an issue at the heart of the debate over immigration reform: whether the economic contributions of illegal workers outweigh the costs, and whether they should remain in the U.S. at all.

What's been overlooked are the risks the workers take, the price they pay and the impact.

Because they tend to exist in the shadows, beyond the workplace protections that others take for granted, the undocumented are more likely to face hardships after their accidents. Some return home. Others remain in the United States, partly because they still can earn more income here.

Rosas, an immigrant from Mexico, was hired to remove a tree from a back yard. The tree fell and seriously injured him.

"The guy he was working for didn't even want to call the ambulance," said Ramon Canellada, a disability coordinator at Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital on Chicago's South Side, where Rosas was briefly treated.

Since then, Rosas has not received any government-supported therapy, or any medicine or a wheelchair. He bought those himself. One of his few protectors is Canellada, who has tried to keep an eye on him, even scrounging for parts for Rosas' electric wheelchair.

Fiercely independent, Rosas, 48, lives on whatever he earns from fruit-and-vegetable sales during warm-weather days. He pays $300 a month for his tiny corner of the basement, which he shares with two other Latino workers.

Before the recent uproar over illegal immigrants, Rene Lune, a worker with Access Living, a Chicago agency that helps the disabled, would refer injured Latino workers such as Rosas to public health agencies, which might overlook their immigration status and provide help.

"Now with all of the strict background checks, [agencies] won't do it," Lune said.

The worker's compensation system is supposed to help injured workers such as Rosas with recovery--and that includes illegal immigrants. Nearly every employer in Illinois is required to provide such coverage.

But because of the risky or marginal jobs held by illegal workers and the types of employers they work for, the system hasn't exactly benefited Latino workers.

Many are injured while working for small businesses that have neither health insurance nor worker's compensation coverage, said attorney Jose Rivero. Some larger companies, he added, don't think they have to provide benefits for their "clandestine" workforce.

Illinois overseers shut down

For years the state did little to make sure employers complied with the state's worker's compensation law. From 1983 to 1996, the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission kept shut its compliance unit for budgetary reasons, according to state officials. It now has four workers, none of whom speaks Spanish.

Asked how many employers comply with the law, state officials, replying by e-mail, said they didn't know but were looking for ways to find that out.

Rivero is hopeful that the commission will do a better job because of laws passed last year. Those laws beef up the penalties and give the commission more power to go after businesses that do not provide worker's compensation.

The changes came from a state commission last year that looked at Latino workers' injuries and fatalities. It was the only state-sponsored study of its kind, Illinois officials point out.

Still, even when the law is upheld, there are problems.

Rather than pay hefty medical bills, firms without insurance will threaten to go out of business, which is one reason Rivero often said he seeks lower settlements for his clients.

The presence of so many Latinos in low-wage jobs also pushes him toward reduced-compensation settlements. It is hard to bargain for hefty settlements when they earn so little. A missing finger or a burn that will linger for a lifetime winds up discounted for the low-wage Latino worker.

Yolanda Sanchez, 55, understands that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
Quote:
A part-time weekend cook at a small restaurant in Chicago, she suffered a bad burn from a tipped vat of hot cooking oil. She earned $80 weekly from the restaurant and had two other jobs in order to get by.

The restaurant didn't have worker's compensation insurance, so Rivero settled for $12,000; Sanchez got $8,000. She had a $14,000 unpaid bill with Stroger Hospital, but it was willing to accept $4,000, Rivero said.

"I was concerned about not getting anything," he said.

Indeed, workers' unpaid medical bills is a significant issue.

"We have had a number of clients who had really bad injuries and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars that hospitals have had to eat because there was no health insurance," lawyer David Menchetti said.

The overall bill for treating injured immigrants without insurance is not known, but the federal government acknowledged the problem's depth in 2005 when it began setting aside $250 million a year to cover emergency medical-care costs for illegal immigrants shouldered by communities across the U.S.

A share of those bills comes from workers hurt on the job, such as Oscar Gaytan, 23.

Gaytan was working at the St. Anne Area Farmer Auction near Kankakee in March 2003 when he was told to change a light bulb from a fake ceiling. He had been employed there about nine months, he said, earning $6 an hour. Tall and husky, he had come from Mexico three years earlier.

He fell about 30 feet, hitting his head on the blades of a large piece of farm equipment. He spent about 30 days in a hospital. His medical bills, according to a July 2004 ruling by an Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission arbitrator, came to $270,541. The commission also ordered the small farm-equipment auction to pay Gaytan $135,270 for his injuries and his lawyers $27,054 for their work.

Gaytan hasn't received a penny. Nor have any of those who provided medical care. Auction owner James Wituoet said only that he is appealing the case.

"I am not the same as before," Gaytan said after work recently at a farm near Kankakee. He is constantly reminded of the accident by headaches and by a scar across the back of his skull. He fears crowds and the dark, and he rarely goes out.

He remembers a doctor telling him that he needs therapy, but he has not received any since the accident because he cannot pay for it and he is ineligible for government support.

Much of the responsibility for protecting the nation's workers rests with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA officials in Washington and Chicago boast about hiring more Spanish-speaking OSHA workers, about making partners with Latino community groups and about winning over Latino workers' trust.

But they also concede it is a struggle.

To begin, the agency's ranks are limited, they say. Then there is the wave of fear that swept Latino communities last year after Homeland Security officials, posing as OSHA representatives, called a "mandatory" safety workshop in North Carolina and arrested the workers who showed up. OSHA officials say that was a wrong thing to do and won't happen again.

There also is the broad reluctance of workers and others to identify dangerous workplaces.

"It is better. People know who we are," said Michael Connors, OSHA's regional head in Chicago. "But it is not like we are getting any calls or complaints from the community."
Nor, Connors said, do physicians alert his agency.

Jose Oliva of the Chicago-based Interfaith Committee on Worker Issues, an advocacy group, said it has a unique arrangement with OSHA that allows it to relay workers' anonymous complaints. It was the first of its kind in the nation, and OSHA officials hailed it as a way to reach workers.

Backdoor for whistle-blowers

But sometimes Oliva is reluctant to name companies.

"It is hard for us," he said. "You know you are putting people back into danger. [But] if the company went out of business, you would have 300 people out of jobs."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
Quote:

Not long ago he decided not to file a complaint with OSHA against a Bellwood company after it agreed to hire back about 25 Latinos who had been let go because they took time off to march in an immigration rally. Some workers had complained that the firm did not provide safety equipment and that fans failed to ventilate toxic fumes, Oliva said.

A month after the company rehired the workers, an explosion there killed a truck driver making a delivery and injured three factory workers and two firefighters. OSHA officials said they are investigating the incident at Universal Farm Clamp Co.

Company officials declined to comment.

Ivan Caudillo's death in March last year is a reminder that OSHA can do only so much when someone dies on the job.

Caudillo, a 21-year-old illegal Mexican immigrant, had been on the job four days at Euro Marble & Granite Inc. in suburban Schiller Park and had handled large chunks of material the day before when he was crushed by 3 tons of granite.

Until then, he had worked part-time as a dishwasher and bus boy while going to school. He had been sending money home to his family in Mexico.

But because he planned to marry, he had sought the better-paying job so he could send more money to his fiance, according to his uncle, Alvaro Caudillo, with whom he had lived.

Ivan Caudillo and two other workers were attempting to load sheets of granite stored in a trailer, according to Schiller Park police and OSHA reports.

The strap holding the marble to a lifting device apparently was loose, and Caudillo stepped into the trailer to steady it. The granite shifted and fell on him.

"The fact that he went back in to try to catch the granite would reflect that he didn't [understand] what was going on," said attorney James Geraghty, who looked into the case at the uncle's request. "It's training. The majority of these situations are training-related. It is not that they are unskilled; it is that they are untrained."

OSHA officials looked into that question and decided the company had told Caudillo about the job the day before. "Hands-on training" is enough, OSHA's Connors said.

OSHA initially fined the company $11,250 for a series of violations but reduced it to $3,800, which Connors said is not unusual. The company threatened to take the case to court, and the agency prefers to avoid such battles--one reason that such fines often are reduced.

The firm also got a break because it is a small business, Connors said. OSHA later fined the company $3,887 for other violations and reduced that to $2,720.

Company lawyer Charles Harth said the violations were not related to the death, but he declined to comment further.

Of all the Illinois workplace death inspections by OSHA that were closed from 2000 to 2004, no violations were filed in 41 percent of the cases.

Similarly, of the cases where violations were found, half of the inspections resulted in a fine of $3,125 or less.

Upset by his nephew's death, Alvaro Caudillo threw himself into the case, hoping to gain some money for the family through the courts.

A lawyer helped him get the company's insurer to pay for sending his nephew's body to Mexico, but that was it. Caudillo tried, but no other lawyers were interested in the worker's compensation case.

Because Ivan Caudillo was unmarried and had stopped sending money to his family, it became a complicated case, they said.

But not to Caudillo, who has kept his nephew's records in order, everything filed and folded carefully.

In one plastic folder, he has the money he recently received from the company for his nephew's sole check, $214.80. He said he will send it soon to his brother.

Caudillo recently felt ill, but his doctor told him there is nothing wrong with him.

"I'm probably too worried about this," said Caudillo, a tailor who walks with a stiff gait--the result of aging, he said.

"I feel the pain of his death," he said, leaning back as if there were a weight pressing down on his chest. "It is indescribable."

----------

[email protected]

[email protected]

ON THE INTERNET Hear the survivors' stories in their own words at chicagotribune.com
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:19 am
I'm not sure, but might be that special report was published due to the fire which killed six children of illigal immigrants in Chicago on Sunday. (Due to candles, because they didn't have electricity in their apartment.)
0 Replies
 
Chaplin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:44 am
I didn't vote on the poll on this thread, because it's meaningless without government enforcement. They make the laws, but fail to enforce the laws they establish. What more needs to be said?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 11:00 am
Chaplin wrote:
I didn't vote on the poll on this thread, because it's meaningless without government enforcement. They make the laws, but fail to enforce the laws they establish. What more needs to be said?


Well welcome to A2K anyway Chaplin. And the poll isn't meaningless if we Americans are willing to put the pressure on our elected representatives to make effective laws AND enforce them. The question starting the thread is what is the MOST IMPORTANT thing to do regarding immigration. For me the answer as to what is most important was relatively simple. And of course our government isn't doing it. But I never give up hope that we can elect people with integrity, vision, and courage who will.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 04:44 am
Quote:


So who's going to pick our crops? Where is our labor going to come from?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 08:11 am
Quote:

And the poll isn't meaningless if we Americans are willing to put the pressure on our elected representatives to make effective laws AND enforce them.


And the poll also isn't meaningless if we Americans are willing to put pressure on our elected representatives to come up with a comprehensive solution that includes compassion toward people who have been working and building families here for a long time.

Currently it is the House Republicans who are holding up the process toward making any laws. Speaker Hastert won't even allow the current bill to go into Conference (which is how any legislation will take place).

All this because the Conservatives oppose a path to citizenship-- which Americans have said they will accept as part of a comprehensive legislation.

And with all this, is the constant drumming against multiculturalism of Conservative leaders who oppose citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

I think the conservative opposition to multiculturalism is the real reason they are fighting so hard against a comprehensive immigration solution.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 09:17 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Currently it is the House Republicans who are holding up the process toward making any laws. Speaker Hastert won't even allow the current bill to go into Conference (which is how any legislation will take place).

All this because the Conservatives oppose a path to citizenship-- which Americans have said they will accept as part of a comprehensive legislation.

Fortunately, there is hope that House Republicans will loose their majority status come November. And if that happens, I wouldn't even rule out that some House Republicans take the hint and learn something.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 09:27 am
Thomas wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Currently it is the House Republicans who are holding up the process toward making any laws. Speaker Hastert won't even allow the current bill to go into Conference (which is how any legislation will take place).

All this because the Conservatives oppose a path to citizenship-- which Americans have said they will accept as part of a comprehensive legislation.

Fortunately, there is hope that House Republicans will loose their majority status come November. And if that happens, I wouldn't even rule out that some House Republicans take the hint and learn something.


I agree that there is a strong possibility the GOP will lose the House in November and it is not impossible for them to lose the Senate as well. Because of their fiscal irresponsibility and inertia on getting anything done on the immigration issue and a few other key issues, many Republicans believe they do not deserve to be re-elected.

But the Democrats have forwarded fewer credible ideas and have contributed little but obstructionism for six years now. I can't see that we'll be any better off with them and there is no way most Republicans are going to vote for them given their lack of vision and lack of statesmanship when it comes to what is best for the country. And there is no way the Democrats other than Lieberman have any credibility on national security and the Dems have pretty well shafted him.

So where is the GOP going to go for candidates? Not to the Dems.

But I'm afraid they'll stay home and not vote at all.

And we'll be no closer to a comprehensive immigration policy or enforcing the one we have now.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/30/2025 at 03:49:27