DVD Talk
One & Only Illegal Immigration Thread: Part VI [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : One & Only Illegal Immigration Thread: Part VI


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

wendersfan
11-13-07, 08:18 PM
Obviously people in favor of open borders want the fence blocked because they know it will do exactly what it is supposed to doSo you presume to know what other people are <i>really</i> thinking? :lol:

wildcatlh
11-13-07, 08:18 PM
Border security is pointless. Nothing but a permanent cadre of border patrol agents and/or soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder over a 2,000 mile border could stop illegals from coming in over the Mexican border, and even that would be fallible (considering that 45% of people in this country illegally orginally came here by some legal manner). As border security has increased, apprehensions of immigrants coming over the border has actually decreased, because people just go over more remote areas of the border. If you built a 2,000 mile fence it wouldn't stop a thing, because you can't watch every inch of the border 24/7, and people will be able to go over/under/through the fence fairly easily.

Though I question the wisdom thereof, the only possible way to stem the flow of immigration would be to strictly enforce laws that enact punishments on employers for hiring illegals. And considering how bad government systems have fared in the past at detecting forged documents (if you're going to throw people in jail for hiring illegals, you need to give them some guidance on what documents are genuine or not after all), I'm not sure that would stop anything either.

Franchot
11-13-07, 10:14 PM
Border security is pointless...If you built a 2,000 mile fence it wouldn't stop a thing, because you can't watch every inch of the border 24/7, and people will be able to go over/under/through the fence fairly easily.


I can't agree with you. If some illegal immigrants begin getting caught and are sentenced to jail for breaking into our country, the word will spread and many will either self-deport or not attempt to cross. (Couple this with the United States refusing to offer welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants and you will see a decline in people coming here illegally.)

I'm quite sure that a 2,000 mile fence WILL stop some illegal immigrants. In addition, there has been much talk about what kind of fence needs to be built. Sure, a ten foot chain link fence isn't going to deter many people, but the people who envision this border fence between Mexico and the United States are pushing for a double or triple walled fence that will catch illegal immigrants who get past the first barrier of fencing.

Here's an article about the double/triple fence:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

General Zod
11-13-07, 10:27 PM
If you built a 2,000 mile fence it wouldn't stop a thing, because you can't watch every inch of the border 24/7, and people will be able to go over/under/through the fence fairly easily.
This isn't some little picket fence they are talking about. This is a very secure triple-layer fence design.

You read this article about it and the positive effects of the wall in San Diego:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

General Zod
11-13-07, 10:28 PM
So you presume to know what other people are <i>really</i> thinking? :lol:
Just look at who the people seeking alternatives and it becomes extremely obvious.

wildcatlh
11-13-07, 10:38 PM
The problem is that the current fence doesn't stop anyone from crossing -- they just cross in different places.

I was (obviously) exaggerating a bit when I said it wouldn't stop a thing. Build the fence entirely over the 2000 mile border and you're going to stop some immigrants from coming in, but I'd say the percentage will be small.

wishbone
11-14-07, 08:30 AM
N.Y. governor abandons driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will withdraw a controversial plan that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, a spokeswoman told CNN Tuesday night.

Spitzer plans to withdraw the proposal on Wednesday, spokeswoman Jennifer Givner told CNN.

The governor is in Washington, D.C., for a meeting with New York's congressional delegation on the issue, she said.

Spitzer's plan drew national attention and stirred opposition from critics, some of whom expressed concern over possible voter fraud.

"I believe this is just a fundamental issue of right and wrong," said Rep. Tom Latham, an Iowa Republican who opposes Spitzer's plan. "And to give people official recognition when they come in and break the law in their first act in this country is simply wrong."

Seventy-six percent of Americans oppose giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, according to poll conducted in October for CNN by the Opinion Research Corp.

Members of the New York State Sheriffs' Association voted in October to oppose Spitzer's plan.

The governor told CNN last month that his plan was intended to make New York safer.

"What we are trying to do, first of all, is address a problem that the federal government has created, which is that there are one million people here in New York state alone who are not here with proper documentation," he said.

"We want security. We want our roads to be safe, which is the initial impetus behind letting them get a license so we know who they are, where they are. They can get insurance, everybody is safer."

Critics have accused presidential hopeful and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton of failing to take a definitive stance on the issue.

In a debate last week, Clinton said Spitzer's plan "makes a lot of sense" but stopped short of endorsing it. She did, however, say Spitzer is trying to find a solution to a bigger problem. Watch the hornet's nest the plan has stirred up »

"We have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally," Clinton said. "So what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

"I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform."

Her opponents, both Republicans and Democrats, said her remarks on the issue were inconsistent.http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/14/ny.licenses/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

If local government should not enforce immigration laws (immigration and documentation of immigrants) because it is a federal issue then I do not see how the governer's logic of issuing drivers licenses works under this assertion.

General Zod
11-14-07, 11:54 AM
:up: Spitzer knew better than to try and push this kind of rubbish through. Eventually the politicians in this country will get the message that we want illegals OUT of the country - not give them special ID's or drivers licenses. So check Spitzer off the list of clueless Governors who didn't listen to the people before hand.

NotThatGuy
11-14-07, 12:24 PM
I really need to move to a state that deals with illegal immigration pro-actively....instead I live in one of the worst offending states. Nothing says fun like watching the nightly news and seeing protests about illegal immigration rights, hit and runs by illegals, gang related shootings, etc.

Anyone have a list of places that actually enforce their laws on illegal immigration?

-p

wishbone
11-14-07, 12:58 PM
Anyone have a list of places that actually enforce their laws on illegal immigration?

-pMexico :D

bhk
11-14-07, 02:17 PM
:up: Spitzer knew better than to try and push this kind of rubbish through. Eventually the politicians in this country will get the message that we want illegals OUT of the country - not give them special ID's or drivers licenses. So check Spitzer off the list of clueless Governors who didn't listen to the people before hand.

Just like the pols in NJ who are going to borrow money for stem cell research despite it being voted down by the voters, there will be a backdoor attempt(like the DREAM bill) to try to dupe the voters and do this. They'll just wait until the furor has died down.

These illegal aliens represent that many less votes that Spitzer will have to get from the cemetary.

bhk
11-14-07, 02:21 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124248

US Intelligence Analyst Handed Classified Info to Hizbullah

by Ezra HaLevi

(IsraelNN.com) U.S. authorities have discovered that an FBI agent and CIA analyst leaked classified information to the Hizbullah terrorist organization via American "Hizbullah sympathizers."

According to CBS news, the female agent, Nada Nadim Prouty, pleaded guilty "to charges involving her disclosure of information” to parties sympathetic to Hizbullah, who then passed it to the Iranian-backed group.

The woman is of Lebanese background and became a US citizen through marriage. CBS says the marriage was faked in order to obtain citizenship.

The plea agreement mentioned, according to the New York Times that Prouty’s sister and brother-in-law attended a Hizbullah "fund-raising event" in Lebanon in August 2002. The keynote speaker there was Hizbullah's Sheikh Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah.

The plea also mentioned that in 2003 Prouty searched computerized FBI files on an investigation involving the Hizbullah, though she “was not assigned to work on Hezbollah cases as part of her FBI duties and she was not authorized by her supervisor, the case agent assigned to the case, or anybody else to access information about the investigation in question.”

There is not enough evidence against her to charge the agent with espionage. But since Hizbullah is considered a terrorist entity by the U.S. State Department, passing information to the group is considered a very serious crime.

The woman was caught when her agency account was flagged due to her conducting several searches unrelated to her assigned cases.

It remains to be seen what sentence will be handed down and how it will compare with the life sentence Jonathan Pollard is now serving after his conviction of one count of passing information to a friendly U.S. ally. The prosecution is reportedly seeking just 16 years in prison in Prouty's case.

An illegal alien to boot. Just ''giving away the secrets that Americans won't.''

wildcatlh
11-14-07, 02:32 PM
I really need to move to a state that deals with illegal immigration pro-actively....instead I live in one of the worst offending states. Nothing says fun like watching the nightly news and seeing protests about illegal immigration rights, hit and runs by illegals, gang related shootings, etc.

Anyone have a list of places that actually enforce their laws on illegal immigration?

-p

You do realize that almost all of the immigrants to South Florida are presumptively legal, since they come from Cuba, right?

wishbone
11-14-07, 04:19 PM
Lessons of Spitzer’s license reversal
Will illegal immigration hurt Democrats in 2008?
By Tom Curry
MSNBC
Nov 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - It was an unusual Capitol Hill event: a press conference to concede defeat, rather than to celebrate victory.

In front of a fog-shrouded Capitol dome Wednesday morning, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, joined by a dozen House Democrats from New York State, admitted that he’d misjudged the public sentiment.

Spitzer officially withdrew his proposal to offer drivers’ licenses to many of the state’s one million illegal immigrants, a move which came after several days of hints in the New York news media that he’d do so.

“I’ve listened to the legitimate concerns of the public,” he told reporters.

Elected only 12 months ago with a spectacular margin of 1.6 million votes, Spitzer suffered a setback that seemed to unsettle his Democratic colleagues.

Spitzer blamed the federal government for having “lost control of its borders and having “allowed millions of undocumented immigrants to enter our country.”

Governor laments 'fear mongering'
Spitzer and the New York House members were fuming at those who’d opposed his license idea and who might use illegal immigration as a voter motivator in future elections.

The debate over illegal immigration had become “toxic” Spitzer said. “The consequence of this fear-mongering is paralysis.”

The New York Democrats who spoke after Spitzer were even harsher in their criticism of their opponents.

“This (idea) became victim to ignorance, indifference, and, yes, hatred,” argued Rep. Jose Serrano. “This country still, even in our great state, has great fear and great anger toward immigrants.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler said the nation was passing through “a period of hysteria.”

Then Rep. Gary Ackerman took the microphone to suggest sardonically that opponents of illegal immigration ought to catch an immigrant and have him “hog-tied” in front of the Capitol; the federal authorities, Ackerman said, wouldn’t come to deport him.

It was a revealing focus group of politicians who seemed angry and somewhat nervous about how illegal immigration will affect next year’s races.

Almost all of the dozen Democrats from the New York City metropolitan area standing behind Spitzer at the Capitol have utterly safe seats; several will face only token opposition or none at all.

An issue in New York races?
But there are a couple of upstate New York freshmen Democrats, who will face competitive races next year and who opposed the Spitzer plan.

Freshman Democrat Rep. Michael Arcuri, who represents Oneida County and other parts of upstate New York, said there was “very, very strong opposition in my district” to the Spitzer license idea. “The opposition was so strong that it wasn’t the kind of thing I could ignore.”

Arcuri said as former prosecutor, he himself had “a lot of questions that weren’t answered” in the governor’s idea such as, “what does this mean in terms of people who go apply to buy a gun? What does it mean for traveling around the country?”

The New York Democrat also said the Republicans were “quick to turn this into a political football — filled with gotchas at every turn.”

Arcuri said, “People have real apprehension about even making a proposal because there is this concern that all of a sudden you’re going to be characterized as someone who is an advocate of amnesty.”

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a first-term Democrat whose district includes the Albany suburbs and Saratoga Springs, also opposed Spitzer’s proposal.

But their downstate colleague, Rep. Nydia Velasquez, who represents a majority Latino district in the Bronx, said the Republican effort to use illegal immigration as an issue “is not producing the results that they wanted. Look at Virginia” — where in last week’s legislation elections Democrats won control of the state senate.

Yet Democrats also seem uneasy that maybe illegal immigration might work to their disadvantage in some races.

The country is 'very, very nervous'
“Right now, if you take the temperature of the country, (people) are very, very nervous. Immigration is something they have become vocal about — the undercurrent is the economy, the undercurrent is the war in Iraq, you can feel the tension, its there and it’s very real” said New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who represents a suburban district with large number of illegal immigrants.

She said she favors some form of legalization for illegal immigrants “down the road. And it’s not an easy path.”

Another indicator of Democratic concern about the immigration issue: last week, 36 House Democrats — including several freshmen and New Yorker Gillibrand — voted for a Republican motion that would prevent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from suing organizations which require their employees to speak English on the job.

That motion passed 218 to 186, with most Democrats voting against it.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21790536/

Out of Bounds
11-14-07, 04:26 PM
I thought my article (posted earlier) was pretty clear about it being a deterrent. It cut down illegals crossing there by 95%. I'd MUCH rather have a fence, but I'm not against widening the river....as long as it isn't done at the expense of building a fence in more needed places.

-p


Assuming a fence would work, which I completely disagree with, what kind of fence are you going to build to keep Europeans and Asians out of America? What about Canadians? Is this really about immigration generally or is it about Mexicans in specific?

General Zod
11-14-07, 04:56 PM
Nice article wishbon3.

I liked this quote:

“This (idea) became victim to ignorance, indifference, and, yes, hatred,” argued Rep. Jose Serrano. “This country still, even in our great state, has great fear and great anger toward immigrants.”

Obviously even though they admit defeat they go out and prove they still don't get it. They still like to use "hatred" to talk about people who just want our borders protected and they still try and mix immigration and ILLEGAL immigration as often as possible. Talk about being unwilling to remove your rose tinted glasses..

bhk
11-14-07, 05:12 PM
Assuming a fence would work, which I completely disagree with
Fences work. They need to be long enough and high enough and patrolled enough. I have a cow pasture behind my yard and our fence works.
what kind of fence are you going to build to keep Europeans and Asians out of America?
We don't need a fence to keep Asians and Europeans out, they can't walk here.

What about Canadians?
They're already in the 51st state, no need for a fence for them.
Is this really about immigration generally or is it about Mexicans in specific?
It's about illegal immigration. Not immigration.

Franchot
11-14-07, 05:35 PM
Obviously even though they admit defeat they go out and prove they still don't get it. They still like to use "hatred" to talk about people who just want our borders protected and they still try and mix immigration and ILLEGAL immigration as often as possible. Talk about being unwilling to remove your rose tinted glasses..

Oh, I think they get it all right. They're quite smart in the rhetoric that they use by throwing out a very loaded word like "hatred", hoping to shame people into thinking twice about the immigration issue. These politicians are a crafty bunch who are looking to satisfy their special interest groups and to ensure future votes for themselves. It's quite clear to me that they aren't speaking from ignorance.

NotThatGuy
11-14-07, 05:43 PM
You do realize that almost all of the immigrants to South Florida are presumptively legal, since they come from Cuba, right?
The largest ILLEGAL immigrant group to FL.....Mexicans. Cubans can gain legal immigration, though those numbers pale in comparison. They are two VERY different groups. I don't agree with giving Cubans asylum either, but that issue is WAAAAAAAY down the list.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-14-07, 05:50 PM
Assuming a fence would work, which I completely disagree with, what kind of fence are you going to build to keep Europeans and Asians out of America? What about Canadians? Is this really about immigration generally or is it about Mexicans in specific?

Not just Mexicans, but they are the largest ILLEGAL immigrant group at the moment, and their government is greatly contributing to the problem. Drug smuggling, human trafficking, and child slaves are also being brought across....not to mention a host of other nationalities going through Mexico.

To be clear, I have no issues with LEGAL immigrants....I welcome them with open arms into our country, because they do it the right way. ILLEGALS immigrants are who I have a problem with, particularly ones coming from Mexico because many continue to break the law by going back and forth across the border...transporting who knows what (drugs, money, humans, etc).

-p

Out of Bounds
11-14-07, 07:07 PM
To be clear, I have no issues with LEGAL immigrants....I welcome them with open arms into our country, because they do it the right way. ILLEGALS immigrants are who I have a problem with, particularly ones coming from Mexico because many continue to break the law by going back and forth across the border...transporting who knows what (drugs, money, humans, etc).

-p


Then isn't it more relevant to talk about what motivates them to come across the border, not how high a fence we can build in a bid to stop them? Could it be that outsourcing and lax application of federal immigration law is a big part of the problem here? In my opinion, the best way to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the incentive, not to build walls. If people want in badly enough, they'll find a way over or around a wall, but if there's no incentive to come, they won't even try.

Franchot
11-14-07, 07:27 PM
Then isn't it more relevant to talk about what motivates them to come across the border, not how high a fence we can build in a bid to stop them? Could it be that outsourcing and lax application of federal immigration law is a big part of the problem here? In my opinion, the best way to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the incentive, not to build walls. If people want in badly enough, they'll find a way over or around a wall, but if there's no incentive to come, they won't even try.

You'll get no arguement from me on this point of view.

Unfortunately, big business wants the steady flow of cheap (illegal) labor coming into this country and the politicians want the steady flow of future voters coming into this country. They are working hand in hand to circumvent the laws of the country, and no matter how many times the voters defeat legislature which will allow amnesty for illegal immigrants, the politicians and their masters (big business) keep coming up with new backdoor schemes to get what THEY want. Unfortunately, it isn't about national security to them (what type of people worry about security and social services who have private gated residences and private doctors?), it's about increasing their cash flow and staying in power. To cut the incentives for illegal immigrants would mean cutting their own assurance of future power.

NotThatGuy
11-14-07, 09:22 PM
Then isn't it more relevant to talk about what motivates them to come across the border, not how high a fence we can build in a bid to stop them? Could it be that outsourcing and lax application of federal immigration law is a big part of the problem here? In my opinion, the best way to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the incentive, not to build walls. If people want in badly enough, they'll find a way over or around a wall, but if there's no incentive to come, they won't even try.

I'd love that...but I'm not going to wait for it to happen while illegal immigrants continue to flood into the country. I'd hope the fences won't be needed in 10 years, but I'm not willing to chance it.

-p

wm lopez
11-14-07, 10:57 PM
The Berlin wall worked for many years and what about the Great Wall of China.

Rockmjd23
11-14-07, 11:03 PM
As much as I am against illegal immigration, I really don't want to use the Berlin Wall as an example for us to follow for anything.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 04:16 AM
politicians want the steady flow of future voters coming into this country.

With turnout as low as it is, I really doubt that "future voters" is a legitimate argument. I've seen this articulated before and, to be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it's more rhetoric than fact.

Unfortunately, it isn't about national security to them (what type of people worry about security and social services who have private gated residences and private doctors?), it's about increasing their cash flow and staying in power.


I agree that it's about increasing cash flow and staying in power, but I think they're doing it because big businesses grease their palms. Also, I don't think that immigration from Mexico is a national security issue. Remember, the 9/11 hijackers came over the canadian border and all had valid paperwork.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 04:17 AM
As much as I am against illegal immigration, I really don't want to use the Berlin Wall as an example for us to follow for anything.



Yeah, if memory serves, both of those efforts ended badly.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 04:18 AM
I'd love that...but I'm not going to wait for it to happen while illegal immigrants continue to flood into the country. I'd hope the fences won't be needed in 10 years, but I'm not willing to chance it.

-p


Then get ready to pay 10 dollars a pound for fruit.

mndtrp
11-15-07, 05:41 AM
Then isn't it more relevant to talk about what motivates them to come across the border, not how high a fence we can build in a bid to stop them? Could it be that outsourcing and lax application of federal immigration law is a big part of the problem here? In my opinion, the best way to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the incentive, not to build walls. If people want in badly enough, they'll find a way over or around a wall, but if there's no incentive to come, they won't even try.
When you have a burst pipe, do you start with the problem, or do you stop the influx of water first?

wishbone
11-15-07, 08:08 AM
Then get ready to pay 10 dollars a pound for fruit.:lol:

Please allow me to borrow your quote from post # 284 (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8291013&postcount=284), "I've seen this articulated before and, to be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it's more rhetoric than fact."Excerpts from:

Farm Workers: Their Contributions to the California Economy
Philip Martin and Mark Madamba
July 6, 2000

Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this report is to:

- determine the share of farm and retail prices attributed to farm worker wages and benefits to produce major labor-intensive commodities in California

- determine the multiplier effect of farm worker employment on selected rural counties and regions

The report was prepared to contribute to the effort of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, with the support of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, to highlight farm worker contributions to the state’s economy and agriculture.

A significant increase in farm wages would have little effect on retail prices. For example, if a 35 percent farm worker wage increase were fully passed through to consumers, and if there were no productivity improvements in response to the farm worker wage increase, the farm worker wages and benefits embodied in a $1 head of lettuce would rise from about 7 to 9 cents, and the retail price from $1 to $1.02. The average American consumed about 12 heads of lettuce in 1998, so a 35 percent increase in farm wages and benefits would increase an average individual’s lettuce expenditures by $0.25 a year, a quarter; a 70 percent wage increase would raise lettuce expenditures by less 50 cents a year.

The minimum wage rose 35 percent when it went from $4.25 an hour in 1996 to $5.75 in 1998. A 70 percent wage increase is needed to enable farm workers to pay 30 percent of their earnings in rent and have health insurance.

Similarly, the average American consumes about eight pounds of table grapes a year; they cost an average $1.72 a pound. Table grape growers receive an average $0.50 a pound or 29 percent of the retail price; total labor costs are $0.16 a pound, which is 33 percent of grower production costs and 9 percent of the average retail grape price. If grape labor costs were to rise by 35 percent, table grape labor costs would rise $0.05 a pound to $0.22 a pound, retail prices would rise to $1.77 a pound, and consumer spending on grapes would rise by under $0.50 a year.

For all fresh fruits and vegetables, the average American would spend about $34 a year more if farm worker wages rose 35 percent, and $67 more if they rose 70 percent. The major reasons why a big increase in farm wages has little effect on retail prices is because farmers get a small share of the retail price and farm workers are a small share of farm production costs. For a $1 head of lettuce or a $1 pound of tomatoes in the supermarket, farm worker wages and benefits are about 7 cents, which represents (1) 7 percent of the retail price and (2) 35 percent of the farmer’s price of these commodities.

In some cases, Americans do not eat much of commodities that are very labor-intensive. Take raisins. Per capita consumption is only 1.6 pounds per person per year. Labor costs are represent about one-third of the grower’s average $0.50 price per pound. However, Americans spend only about $2.40 per year on raisins, so that even if farm labor costs rose by 35 or 70 percent, average spending on raisins would rise by only one cent.

How would an increase in farm worker wages affect farm workers? Seasonal farm workers are employed an average 1000 hours a year in agriculture, earning $6 to $7 an hour. Raising farm wages by 35 percent would boost average hourly earnings to $8.10 to $9.45, by 70 percent to $10.20 to $11.90. If farm workers were employed the same 1000 hours a year after wages rose 35 percent, their earnings would rise from the current $6,000 to $7,000 to $8,100 to $9,450 a year with a 35 percent wage increase, and to $10,200 to $11,900 with a 70 percent wage increase.

Raising farm wages and benefits would likely encourage farmers to re-organize farm work in a manner that reduced farm worker employment and labor costs, leaving fewer but better paid farm workers. Historically, flexibility in the US food system has been on the demand side of the labor market. As wages and opportunities improved in the nonfarm sector, farmers and farm workers migrated to nonfarm jobs, reducing the share of the US labor force employed in agriculture from 90 to 2 percent over the past two centuries.

Agriculture remains a major employer in California. Farm worker employment averaged 393,000 in 1998, and ranged from a low of 307,000 in January-February to a high of 479,000 in August-September. Over the course of a year, about 800,000 individuals or Social Security Numbers are reported by farm employers to state Unemployment Insurance tax authorities, suggesting that there are about two persons employed sometime during the year to fill each year-round equivalent job on the state’s farms. This explains why, on average, farm workers are employed only half of the standard 50-week- a-year, 40 hour- a-week or 2000-hour work year.

Farm worker employment is concentrated in the same counties that have most of the state’s farm sales. The top five agricultural counties—Fresno, Kern, Tulare, Monterey, and Riverside—had 47 percent of average annual farm worker employment and 45 percent of farm sales in 1998. The multiplier effect of farm production employment is estimated at 1.5 to 2, which means that each farm job supports an additional 1.5 to 2 nonfarm jobs involved in processing and distributing the commodities produced with the help of farm workers or providing housing and other services to farm workers.

Most farm workers rent housing, and their earnings need to double to afford the fair median rent. According to the US Department of Labor NAWS, farm workers in 1996-98 earned an average of just under $6 an hour for about 1100 hours of work a year, earning $6,500 a year or $542 a month. If farm workers wanted to spend 30 percent or less of their earnings on housing, they could afford to spend $162 a month. However, the 40th percentile Fair Market Rent estimate in California is at least double this level: monthly rents for studio apartments range from $339 a month in Colusa county to $387 in Fresno to $548 in Salinas.

Many farm workers have their spouses with them in California, which produces both additional income and often children and thus the need for additional living space. Having a spouse present tends to increase income by 1.5 times, to $813 a month, which permits the family wanting to spend 30 percent or less of its earnings on housing to spend up to $244 a month. However, the 40th percentile Fair Market Rent estimate in California is at least double this level: monthly rents for two-bedroom apartments range from $488 a month in Colusa county to $517 in Fresno to $773 in Salinas. In order to spend 30 percent or less of earnings on housing, a farm worker family seeking a two-bedroom unit would have to earn $1,600 to $2,600 a month.

How much would farm worker earnings have to rise to enable farm workers and farm worker families to spend 30 percent or less of their earnings on housing in the areas where they work? Single workers would have to earn $1,100 to $1,800 a month to afford the 40th percentile fair median rent for a studio unit, i.e., their earnings would have to double or triple current levels of $542 a month. Families needing two-bedroom units would have to earn $1600 to $2600, which represents doubling or tripling of their average $813 monthly earnings. Even if we assume that farm workers need housing for only nine months a year because they spend part of each year in Mexico, the earnings of most farm workers would have to at least double to meet the 30 percent of earnings-for-rent guideline.

The total increase in farm worker wages necessary for farm workers to rent affordable housing and to receive health care benefits would require wage increases of at least 57 plus 16 percent, or 73 percent in the cheapest area, Colusa county. In coastal areas and for farm workers with families, the wage increase would have to be over 100 percent.

Could farm worker wages be raised? Many states and cities have raised their minimum wages, e.g. minimum wages in Oregon and Washington in 2000 are $6.50 an hour, and many California cities and counties have living wage laws that require employers doing business with the city, or operating on city-owned land, to pay at least $7 an hour and offer health benefits, or $8 an hour without benefits. As of fall 1999, some 37 city and county living wage ordinances were in effect across the US, and 75 were pending. Most of these ordinances exempt employers whose workers are represented by unions: www.livingwagecampaign.orghttp://www.therationalradical.com/documents/farm_workers.htm

General Zod
11-15-07, 11:27 AM
Then get ready to pay 10 dollars a pound for fruit.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/general_zod/notThisShitAgain.gif

I've run out of fingers to count how many times this has been brought up and disproven. It's untrue rhetoric and a scare tactic. Fortunately it doesn't work.

NotThatGuy
11-15-07, 01:10 PM
Then get ready to pay 10 dollars a pound for fruit.

Complete fallacy.

*edit*

Yeah..see the article above.

-p

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 01:27 PM
I'm willing to concede that the "10 dollars a pound for fruit" is a rhetorical trope. It's interesting that y'all have latched on to that single statement and ignored all the other, valid points that have been made recently in this thread though.

NotThatGuy
11-15-07, 01:29 PM
That's how we roll....go for the weak link. :D

-p

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 01:30 PM
When you have a burst pipe, do you start with the problem, or do you stop the influx of water first?

Since the "pipe" has been flooding the house for practically as long as America has been a nation, I think it may be time to start looking at the cause rather than the symptom.

The core point here is that no wall, no matter how high, will keep people out if they really want to come in. Using your analogy, you don't try and fix a broken pipe with scotch tape. More reasonable measures will need to be taken. History shows very clearly that fences, walls and motes don't work for long, and in the long run cause more problems than they solve.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 01:31 PM
That's how we roll....go for the weak link. :D

-p


That's certainly not unique to DVDTalk's forum.

General Zod
11-15-07, 01:45 PM
It's interesting that y'all have latched on to that single statement and ignored all the other, valid points that have been made recently in this thread though.
Well that was your response to pedagogue's comment. So I don't think you are going to get much satisfaction is you are going to resort to rhetorical trope to counter the reasoning people are giving you here.

As far as the wall goes I really wish we didn't need it. I would much prefer we just enforced existing laws already in placed and went after companies that hired illegal workers. However, since we current have an administration and government that isn't interested in enforcing those laws, we have to take other measures to stem the flow of illegal immigration. A fence will work and has been proven to work on a small scale like San Diego and on a large scale like Israel. Again I wish it wasn't needed but like has already been said something needs to be done to stop the problem - something real. Not a bunch of empty promises or amnesty with no real solution to stopping the problem from continuing.

wishbone
11-15-07, 01:56 PM
Well that was your response to pedagogue's comment. So I don't think you are going to get much satisfaction is you are going to resort to rhetorical trope to counter the reasoning people are giving you here.

As far as the wall goes I really wish we didn't need it. I would much prefer we just enforced existing laws already in placed and went after companies that hired illegal workers. However, since we current have an administration and government that isn't interested in enforcing those laws, we have to take other measures to stem the flow of illegal immigration. A fence will work and has been proven to work on a small scale like San Diego and on a large scale like Israel. Again I wish it wasn't needed but like has already been said something needs to be done to stop the problem - something real. Not a bunch of empty promises or amnesty with no real solution to stopping the problem from continuing.:thumbsup:excerpts

AN ISRAELI VIEW
Handy for Israel-bashing
by Yossi Alpher

The Israeli security fence project has, in the course of some five years of construction and operation, provided a rather incredible vehicle for Palestinians and other opponents of Israel to malign it. The way Israel has been pilloried over the fence offers a unique and telling study of the facility with which our Palestinian neighbors (and many others who simply don't know better) grasp and manipulate symbols of the conflict in order to gain a propaganda advantage, excuse their own excesses and failings and satisfy their need for Israel-bashing.

Bearing in mind that only eight percent of the currently existing barrier (and but four percent when the entire barrier is completed in a year or so) are constructed in the form of a movable concrete wall and the remaining 92 percent is metal fencing, it is quite an achievement for Palestinian public diplomacy to have labeled the barrier internationally "the wall". Walls, as in the Berlin Wall, have more negative connotations than fences (remember "good fences make good neighbors"?).

These mistakes have at times distorted the real and vital need for the fence. It was built to stop the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign that had begun to generate real panic in Israel in 2002. Coupled with additional military measures inside the West Bank, it has worked to a surprising extent, considering that only a little more than half of it has thus far been constructed and operationalized: no suicide bombers have ever successfully crossed the Gaza or West Bank fences. Here it is important to note that, while virtually all Palestinians condemn the fence, around 50 percent of Palestinians still support suicide bombings. In this regard, what I wrote in these virtual pages three and four years ago remains just as true today: if there were no suicide bombers there would be no fence. Since that is not the case, we have to protect ourselves and we are doing it the right way.http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl120307ed10.html

Franchot
11-15-07, 02:10 PM
With turnout as low as it is, I really doubt that "future voters" is a legitimate argument. I've seen this articulated before and, to be honest, I'm inclined to believe that it's more rhetoric than fact.

I wouldn't call it rhetoric. If you follow politics in California you can see that Antonio Villaraigosa, Gil Cedillo, and Fabian Nunez are grooming the many (and I mean MANY) illegal immigrants that are entering the state to vote for them in their bid to be ensconced in positions of power for many years to come. (You can also throw Richard Alatorre* into the group since he is now beginning to resurface after being found guilty of tax invasion and numerous ethics violations.) They continually push for the granting of privileges for illegal immigrants (specifically Hispanic illegal immigrants)--drivers' licenses, free college tuition, increased representation in city policy making, etc. and then eventually the right to vote in elections.

This is a long-term plan, and although voter turn-out is low now, they expect it to blossom over the years.

(* "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay." Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alatorre )

General Zod
11-15-07, 04:57 PM
Yesterday:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal. As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Of course during the last debate she said she that Spitzer's plan "makes a lot of sense". I'm sure we'll see much more flip-flopping from Hillary on this issue therefore I certainly don't believe a word of what she says about her true intentions. The most likely plan is an amnesty plan that gives documentation to all illegals and thus no longer makes them undocumented = driver's licenses. This way she keeps her word (whatever that latest new & improved word is), Democrats get 12 million new voters, and the taxpayers get screwed. It's a triple win for her.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 05:47 PM
I'm sure we'll see much more flip-flopping from Hillary on this issue therefore I certainly don't believe a word of what she says about her true intentions.


Considering the fact that we have King Flip-Flop in office right now, I can't imagine how Hillary will be any worse. Besides, if you think that all politicians don't do the exact same thing then you're naive.

wishbone
11-15-07, 06:41 PM
Considering the fact that we have King Flip-Flop in office right now, I can't imagine how Hillary will be any worse. Besides, if you think that all politicians don't do the exact same thing then you're naive.<div><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TWb2wBnTOlU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TWb2wBnTOlU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object></div>
Senator Clinton does it make a lot of sense or not? :lol:

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 06:49 PM
"When people talk about 'wire tap'... a wire tap requires a court order. Constitutional protections are in place."

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

"There's an old saying in Texas... maybe you have it here too... it's called Wanted, Dead or Alive" ... "To be honest, I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I really don't spend that much time on it."

Seems to me that there's a significant qualitative difference between Bush's flip flops and Hillary's.

General Zod
11-15-07, 07:35 PM
Bush isn't running for office next election so I don't really care what he's said. I'm hoping we get a newer more respectable president in office and Hillary sure isn't looking like she would be any sort of improvement - especially not when seriously doing something about illegal immigration is involved.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 07:37 PM
Bush isn't running for office next election so I don't really care what he's said. I'm hoping we get a newer more respectable president in office and Hillary sure isn't looking like she would be any sort of improvement.


If he was just making idol comments, then you'd have a point. But the things he's flipped on have real consequences... ones that the country will feel for years to come. You might also consider the fact that the massive expansion of executive power that Bush has established is likely to be inherited by Hillary. Personally, I'd much rather have a Chief Executive who flips on something as relatively harmless as ID cards for illegals than one who lies about wire taps, torture and the waging of wars. Seems like Hillary would be a massive improvement no matter how you slice it.

General Zod
11-15-07, 07:39 PM
I'm not going to lower myself and have a Hillary vs Bush debate with you. This is thread is about illegal immigration. Hillary is flopped on the issue once already and I expect it to happen many more times. That is a huge concern for me.

Out of Bounds
11-15-07, 07:42 PM
I'm not going to lower myself and have a Hillary vs Bush debate with you. This is thread is about illegal immigration. Hillary is flopped on the issue once already and I expect it to happen many more times. That is a huge concern for me.


Of course you don't want to get into that debate. You'd lose it. Besides, I'm not the one who was harping on her flip flop. All I'm doing is pointing out that the current holder of the job she's applying for is a far worse abuser of the facts than Hillary has thus far shown herself to be.

NotThatGuy
11-15-07, 08:09 PM
Considering the fact that we have King Flip-Flop in office right now

John Kerry is our president?!!!!

-p

NotThatGuy
11-15-07, 08:12 PM
Of course you don't want to get into that debate. You'd lose it. Besides, I'm not the one who was harping on her flip flop. All I'm doing is pointing out that the current holder of the job she's applying for is a far worse abuser of the facts than Hillary has thus far shown herself to be.
Uhm...no. This thread is about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, not our current president and the slimy politician known as the former first lady.

Please feel free to start a thread about those two...but in here we are talking about the 12, 15, 20 million (however high it is now) illegal immigrants who have flooded into our country, ruining our way of life.

-p

Franchot
11-15-07, 08:21 PM
Of course you don't want to get into that debate. You'd lose it. Besides, I'm not the one who was harping on her flip flop. All I'm doing is pointing out that the current holder of the job she's applying for is a far worse abuser of the facts than Hillary has thus far shown herself to be.

To be fair, Bush has been in office for almost eight years so he's had many more opportunites to flip-flop. IF Hillary wins the office, I'm sure she will flip-flop with the best of them. I'm no fan or Bush or Clinton (no one in either party stands out as Presidental material to me) and I don't mind if a person changes his/her mind on an issue, but to not honestly come out and say you now have a different perspective on an issue smacks of being hypocritical and/or an opportunist. Of course, others will exploit this change in perspective and call it being indecisive and wishy-washy, but if a politician actually talked from the heart and "sold"* the American public on this change in policy that has overcome him/her, I would certainly have more respect for him or her.

(*Surprisingly, today's politicians always have a difficult time convincing me that they're telling the truth. My B.S. detector goes off everytime I hear them speak. With all the public speaking they do, you'd think they'd have the lying-into-truth part down pat by this time.)

Now, I'll flip-flop my post back to illegal immigration...

Drug smuggler shot by agents indicted

EL PASO, Texas - A Mexican man shot by a pair of U.S. Border Patrol agents who were later convicted in the shooting has been indicted on federal drug smuggling charges, authorities said Thursday.

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila was arrested Thursday at an international port of entry in El Paso, according to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.

A sealed indictment was issued in October charging him with smuggling marijuana in September and October of 2005, several months after he was shot in the buttocks while fleeing from a pair of Border Patrol agents.

The agents, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were convicted last year of shooting Aldrete and lying about it.

Aldrete is scheduled to appear in federal court in El Paso on Friday.

Sutton noted that critics of the prosecution of the agents have complained that Aldrete, "the fleeing, unarmed drug smuggler they shot," should have been prosecuted.

"I have repeatedly said that if we obtained sufficient competent and admissible evidence against Aldrete, we would prosecute him," Sutton said in a statement.

Doing the jobs Americans won't do...such as drug smuggling.

Franchot
11-17-07, 01:52 PM
The core point here is that no wall, no matter how high, will keep people out if they really want to come in. Using your analogy, you don't try and fix a broken pipe with scotch tape. More reasonable measures will need to be taken. History shows very clearly that fences, walls and motes don't work for long, and in the long run cause more problems than they solve.

Another article about the type of fencing the government is trying to build and whether it is effective.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fence16nov16,1,4628876.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fence16nov16,0,7764283.story?page=2&track=rss

(It's rather lengthy so I just posted part of it.)

Strong but not lethal, effective but not ugly: The U.S. is looking for a barrier along the border with Mexico that will say 'keep out' -- nicely.

One of the Fence Lab barriers that agents seem to like best so far is a double-mesh barrier made of thick welded wires in a tight honeycomb-like design. The tiny holes between the wires make climbing difficult. Axes and crow bars are useless because the layers give under pressure. Blow torches get through, but it takes more than 15 noisy minutes to cut both layers.

Still, this summer a similarly constructed double-mesh fence went up along seven miles of border in Naco, Ariz., and within days Mexican smugglers had found a way to defeat it. By inserting screwdrivers into the holes to use as handholds, they are able to scale the fence as if it's a pegboard.

"They get over in about 15 seconds," said John Ladd, 52, whose 14,000-acre ranch abutting the border is trampled daily by migrants.

Even so, Border Patrol agents see progress.

After all, said Agent Sean King, based in Tucson, only the most athletic migrants possess the strength to pull themselves over with screwdrivers, and they can't do it en masse.

"Now, it's one immigrant coming over at a time instead of 100."

NotThatGuy
11-18-07, 06:40 PM
I was watching a Tancredo interview, and he referenced a statistic about our incarcerated population in the US. He said that 28% of criminals in jail are illegal aliens. Imagine the savings if we didn't have nearly 1/3 of our jails housing and feeding illegal immigrant criminals (I know criminals is redundant)?

-p

VinVega
11-18-07, 08:30 PM
I was watching a Tancredo interview, and he referenced a statistic about our incarcerated population in the US. He said that 28% of criminals in jail are illegal aliens. Imagine the savings if we didn't have nearly 1/3 of our jails housing and feeding illegal immigrant criminals (I know criminals is redundant)?

-p
I don't know if there is a solution to that problem. If we deport them, they will just hop the border as soon as we release them back in their home country. You want to get tough on illegals and lock them up, you're going to see an increase in prison population. It's pretty much a no win situation.

NotThatGuy
11-18-07, 09:41 PM
I don't know if there is a solution to that problem. If we deport them, they will just hop the border as soon as we release them back in their home country. You want to get tough on illegals and lock them up, you're going to see an increase in prison population. It's pretty much a no win situation.

Yeah. That is why there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. Force them out....then keep them out, it is definitely easier said than done.

-p

Franchot
11-19-07, 05:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_border

Giuliani promotes virtual fence

MISSION, Texas - Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani pushed the idea of a "virtual" rather than a real fence along much of the U.S.-Mexico border on Monday, an issue that's controversial in the Rio Grande Valley where many people oppose construction of a physical fence to stop illegal immigration.

The former New York mayor said that while a physical fence is needed in some places, most of the border should be policed with high-tech monitoring. He toured the border Monday along the southernmost tip of Texas with state and local officials.

"And frankly, the virtual fence is more valuable because it alerts you to people approaching the border, it alerts you to people coming over the border," Giuliani said, the Rio Grande in the background.

Giuliani said his approach could end illegal immigration within three years.

Giuliani did not specifically address the idea of a fence in the Rio Grande Valley, the most heavily populated portion of the Texas-Mexico border. Opponents, including most local elected officials, say a physical fence would restrict access to the river and hurt their livelihoods, in some cases creating a no man's land between the river and the fence.

Gov. Rick Perry, who has endorsed Giuliani, opposes construction of a 1,200-mile wall along the U.S-Mexico border. Instead, he supports fencing at strategic points, such as in bigger cities, along with more border patrol agents and high-tech monitoring of the kind Giuliani seeks, spokesman Robert Black said Monday.

Perry has a plan to broadcast live video footage, beginning next year, from mobile cameras along the Texas-Mexico border.

Giuliani also addressed New York's "sanctuary" policy, which barred city workers during his administration from reporting suspected illegal immigrants who enrolled their children in school or sought hospital treatment. GOP rivals Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, have criticized Giuliani for supporting the policy. Giuliani says Romney tolerated such policies in Massachusetts.

Giuliani said he cracked down on all crimes, including illegal immigration.

"The policies that I utilized with regard to illegal immigration were in the context of overall policies that probably were the most successful in the history of the country in creating an orderly, legal, lawful society," he said.

Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said: "Mayor Giuliani created an amnesty haven in New York City, and as a result he hampered enforcement efforts and hurt our nation's ability to secure our borders. He has exactly the wrong approach to a very serious problem."

In New Hampshire on Monday, Giuliani began airing a new ad that promotes his government leadership positions, from Justice Department official to mayor of New York. "I believe I've had the most leadership experience of anyone that's running. It's not just holding executive positions, like mayor of New York, or United States Attorney, or third-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department. It's having held those positions in time of crisis," he says in the ad.

Despite his reference to crisis, the ad does not mention the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the moment of crisis most identified with Giuliani. As in a previous ad, Giuliani declares that his experiences make him a "tested" leader. "They're not going to find perfection, but they're going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results," he says.

I support virtual health care, virtual schooling, and virtual benefits for illegal immigrants who jump over the virutual fence.

General Zod
11-19-07, 05:59 PM
Of course there is no mention of the fact that the current virtual fence has been largely ineffective, is easy to "fool", and has had "hardware issues" causing it to be turned off for months at a time.. But that's what they will want to go with because they don't really want a fence at all..

NotThatGuy
11-19-07, 08:53 PM
Physical fences have been proven effective. Period.

Build fences, start deporting, and watch the # of illegal immigrants drop.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-20-07, 04:47 AM
The morning news (CBS 4) had a spot about the most common last names in the US.

1. smith

And 2 more of the Top 10.....Garcia.....Rodriguez........

......color me SHOCKED!

-p

The Bus
11-20-07, 07:16 AM
The morning news (CBS 4) had a spot about the most common last names in the US.

1. smith

And 2 more of the Top 10.....Garcia.....Rodriguez........

......color me SHOCKED!

-p

So, your problem is not with illegal immigrants, but with Hispanics? :hscratch:

wendersfan
11-20-07, 07:41 AM
So, your problem is not with illegal immigrants, but with Hispanics? :hscratch:Yeah, I really don't see the problem. I don't see much of an outcry about the damned Welsh, even though Jones and Williams are both very common surnames.

wishbone
11-20-07, 08:26 AM
U.S. Census Bureau Releases Most Common Surnames
November 18th, 2007 @ 9:40pm (KSL News)

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its list of the most common surnames, or last names in the country.

Number one is no surprise: Smith! It was tops during the last census too.

Here's the rest of the 10 most common, in order:

Most Common Last Names in U.S.

01. Smith
02. Johnson
03. Williams
04. Brown
05. Jones
06. Miller
07. Davis
08. Garcia
09. Rodriguez
10. Wilson

The Census bureau says this is the first time that two Hispanic names were in the top 10.

We checked the list for the weekend crew here: Pope is the 486th most popular last name; Kirkland comes in at 1,107; McCord is 1,918; Prichard and Zundel: you don't make the list of 5,000!

The Census Bureau has compiled a list 5,000 last names, from top to bottom. To find out where your name appears on the list, we have a link to the U.S. Census Bureau. We also have a link to the New York Times. Its Web site has an interactive search of all 5,000 names.http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2179202In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: November 17, 2007

Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.

Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.

Compiling the rankings is a cumbersome task, in part because of confidentiality and accuracy issues, according to the Census Bureau, and it is only the second time it has prepared such a list. While the historical record is sketchy, several demographers said it was probably the first time that any non-Anglo name was among the 10 most common in the nation. “It’s difficult to say, but it’s probably likely,” said Robert A. Kominski, assistant chief of social characteristics for the census.

Luis Padilla, 48, a banker who has lived in Miami since he arrived from Colombia 14 years ago, greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically.

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Mr. Padilla said. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Reinaldo M. Valdes, a board member of the Miami-based Spanish American League Against Discrimination, said the milestone “gives the Hispanic community a standing within the social structure of the country.”

“People of Hispanic descent who hardly speak Spanish are more eager to take their Hispanic last names,” he said. “Today, kids identify more with their roots than they did before.”

Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.

Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.

“The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,” said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of “The Language of Names.”

“Now, look at Renée Zellweger,” Mr. Kaplan said.

And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.

The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.

Altogether, the census found six million surnames in the United States. Among those, 151,000 were shared by a hundred or more Americans. Four million were held by only one person.

“The names tell us that we’re a richly diverse culture,” Mr. Kominski said.

But the fact that about 1 in every 25 Americans is named Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller or Davis “suggests that there’s a durability in the family of man,” Mr. Kaplan, the author, said. A million Americans share each of those seven names. An additional 268 last names are common to 10,000 or more people. Together, those 275 names account for one in four Americans.

As the population of the United States ballooned by more than 30 million in the 1990s, more Murphys and Cohens were counted when the decade ended than when it began.

Smith — which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied — is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.

In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.

The Census Bureau’s analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.

More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17surnames.html#

NotThatGuy
11-20-07, 03:42 PM
So, your problem is not with illegal immigrants, but with Hispanics? :hscratch:

Nope.

More of a comment on the changing face of American culture. It was part of a throw-away news report by a Miami station.....they actually walked around Miami and asked people if their last name was Garcia or Rodriguez. It must be a slow news day.

-p

wendersfan
11-20-07, 03:49 PM
More of a comment on the changing face of American culture. It was part of a throw-away news report by a Miami station.....Then why did you post it if it was just a "throw-away?" I'm sure there were people decrying the loss of prominence of Stueyvesant and van Broekelyn as common surnames 400 years ago. So, once again, exactly what is the problem?

Out of Bounds
11-20-07, 05:30 PM
Yeah, I really don't see the problem. I don't see much of an outcry about the damned Welsh, even though Jones and Williams are both very common surnames.


Or all the Pakistanis flooding into NYC. The way the anti immigration crowd frames it, you'd think that Mexicans are the only people coming to this nation in large numbers.

General Zod
11-20-07, 06:22 PM
Or all the Pakistanis flooding into NYC. The way the anti immigration crowd frames it, you'd think that Mexicans are the only people coming to this nation in large numbers.
When you want to stop your boat from sinking you will want to plug the biggest hole first. That's why people from Mexico flooding into our country dominates this discussion - it is what needs to be tackled first.

NotThatGuy
11-20-07, 06:23 PM
Or all the Pakistanis flooding into NYC. The way the anti immigration crowd frames it, you'd think that Mexicans are the only people coming to this nation in large numbers.

THAT is the problem. The "pro-immigration crowd" does not differentiate ILLEGAL immigrants from LEGAL immigrants, and they try to lump them together and claim that the ANTI-illegal immigration crowd is against ALL immigrants, and some go as far and call anyone who doesn't welcome ILLEGALS with open arms as racists. I can't speak for everyone......but I know that *I* am perfectly okay with LEGAL immigrants, and I welcome them. I am *NOT* okay with illegal immigrants.

-p

Franchot
11-20-07, 06:31 PM
THAT is the problem. The "pro-immigration crowd" does not differentiate ILLEGAL immigrants from LEGAL immigrants, and they try to lump them together and claim that the ANTI-illegal immigration crowd is against ALL immigrants, and some go as far and call anyone who doesn't welcome ILLEGALS with open arms as racists. I can't speak for everyone......but I know that *I* am perfectly okay with LEGAL immigrants, and I welcome them. I am *NOT* okay with illegal immigrants.

-p

+1 :thumbsup:

Giantrobo
11-21-07, 01:06 AM
THAT is the problem. The "pro-immigration crowd" does not differentiate ILLEGAL immigrants from LEGAL immigrants, and they try to lump them together and claim that the ANTI-illegal immigration crowd is against ALL immigrants, and some go as far and call anyone who doesn't welcome ILLEGALS with open arms as racists. I can't speak for everyone......but I know that *I* am perfectly okay with LEGAL immigrants, and I welcome them. I am *NOT* okay with illegal immigrants.

-p


:up::up: Well said.


< Supports LEGAL immigration 100%

Many, including myself, have pointed out that this issue has more to do with <b>GEOGRAPHY</b> than any one race. If China was butted up against the US like Mexico, you can believe Chinese immigrants would be flooding in. Mind you, each border of America has it's own brand of ILLEGAL coming in. For instance, here in CA we not only have ILLEGALS from Latin American nations, we have Asians coming too. They often come in through our ports and every once in a while they find cargo containers and sometimes "Clown houses" filled with ILLEGALS from China and other Asian nations. Apparently a lot of the women end up forced into prostitution in "Asian Massage Parlors" to pay off huge coyote debts. Guess what...they need to go back to their countries just like any other ILLEGAL.

Also, a lot of the ILLEGAL immigrant asskissing the politicians do seems to favor ILLEGALS from Mexico and other countries South of our borders over others. There are stories of ILLEGALS from other counties that get truly fucked over with no mercy and sent back to their native countries, while Mexicans and others from Latin America are barely dealt with.

Now <i>that</i> seems truly racist to me....but I guess as long as Mexicans and others from Latin America will work for cheap making big business richer we should just ignore this fact...God bless cheap lettuce....

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 09:25 AM
THAT is the problem. The "pro-immigration crowd" does not differentiate ILLEGAL immigrants from LEGAL immigrants, and they try to lump them together and claim that the ANTI-illegal immigration crowd is against ALL immigrants, and some go as far and call anyone who doesn't welcome ILLEGALS with open arms as racists. I can't speak for everyone......but I know that *I* am perfectly okay with LEGAL immigrants, and I welcome them. I am *NOT* okay with illegal immigrants.

-p


To an extent you're right but you're missing my point. Many "anti-illegal immigration" advocates in this thread and in the world at large are using the argument that "Mexicans are diluting our culture and corrupting what it means to be an American". That's what people here are saying, that's what people on FOXNews and CNN and other sources are saying too. But that position has NOTHING to do with legal versus illegal immigration and EVERYTHING to do with being against Mexican immigrants NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LEGAL STATUS.

So, rather than try to whitewash the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd by suggesting otherwise, maybe you should pay attention to the arguments they're actively using here and elsewhere.

wishbone
11-21-07, 10:04 AM
Illegal Immigrants: In Search of the Mexican Dream
November 16, 2007 12:30 AM
By Bridget Johnson

How many Mexicans are coming to America because their country’s major malfunctions leave them with no other choice? The answer isn’t zero, although that’s what you might think after talking to certain Mexican politicans stuck in denial, writes Bridget Johnson.

They say “denial” is a river in Egypt, but it’s actually a desert in Mexico.

As much as Mexico’s politicians stress that the dangerous trek across this expanse to slip across the American border is a pursuit of the American dream, they’ve paid no attention to Mexicans’ dreams.

Because for every Mexican who spends a season or more a world away from his family just to send home needed cash, there is a broken dream back home. Behind that is a broken system, a government that seems to have given up on utilizing the country’s resources, on valuing hard workers, and on keeping families together in their ancestral homelands for generations to come without living in fear of vicious druglords or abject poverty.

I spoke at length with former Mexican President Vicente Fox on his U.S. tour for his book Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith, and Dreams of a Mexican President , hope that apparently wasn’t meant for his paisanos as the book wasn’t released in Spanish and wasn’t released in Mexico.

While prodding the United States to accept more immigrants, grant illegal immigrants all the perks, and stop branding immigrants as people who don’t learn English (“I see most of them learning English”) or use fake or stolen identities to get jobs (“I don’t know any case of using different Social Security numbers”), Fox painted such a rosy image of Mexico that you’d think no one would ever want to leave.

When I prodded him on that message, he gave me these types of nuggets: “People think of Mexico as violent and crime-ridden, but it’s comparable to the U.S.” When I asked him about the fact that deaths of journalists in Mexico in 2006 were second in the world only to Iraq, he responded, “Let’s not generalize. Yes, I understand there was newspaper people that was killed. This is the exception; there are a few cases like this. I can assure that the crime in Mexico is no more than the crime here in the U.S. …Organized crime is exceptional, is bad, and that battle will be won. Mexico is a safe country. Mexico respects human rights.”

Denial.

On his tour, Fox reminded every journalist who got a sit-down with him that his grandfather, Joseph Louis Fuchs, immigrated to Mexico from Cincinnati before the turn of the century. But Fox’s grandfather left the United States because there was a malfunction in America at the time — discrimination against Catholics. How much was Fuchs going toward something as opposed to getting away from something bad?

Similarly, how many proud Mexicans begrudgingly leave their land of deep roots because they feel Mexico’s major malfunctions leave them no other choice?

While ordinary Mexicans eke out paltry wages from smog-choked Mexico City to the lush beaches, their government, police and judiciary have made corruption an art form.

Fox predicted that by 2040 the Mexican economy would be the “fifth largest in the world.” How, through its $25 billion a year drug trafficking industry?

This is a country that gets tough on drug cartels only when the U.S. is looking, where around 2,350 people have been killed just this year in drug violence.

Mexico is a country where the government can’t even accept the fact that the recent massive flooding that left half a million people homeless in Tabasco state could be due to poor dam management and dollars unspent on flood-control infrastructure. Instead, President Felipe Calderon lifted a line from the Al Gore playbook: “I can assure Tabasquenos that the origin and cause of this catastrophe is enormous climate change.”

This is a country that has seen the worst series of murders in memory — hundreds of women slain and hundreds more missing in Ciudad Juarez since 1993. And a government that has not only closed unsolved cases, but criticizes journalists who bring up the crimes.

And proving that poverty can make you do desperate things, this is a country that nearly fell prey to the neo-Socialist blather of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who promised Mexico the moon with the backing of Hugo Chavez.

And now Calderon, the president who claims he can fix it all, can’t even deliver a state of the nation address in front of his own congress.

When it comes to illegal immigrants dying trying to cross a desert choked with AK-47-toting traffickers, we can’t put a Band-Aid on internal bleeding. Between treating Central American migrants like dirt and then blaming the U.S. for violating illegal immigrants’ rights, Mexico’s leaders need to summon enough introspection to realize what their country can be, and then summon enough courage to take the painful steps needed to get there.

Because the American Dream is well-loved, but there’s absolutely no reason why there can’t also be a Mexican Dream — in a thriving, desirable homeland.http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/illegal_immigrants_in_search_o.php

NotThatGuy
11-21-07, 10:05 AM
To an extent you're right but you're missing my point. Many "anti-illegal immigration" advocates in this thread and in the world at large are using the argument that "Mexicans are diluting our culture and corrupting what it means to be an American". That's what people here are saying, that's what people on FOXNews and CNN and other sources are saying too. But that position has NOTHING to do with legal versus illegal immigration and EVERYTHING to do with being against Mexican immigrants NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LEGAL STATUS.

My argument is that illegals are and will continue to undermine our societal beliefs and american culture. The reason why it tends to focus on Mexicans is the proximity issue brought up by Giantrobo. The 'access' they have to our country is far more than illegals sneaking in from eastern europe. It has been WELL documented that illegals from mexico go back and forth across the border, much like commuters.....except commuters don't steal from the US gov't (through social services, failing to pay taxes, etc), traffic drugs and guns, smuggle humans, etc.

Illegal immigrants live on the fringe and create a completely self-contained group that outwards thwarts American culture (the pro-illegal immigrant crowd will say that the anti-crowd is 'creating' this fringe, though I'd argue that if the illegals didn't break multiple laws and squat in our country, there wouldn't be a fringe). Some legal immigrants may fall into this group too, but they have more of a connection with society because they have to interact more with the mainstream. They don't have to function on the fringe, because they are LEGAL, and they can have access to services that are due to them because they pay into the system and function as a contributing member of our society.

Illegal immigrants are coveted as warm body potential votes. I think it is a travesty that politicians are positioning to get their votes (through backdoor amnesty programs). Do you really think they will vote with "America" in mind? We've already seen the ILLEGAL protests by illegal immigrants for more rights....which I liken to squatters who complain to their landlords that they don't have enough heat/space/AC....ignoring the fact THEY ARE THERE ILLEGALLY.

So, rather than try to whitewash the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd by suggesting otherwise, maybe you should pay attention to the arguments they're actively using here and elsewhere.

Proximity and #'s....that is my concern with illegal immigrants coming through mexico. If there were MILLIONS of polish illegal immigrants flooding our country....I'd be advocating for protecting our borders against them. Frankly the Mexican Gov't is encouraging their citizens to illegal enter our country for services. They also don't mind that many of their citizens that are going to America are criminals, drug dealers, and violent offenders. Talk to any So Cal / AZ / TX police officer and they will tell you the effect illegals are having on the gang population and violence (Check THIS (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html) out). Heck, talk to anyone who works at a jail/prison, and they will tell you how many of their inmates are illegals. Tancredo cited a rate of 28% of the incarcerated people in the US are illegal immigrants. Any guess if those rates go up for border states?

*edit*

What a timely post by wishbon....exactly my point.

-p

The Bus
11-21-07, 10:10 AM
I know that *I* am perfectly okay with LEGAL immigrants, and I welcome them. I am *NOT* okay with illegal immigrants.

Assuming that we get a physical fence that works, what level of legal immigration would you propose, as opposed to what it is now?

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 10:13 AM
My argument is that illegals are and will continue to undermine our societal beliefs and american culture.


If you're trying to suggest that the issue is ONLY illegal versus legal immigration, then you shouldn't bring up the above point. It undermines your entire argument.

Illegal immigrants live on the fringe and create a completely self-contained group that outwards thwarts American culture (the pro-illegal immigrant crowd will say that the anti-crowd is 'creating' this fringe, though I'd argue that if the illegals didn't break multiple laws and squat in our country, there wouldn't be a fringe).

Have you ever had any sort of significant interaction with illegal immigrants, Mexican or otherwise? Because, based on the comment above, I'm guessing the answer is no.

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 10:17 AM
By the way, the two largest ethnic backgrounds in America are German (just over 15%) and Irish (just over 10%). So, which of those cultures represents the American culture that we stand to lose when too many Mexicans cross the border, legally or otherwise?

Sorry, but that whole argument is asinine IMO. America's cultural fabric changes all the time. No single group of American immigrants has a corner on "true" American culture. Spanish, British and French took the nation from the natives, Italians, Germans and Irish became the dominant force later on. Asians, Russians and near easterners have been making major impacts on American culture for the last few decades. Now Mexicans and other central and south Americans are having an impact. That's the nature of America.

NotThatGuy
11-21-07, 10:20 AM
Assuming that we get a physical fence that works, what level of legal immigration would you propose, as opposed to what it is now?

I'd have to see where the need comes from, because I'm guessing there will be gaps of need, and also areas that would benefit from more legal immigrant manpower. I wouldn't raise things across the board (blindly doing anything is a poor decision), but I'm guessing substantial increases would need to happen to meet the eventual needs of the economy.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-21-07, 10:24 AM
If you're trying to suggest that the issue is ONLY illegal versus legal immigration, then you shouldn't bring up the above point. It undermines your entire argument.

I didn't say it was *only* an issue with legal and illegal immigrants, but illegal immigrants are a major contributing factor.

Have you ever had any sort of significant interaction with illegal immigrants, Mexican or otherwise? Because, based on the comment above, I'm guessing the answer is no.

Yes. I live in S. FL.....where the largest current influx of illegal immigrants come from........Mexico. I have friends who work for the news, police, and gov't, so I get an earful. Though I actively avoid working with the prison population, I also have colleagues who work in the prison system conducting research, assessment, and therapy.....so I am quite aware of the current state of our penal system.

-p

wishbone
11-21-07, 10:29 AM
Assuming that we get a physical fence that works, what level of legal immigration would you propose, as opposed to what it is now?Persons Obtaining Legal Permanet Legal Status 2006: 1,266,264
Seems robust to me. :shrug:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/OIS_2006_Yearbook.pdf

NotThatGuy
11-21-07, 10:35 AM
By the way, the two largest ethnic backgrounds in America are German (just over 15%) and Irish (just over 10%). So, which of those cultures represents the American culture that we stand to lose when too many Mexicans cross the border, legally or otherwise?

Those immigrant groups came in and assimilated, the current influx of ILLEGAL immigrants are not only refusing to assimilate, but they are actively trying to supplant our culture and replace it with their culture.

Sorry, but that whole argument is asinine IMO. America's cultural fabric changes all the time. No single group of American immigrants has a corner on "true" American culture. Spanish, British and French took the nation from the natives, Italians, Germans and Irish became the dominant force later on. Asians, Russians and near easterners have been making major impacts on American culture for the last few decades. Now Mexicans and other central and south Americans are having an impact. That's the nature of America.

You are talking about an assimilation that happened over GENERATIONS....I'm talking about a flood of people who are drastically (and negatively) impacting our culture over a very short period of time.

The 'nature' of America is to have LEGAL immigrants come here, assimilate, and have an opportunity at the American Dream....not for ILLEGAL immigrants to flood the country, REJECT our "American Dream", and replace it with demands for citizenship, economic support, and more rights. (See my "squatter" example above).

-p

The Bus
11-21-07, 11:24 AM
pedagogue, don't you think you might be getting a slightly biased view of illegal immigrants considering you hear about them from law enforcement, prisons, etc.? If not biased, at least skewed?

I'm guessing substantial increases would need to happen to meet the eventual needs of the economy.

:up:

Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Legal Status 2006: 1,266,264
Seems robust to me. :shrug:

"Robust" seems to indicate that it is more than adequate. I don't think it's robust.

Those immigrant groups came in and assimilated

No, they didn't. Why do you think cities have sections called "Little Italy"? Why do cities have sections called "Chinatown"? Look at Brighton Beach, etc.

Assimilation happens with the next generation. That's why when someone talks about "the Irish" today they're more than likely talking about Notre Dame.

There will always be strong ties to culture. People (even on this board) proudly proclaim what their ancestry is. So sons and daughters of immigrants (legal or illegal) may or may not reject the fact that their parents are from Ukraine, or Peru, or Cote d'Ivoire, or Laos, etc. And by the time we get to their kids, they'll be completely "American".

This is the way it's been happening for, oh, the last two hundred years. It also explains why there's people in California called Filiberto Rodriguez who don't know any Spanish. Or Americans in Florida who say they're Cuban but don't know much Spanish.

wildcatlh
11-21-07, 11:39 AM
No, they didn't. Why do you think cities have sections called "Little Italy"? Why do cities have sections called "Chinatown"? Look at Brighton Beach, etc.

Assimilation happens with the next generation. That's why when someone talks about "the Irish" today they're more than likely talking about Notre Dame.

There will always be strong ties to culture. People (even on this board) proudly proclaim what their ancestry is. So sons and daughters of immigrants (legal or illegal) may or may not reject the fact that their parents are from Ukraine, or Peru, or Cote d'Ivoire, or Laos, etc. And by the time we get to their kids, they'll be completely "American".

This is the way it's been happening for, oh, the last two hundred years. It also explains why there's people in California called Filiberto Rodriguez who don't know any Spanish. Or Americans in Florida who say they're Cuban but don't know much Spanish.

Exactly. In most of American history, it's been the third-generation immigrants that were the first ones that were completely assimilated. And it's happening that exact same way with many teenagers of hispanic ancestry who are part of the third generation, and who, as The Bus pointed out, know little if any Spanish.

vhgong
11-21-07, 12:08 PM
I am an immigrant myself and move to the US because i love this country and this pisses me off big time. F these legals!!! If ya can't speak English, go F yourself!!!



NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Five Spanish-speaking immigrants have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a requirement that workers only speak English on the job at a Deep River machine shop.

The five, who are in this country legally, have filed a discrimination suit against

GC Industries, a company that makes and finishes sheet metal.

At GC Industries a "Common Language Policy" posted on the bulletin board requires employees to speak English during work hours, except during breaks and lunch. The company notice cites safety, product quality and efficiency.

Policies dictating English in the workplace may be legal if a company can show a legitimate safety or business reason, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312402,00.html

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 12:11 PM
Those immigrant groups came in and assimilated, the current influx of ILLEGAL immigrants are not only refusing to assimilate, but they are actively trying to supplant our culture and replace it with their culture.


So, we're going to go back over this fallacy again? If you really think that the floods of immigrants from Itally, France, Spain, Japan, Korea and others haven't acted in exactly the same way as immigrants from Mexico then you're either not being honest with yourself or you haven't made a good faith effort to understand the history of immigration in America.

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 12:12 PM
Exactly. In most of American history, it's been the third-generation immigrants that were the first ones that were completely assimilated. And it's happening that exact same way with many teenagers of hispanic ancestry who are part of the third generation, and who, as The Bus pointed out, know little if any Spanish.


Exactly what I'm saying.

wishbone
11-21-07, 12:23 PM
By the way, the two largest ethnic backgrounds in America are German (just over 15%) and Irish (just over 10%). So, which of those cultures represents the American culture that we stand to lose when too many Mexicans cross the border, legally or otherwise?Just to clarify American culture began with an Anglo-core culture; subsequent immigration was German, Scot-Irish, and Irish.

Franchot
11-21-07, 12:55 PM
So, we're going to go back over this fallacy again? If you really think that the floods of immigrants from Itally, France, Spain, Japan, Korea and others haven't acted in exactly the same way as immigrants from Mexico then you're either not being honest with yourself or you haven't made a good faith effort to understand the history of immigration in America.

I don't believe that immigrants from Italy, France, Spain, Japan, Korea, and others had organizations such as La Raza and MEChA backing them whose plan is to retake the parts of America which once belonged to Mexico and/or Spain. I also don't think that the above mentioned countries wished to change the language of the United States so that their language was the only acceptable language of the United States. Maybe slow to learn the English language, they never turned their back on learning it. Not so for illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries backed by La Raza and MEChA.

jdodd
11-21-07, 12:59 PM
I also don't think that the above mentioned countries wished to change the language of the United States so that their language was the only acceptable language of the United States. Maybe slow to learn the English language, they never turned their back on learning it. Not so for illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries backed by La Raza and MEChA.
Do these groups really wish to change the language of the US to solely Spanish? I find that a little tough to swallow.

The Bus
11-21-07, 12:59 PM
Just to clarify American culture began with an Anglo-core culture; subsequent immigration was German, Scot-Irish, and Irish.

This is correct, there were never any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain">Spanish</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France">French</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alaska">Russian</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden">Swedish</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam">Dutch</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade">African</a> influences or cultures here in the US prior to the 1800s. And, of course, the US was completely desolate and barren, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas">no people</a> living here. We're basically a Lil' England.

The Bus
11-21-07, 01:01 PM
Not so for illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries backed by La Raza and MEChA.

The KKK can endorse Hillary Clinton. That doesn't make her a racist.

Franchot
11-21-07, 01:04 PM
The KKK can endorse Hillary Clinton. That doesn't make her a racist.

?

Meaning?

I was posting about the willingness of illegal immigrants to assimulate into American culture.

Franchot
11-21-07, 01:06 PM
Do these groups really wish to change the language of the US to solely Spanish? I find that a little tough to swallow.

I didn't say "solely." I said "acceptable." Perhaps "official" would be a better word to use?

* Edited to fix my stupid spelling mistake.

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 01:11 PM
?

Meaning?

I was posting about the willingness of illegal immigrants to assimulate into American culture.


And in the process making a sweeping and inaccurate generalization.

wildcatlh
11-21-07, 01:11 PM
I didn't say "solely." I said "acceptable." Perhaps "offical" would be a better word to use?

How much do those groups honestly do?

And what of the multitude of articles that have talked about how third generation hispanic immigrants are assimilating to the point that the hispanic community is worried that they don't speak Spanish?

fujishig
11-21-07, 01:17 PM
Out Of Bounds, where do you live? Just curious, because we've had this exact same argument in these threads before, and most (not all) who don't see illegal immigration as a problem are usually not in border states or have some personal stake in seeing family or friends come in and stay.

So do the pro illegal immigrant posters condone just completely open borders?

jdodd
11-21-07, 01:20 PM
I didn't say "solely." I said "acceptable." Perhaps "offical" would be a better word to use?
You said "the only acceptable", which to me meant "solely".

But, regardless, I'm not sure how much work these groups have to do in that regard; official documents and what not are all available in a multitude of languages now.

Franchot
11-21-07, 01:57 PM
How much do those groups honestly do?

And what of the multitude of articles that have talked about how third generation hispanic immigrants are assimilating to the point that the hispanic community is worried that they don't speak Spanish?

"Multitude of articles" seems like a very general term. I can also give a "multitude of articles" which supports the opposite point of view. I can only speak of what I witness here in Southern California.

Here's a little something about Spanish versus English language at the Los Angeles Unified School District:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parents10nov10,1,3272273.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Discord roils L.A. Unified parent panel

Acrimony with racial overtones has plagued the advisory council. The key issue: whether meetings in Spanish should be allowed.

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 10, 2007

For months, parents on a Los Angeles Unified School District advisory council have disagreed over whether their meetings should be conducted in Spanish or English. Such arguments became so abusive that district officials canceled meetings for two months and brought in dispute-resolution specialists and mental-health counselors.

But Friday morning's gathering of the District Advisory Council proved dysfunctional in any language.

By one vote, parents censured their own chairman for alleged bad behavior, leading to a walkout of most Spanish-speakers. The rebuked chairman, Roberto Fonseca, followed them out of the room. Most voting for the censure were African American, adding racial overtones to the back-and-forth hectoring.

Friday's dispute, at the district's downtown Parent Community Services Branch, was the latest in a year of acrimony at the council, which was elected by parents at schools throughout the district. They offer advice on -- and oversight of -- the expenditure of $385 million on federally funded programs for students from poor families.

The goings-on raise another round of questions about parent participation in the nation's second-largest school system, which has been repeatedly criticized by auditors for inconsistent and ineffective parent involvement and outreach. Critics say the district rarely seeks true parental input and instead uses parents to rubber-stamp budgets and programs. District officials insist they are determined to change this perception and are making progress.

Friday's chaos had been building since February, when Fonseca, who is bilingual, started to give his chairman's report in Spanish. Some in the audience objected; arguments and recriminations ensued, and school police rushed over amid concerns that a fistfight would break out, witnesses said.

Police have been present ever since, and on Friday, they escorted several parents outside for what one administrator termed a "timeout."

After the February dispute over language, the district canceled March and April meetings, using the time to develop a Code of Civility, which reads almost like the rules in some classrooms: "Treat one another with respect, without ridicule or criticism. . . . Listen attentively while others are speaking. . . . Under no circumstances, threaten or engage in any verbal or physical attack on another individual."

There was some resistance to this code, because parents had not approved it themselves, district staff said.

When meetings resumed, parents set up a bylaws subcommittee to take on language and other matters. The current bylaws stipulate that parent meetings across the district must be held in English. A school-district lawyer, however, concluded that this rule is illegal and impractical. Many parents serving on local school councils don't speak English. Some meetings consist entirely of Spanish-speakers in a district where more than 266,000 students (and probably many more parents) are English-learners out of a student population of about 694,000.

The bylaws committee never completed its full review but had tentatively decided to leave the English rule in place. District staff, in turn, notified schools and offices that the English rule would not be enforced.

When participants on the advisory council aren't at odds, meetings can be a model of bilingualism. When someone speaks in Spanish, English speakers put translation headsets to their ears and vice versa. And many Latino participants do speak English. The council united to oppose a recent cut in district translation services, a position that Fonseca politely announced to the Board of Education.

Latinos appear to hold the majority of council seats, although African Americans are well represented. A handful of seats are occupied by people of other ethnicities. The council has 63 members, but it will have more than 100 after local elections are complete.

Some observers have described the battle over language as a stand-in for a larger dispute. Federal Title 1 funding started during the civil rights era largely as a mechanism to help impoverished blacks who occupied vast swaths of South Los Angeles. The federal money has yet to eliminate low-academic achievement among African Americans.

But Latinos now have larger numbers in many formerly black-majority schools. And Latino parents are not content to oversee only those funds set aside for English-learners -- these are generally much smaller pots of money than the federal poverty-relief dollars.

Still, the mini-wars at the advisory committee may have more to do with difficult personalities and in-room ethnic tensions than citywide racial politics or competition over resources, others said.

Fonseca, in particular, has been a polarizing figure, although on Friday he kept his cool initially, when a black woman walked up to the podium and shouted in his face: "You are totally out of order!"

Later, though, on one motion, an impatient Fonseca tried to shut down public comment. "I will not allow members of the public to speak," he said.

Chris Downing, an administrator with the parent branch, intervened, as he frequently has: "The chairperson does not have the right to violate the law." Downing then turned to the unruly audience: "Raise your hand if you want to have a nice calm meeting. . . . Take a deep breath."

Later, Fonseca ruled that a two-thirds vote would be needed to censure him. The district's lawyer, John Walsh, disagreed, but Fonseca spoke out again and again: "Two-thirds! Two-thirds! Two-thirds!"

The resolution stated in part that Fonseca "recognized only those who upheld his views and denied the opposition the right to speak."

Those who walked out included Guadalupe Aguiar, one of the parents who felt that Fonseca was treated unfairly, especially because Friday was the last meeting before new elections. She added that she considers it racist when parents are told that, in America, they have to speak English.

In some respects, though, Aguiar spoke for a clear majority of parents.

"I am here to bring information to my school," she said in Spanish. "So far, I have not brought anything. It was the same thing last year and the year before. . . . Your children are failing just as mine are."

The thing is Mr. Fonseca can speak English, but instead chose Spanish as the preferred language for the meeting. That doesn't sound like assimulation to me.

wishbone
11-21-07, 03:44 PM
This is correct, there were never any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain">Spanish</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France">French</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alaska">Russian</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden">Swedish</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam">Dutch</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade">African</a> influences or cultures here in the US prior to the 1800s. And, of course, the US was completely desolate and barren, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas">no people</a> living here. We're basically a Lil' England.Bus, sorry I did not chose my words well. I was thinking of a "Race and Ethnicity in the United States" class I took.

...the American nation, as it developed from the colonial period to the 1960s, was built around certain core institutions, customs, and practices. To oversimplify brutally, these were the English language, dissenting Protestant Christianity, individualism and work ethic, and the political culture of the Founding Fathers with its emphasis on individual rights. Over time, later immigrants groups assimilated to the cultural core of “Anglo-Protestant Christianity” that evolved from these origins and assented to the American Creed that was its self-conscious political expression. They added spicy cultural contributions of their own, of course, but these did not fundamentally alter the national character.http://www.amconmag.com/2004_07_19/cover.html

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 05:17 PM
Out Of Bounds, where do you live? Just curious, because we've had this exact same argument in these threads before, and most (not all) who don't see illegal immigration as a problem are usually not in border states or have some personal stake in seeing family or friends come in and stay.

So do the pro illegal immigrant posters condone just completely open borders?


I don't live in a border state but I do live in a state that relies heavily on migrant workers.

DVD Polizei
11-21-07, 05:39 PM
Just a side note, we have Portland, OR city council members secretly attempting to change 4th Ave name to Caesar Chavez to replace the historical street name because a failed plan to change a larger street (Interstate Ave.). Utterly fucking ridiculous. And if anything, we have more Asians on 4th Ave. conducting business.

Why are Hispanics and African Americans suddenly the ONLY two races which get this treatment. We have several other races which deserve mentioning who helped build parts of this country (Chinese, German, Russian, etc). Especially the Chinese here in Portland, who worked in the food service industry--many by forced slavery.

By the way, SAM ADAMS, the idiot running for mayor, is one of these guys who favored the street name change. As well as Dan Saltzman, the former mayor and Hispanic Suckup Tom Potter (who voted for the Interstate Ave name to Caesar Chavez but humorously voted against the 4th Ave. change because it 'disgraced the Hispanic Community"), and Randy Leonard.

Way tah go, yah political twats. :up:

Here's an update. The City Council decided to drop the name change of 4th Ave today.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/11/portland_city_council_abandons.html

The Portland City Council pulled the plug on the entire Cesar Chavez street renaming debacle this morning.

"I can see no good reason to put the community through any more of what has become a dysfunctional debate," Commissioner Randy Leonard said.

The council voted unanimously to overturn its decision last week to rename Fourth Avenue in downtown for the farm labor leader and to take off the table a proposal to change the way the council makes street name changes. The council also voted 3-to-2 to reject Mayor Potter's earlier plan to rename North Interstate Avenue for Chavez.

The council replaced Interstate with Fourth last week in the wake of fierce North Portland oppossition. . But the idea of renaming Fourth didn't sit well either.

Council members said it was time to heal and to talk about race relations in the city -- but probably not street renaming in the near future.

"I certainly don't want to be launching any name changes any time soon," Commissioner Dan Saltzman said.

Potter said the city's demographics are changing to become more diverse, and the community has to start having real conversations about race.

"Race is an everyday fact," the mayor said.

Representatives of the Chinese American community said they were glad the council heard their objections to renaming Fourth. The committee that had been pursuing the Interstate renaming said they would take a break and figure out what to do next.

----

These people think renaming a fucking street is going to change things. All it shows is how out of touch politicians are and to what lengths they will go to make it appear they are not racist. And by doing as much, they are racist themselves.

HINT to PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: There are more races than just Hispanics and African Americans living in Portland.

Out of Bounds
11-21-07, 06:50 PM
HINT to PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: There are more races than just Hispanics and African Americans living in Portland.


So, what are they supposed to do? Start renaming streets wholesale? And by the way, that initiative in Portland isn't a secret. I was reading a story about it on the Web just the other day.

DVD Polizei
11-21-07, 07:20 PM
Kudos to you. You found it on the web. :up:

The Portland City Council has a long history of secretly making deals behind closed doors and not involving the public. This time, there was much more protest, and they are taking a few steps back. Notice the change in comments they made in the link I posted.

Oh, and in case you thought this wasn't a secret, the renaming 4th Ave. didn't get in the news until the last possible moment. They deal was practically done. Thank somebody who leaked it out or you wouldn't have read about it on dah webnet.

So, what's your solution? You don't rename streets just to appease a minority. That's wrong. That's a slap in the face to the history of the area, and the MAJORITY of the population.

The Bus
11-21-07, 07:41 PM
I thought most of Portland's streets were being converted to bike paths. :lol:

DVD Polizei
11-21-07, 09:17 PM
Yeah, no kidding. I wonder if Sam Adams, Dan Saltzman, Tom Potter, and Randy Leonard ride bikes to and from work. The Al Gores of "What's Best For Everyone But Me".

Xytraguptorh
11-23-07, 08:52 PM
Regarding earlier posts about acceptable numbers of legal immigrants, are there any other considerations besides economic ones? At the current rate our population will increase to 450 million by mid century, not because of birth rates of native born Americans, but because of immigration. I also believe it puts the population at one billion by the end of the century. THis, of course, is much faster growth than at any time in our history. If "comprehensive immigration reform" had passed, that number would be much higher. I wonder, with most citizens having children at replacement levels, what benefit other than growing the economy can there be for growing our population at such levels and its effect on the quality of life. It can't benefit our use of fossil fuels and water consumption, but since it is taboo for politicians who are supposedly concerned about the environment to discuss immigration, I don't know if that aspect will ever be addressed. Traditional (pre-1965) levels of legal immigration of about 250,000 per year would be around replacement level on its effect on total population. This seems like a reasonable number to shoot for in keeping with our history since immigration has been lowered a few times in the past (around 1920 to1965 was the last big break from mass immigration). I think maybe a break from such high levels of immigration for a few decades might also allow the melting pot effect to work; maybe we'd have more Americans (of all colors) than hyphenated Americans (Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, etc.). If someone uses the "social security is going to run out" argument, it's a Ponzi scheme. If we keep growing the population, then who pays for the new arrivals? You would have to just keep growing the population at an increasing rate, and that is not sustainable forever.

NotThatGuy
11-23-07, 10:38 PM
If we could get rid of the 20 million ILLEGALS now (and save on the millions that would come from that group), that would put a nice dent in your growth number.

-p

Out of Bounds
11-24-07, 04:26 AM
If we could get rid of the 20 million ILLEGALS now (and save on the millions that would come from that group), that would put a nice dent in your growth number.

-p


Pipe dream. There's no logistical way to "get rid" of 20 million people.

Xytraguptorh
11-24-07, 12:05 PM
Pipe dream. There's no logistical way to "get rid" of 20 million people.


Yes there is. It's called attrition through enforcement, and it's already proven to work on a smaller scale. And it worked on a huge scale in the 1950s. Mass deportation (which isn't feasible) is only a worthless straw man argument used by the Open Borders Lobby (corporate America, neocon and neoliberal politicians, the race industry, Tribune Corp.) to maintain the status quo. But I believe if the "SAVE Act" makes its way through Congress in its current form (it has well over 100 co-sponsors so far split between both parties, and it was introduced by a Democrat) and becomes law that we might see just how effective attrition through enforcement can be. http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html

NotThatGuy
11-24-07, 04:25 PM
Pipe dream. There's no logistical way to "get rid" of 20 million people.

If you cut off the hands of a hunter, eventually he will die because he can't feed himself. Make it very expensive for corp america to hire illegals, punish the hell out of illegals who continue to break the law, deport the offenders, build a wall, and utilize political and economical policies that punish offenders and reward compliant companies and persons. All of the monies taken in fines can go towards supporting border control and related illegal immigrant issues.

20 mill may not disappear in a day, but I think the above will take a huge chunk out of the problem. Oh, and don't allow chain immigration.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-25-07, 06:01 PM
(I don't believe this is original, though B&P didn't cite the original author)

Cows -
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a single cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington? And they track her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million* illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

*It should be 20 million, but the same sentiment applies



Yup.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-26-07, 04:07 PM
No one comes to play in this thread anymore.

:(

-p

wishbone
11-26-07, 04:08 PM
No one comes to play in this thread anymore.

:(

-pSometimes no news is good news. ;)

General Zod
11-26-07, 05:05 PM
I heard on the news on the way in that Islamic terrorists were planning to attack Fort Huachuca (America's largest intelligence-training center). Apparently they smuggled or were to smuggle weapons across the border with help from Mexican drug cartels. I know I'm extremely racist because I want our borders protected but this is yet another example of how we leave ourselves vulnerable to attack by not taking border security seriously enough.

It's like having massive security at the front door but the side door is propped wide open with nobody around.

The Bus
11-26-07, 06:06 PM
You would have to just keep growing the population at an increasing rate, and that is not sustainable forever.

It's been sustainable for the past, oh, 10,000 years. There's over a hundred countries more populated than the US. The world's populatin density is 54% denser than the US's.

If we had 3x as many people, our population density would still be less than that of Austria, Denmark, Germany, and the UK.

The Bus
11-26-07, 06:06 PM
No one comes to play in this thread anymore.

:(

-p

I think all sides gave up on the idea of ever convincing the other side, be it through opinions, or, in my case, facts.

;)

General Zod
11-26-07, 06:19 PM
It's been sustainable for the past, oh, 10,000 years. There's over a hundred countries more populated than the US. The world's populatin density is 54% denser than the US's
You can only take people in as fast as your infrastructure will allow. That's why there's a cap on the number of new immigrants we allow into the country. When that number is grossly exceeded through ILLEGAL immigration you have serious problems like what is happening right now in southern California with hospitals closing, incredibly bad and unsafe public schools, and major gang issues.

classicman2
11-26-07, 06:54 PM
No one comes to play in this thread anymore.

We without blinders have chosen to let you fence builders play among yourselves. :lol:

jiggawhat
11-26-07, 08:30 PM
I think all sides gave up on the idea of ever convincing the other side, be it through opinions, or, in my case, facts.

;)

Now let's not get carried away...

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 12:01 AM
We without blinders have chosen to let you fence builders play among yourselves. :lol:
Since you don't have blinders on, please tell me how you respond to what General Zod posted?

-p

Xytraguptorh
11-27-07, 12:59 AM
It's been sustainable for the past, oh, 10,000 years. There's over a hundred countries more populated than the US. The world's populatin density is 54% denser than the US's.

If we had 3x as many people, our population density would still be less than that of Austria, Denmark, Germany, and the UK.

And yet we're at the point where the population is growing at an ever-increasing rate (WAY faster than at any time in out country's history). Not to mention that vast stretches of US territory are uninhabitable which makes comparisons of population density unrealistic. Even if we can upgrade our infrastructure quickly enough to keep up with the population increase, what is wrong with wanting to maintain a certain standard of living for our citizens? At what point are we unable to sustain ourselves when we already have communities rationing water in the southwest? To look at the total land area of the US and assume that new arrivals are going to spread out equally across the country is absurd. As usual, coastal cities will get the biggest share of people.

The other factor is the question of what kind of nation we will be when such a huge percentage of our population consists of post-1970 arrivals and their descendents, the vast majority from third world countries. Of course, this is taboo to talk about.

Xytraguptorh
11-27-07, 01:06 AM
We without blinders have chosen to let you fence builders play among yourselves. :lol:

Most of your posts in this thread are just like this one, one line zingers and name calling, so I doubt anybody misses your participation too badly. :lol:

Tuan Jim
11-27-07, 02:58 AM
I heard on the news on the way in that Islamic terrorists were planning to attack Fort Huachuca (America's largest intelligence-training center). Apparently they smuggled or were to smuggle weapons across the border with help from Mexican drug cartels. I know I'm extremely racist because I want our borders protected but this is yet another example of how we leave ourselves vulnerable to attack by not taking border security seriously enough.

It's like having massive security at the front door but the side door is propped wide open with nobody around.

When I was in training there (2004) we'd have lectures all the time to watch out for illegals passing through the unfenced areas of post. Border Patrol would be cruising through the base at all hours day and night. Even when we had our field exercise, we had to camp out in a fenced in area for our own security (only had blanks) - in case some unwanted folks came through. A little weird to be sure, but I'm not too worried about things there -- various measures already in place.

Giantrobo
11-27-07, 04:30 AM
No one comes to play in this thread anymore.

:(

-p


One can take being called Racist to screw up the discussion only so many times.

wendersfan
11-27-07, 05:51 AM
One can take being called Racist to screw up the discussion only so many times.Except nobody here is calling you a racist. You only complain about how your position is accused of being racist to deflect the argument away from the lack of validity of solving this problem through meaningless, feel-good arguments like "deport them all."

The Bus
11-27-07, 08:14 AM
You can only take people in as fast as your infrastructure will allow. That's why there's a cap on the number of new immigrants we allow into the country. When that number is grossly exceeded through ILLEGAL immigration you have serious problems like what is happening right now in southern California with hospitals closing, incredibly bad and unsafe public schools, and major gang issues.

And yet we're at the point where the population is growing at an ever-increasing rate (WAY faster than at any time in out country's history). Not to mention that vast stretches of US territory are uninhabitable which makes comparisons of population density unrealistic.

Agreed, but I will need a source for the italicized segment. The first <a href="http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm">result I found</a> doesn't seem to back that up.

Even if we can upgrade our infrastructure quickly enough to keep up with the population increase, what is wrong with wanting to maintain a certain standard of living for our citizens? At what point are we unable to sustain ourselves when we already have communities rationing water in the southwest?

That's a problem that can't be blamed on illegal immigration. It's not like illegal immigrants use 90% of the water.


To look at the total land area of the US and assume that new arrivals are going to spread out equally across the country is absurd. As usual, coastal cities will get the biggest share of people.

It's not absurd, especially if there's more legal immigration.


The other factor is the question of what kind of nation we will be when such a huge percentage of our population consists of post-1970 arrivals and their descendents, the vast majority from third world countries. Of course, this is taboo to talk about.

The same kind of nation we've been... forever. And I don't see how the descendants factor into this so heavily, since the descendants are always more "Americanized" and that's been the same way for hundreds of years.

I don't have a problem with the fence. But the fence, even if it's impervious (it will never be) is only a physical solution to a physical problem (people crossing a border). But why are people crossing? Those aspects are either never mentioned by the fence crowd, or the solutions exarcebate those problems.

classicman2
11-27-07, 08:44 AM
just heard a rather interesting piece of information of MSNBC.

The number of Hispanic voters has doubled over the past 10 years.

I would think this is not good news for one of our major parties.

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 09:16 AM
just heard a rather interesting piece of information of MSNBC.

The number of Hispanic voters has doubled over the past 10 years.

I would think this is not good news for one of our major parties.
That seems to support the idea that democrats are trolling for votes through promising back door amnesty, no?

-p

wendersfan
11-27-07, 09:18 AM
That seems to support the idea that democrats are trolling for votes through promising back door amnesty, no?No.

wishbone
11-27-07, 09:18 AM
Hispanics turn to Democrats in '08
USA TODAY/Gallup Poll indicates that Hispanics, by nearly 3 to 1, say they're Democrats or lean that way
By SUSAN PAGE
June 28, 2007

SAN ANTONIO — Like no Republican before him, George W. Bush drew Hispanics to the GOP.

In the 2004 election, at least 40% of the voters in the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority group backed Bush, double the share of Hispanics who had supported Republican Bob Dole eight years earlier. But the inroads Bush made are vanishing.

The chief beneficiary for 2008 so far is Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll indicates that Hispanics, by nearly 3 to 1, say they're Democrats or lean that way. Of those, 59% support the New York senator over her presidential rivals — her strongest showing among any major demographic group and a huge potential asset for early contests in Nevada, Florida, California and other states with large Hispanic populations.

One big factor behind the flight from the GOP: a heated debate over immigration in which congressional Republicans' remarks on illegal immigrants have offended many Hispanic voters. The fallout from that battle, shifting Latino loyalties and a changing political calendar have scrambled political calculations made about Hispanics after the last presidential election — and raised the stakes for their role in choosing the Democratic nominee for the next one.

"At one time, I think Hispanics were viewed by the people who were running campaigns as a little bit of a distraction, a little bit of a nuisance," says Jose Villarreal, a San Antonio lawyer and Clinton supporter who was a top adviser to Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. "Now the community is like an IPO. Everybody wants to invest in it."

Even though the presidential candidates are frantically raising money in the final days before the end of the month — the second-quarter fundraising totals are seen as benchmarks for their standing — all the Democratic contenders accepted invitations to address NALEO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. They will speak to the group's convention in Orlando on Saturday.

In a sign of how GOP priorities have changed since President Bush's careful cultivation of Hispanic voters, all the Republican candidates declined invitations to join a similar forum there Friday, citing scheduling conflicts.

"On the one hand, they say that they're not willing to concede the Hispanic vote," says Arturo Vargas, executive director of NALEO, whose convention opens today. "On the other hand, it's actions that speak louder than words."

During his races for Texas governor and president, Bush made a point of campaigning among Hispanics, praising their values and sometimes speaking Spanish. He's pushing an immigration overhaul now before the Senate that would provide a path to legal status for illegal immigrants now in the USA.

His efforts paid off: After Dole carried just 21% of the Hispanic vote in the 1996 presidential election, Bush built the GOP share to 35% in 2000 and at least 40% in 2004.

By 2005, nearly one-third of Hispanics called themselves Republicans or leaned that way.

"It was the family values thing" that persuaded some of her Hispanic friends and co-workers to vote Republican in 2004, says Millie Linares, 47. The middle school librarian was waiting in San Antonio's muggy heat Sunday for a rally featuring Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.

Hispanics will be more wary in 2008, predicts her sister, Gilda Lopez, 56, a speech pathologist and reliable Democrat. With a crisis in Iraq and questions at home about the GOP's attitudes toward Hispanics, she says, "I cannot understand how a Hispanic person could vote Republican."

The new survey finds fewer who say they will. Only 11% of Hispanics now identify themselves as Republicans, down from 19% in 2005, while the proportion who call themselves Democrats has jumped to 42% from 33%.

Including independents who "lean" to one party or the other, Democrats lead Republicans among Hispanics 58% to 20%.

In a matchup between the candidates who lead in national polls, Hispanics overwhelmingly support Clinton over Republican Rudy Giuliani, 66% to 27%. Hispanics' importance rising

Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, general chairman of the Republican National Committee, says there is time for the eventual GOP nominee to recover among Hispanic voters next year — and that doing so is becoming increasingly critical. Hispanics represented 1 in 8 U.S. residents in 2000 but are projected to be 1 in 4 by 2050.

Martinez, a Cuban émigré, says Republicans can't win the White House with today's level of Hispanic support. "It would be in my view virtually impossible," he says. Patti Solis Doyle, campaign manager for Clinton and the daughter of Mexican immigrants, says the New York senator is determined to reverse the gains Bush made.

"We did see President Bush make some real inroads among Hispanics, and she is very aggressively going after those votes," says Solis Doyle, Clinton's former scheduler and the first Latina to head a major presidential campaign. Her office is decorated with photographs of her husband and two children, a Diego Rivera print and framed copies of three Time magazine covers featuring Clinton.

The campaign has hired a leading Hispanic pollster, a director of Hispanic outreach and a liaison to Spanish-language media. Clinton also has landed some prized endorsements from top Hispanic officeholders, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez.

In part, Clinton's strength among Hispanics reflects the fact that she is the best-known candidate. Many Hispanics also have lingering affection for her husband, who got 62% of the Latino vote in the 1992 presidential election and 72% when he was re-elected in 1996.

"I like Hillary," Margaret Crutchfield, a 61-year-old Mexican-American, says after the San Antonio rally for Obama, whom she says she also likes. Then Crutchfield adds, brightening: "I love Bill Clinton."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the son of a Mexican mother and American father, also sees Hispanic support as "a critical part of his constituency," campaign manager Dave Contarino says.

But Richardson still has to introduce himself. Six in 10 Hispanics polled say they've never heard of the former congressman and Cabinet member, the first Hispanic to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

Richardson is trying to remedy that. He announced his presidential bid in Spanish as well as English. He has accepted an invitation by the Spanish-language TV network Univision to participate in a candidates' debate in September, though he threatens to withdraw unless he's allowed to speak in Spanish rather than through an interpreter. He has announced key Latino supporters even in New Hampshire, a state that's less than 2% Hispanic.

Obama, meanwhile, is playing catch-up. Nearly half of Hispanics nationwide say they've never heard of the Illinois senator. Among Hispanic Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 13% support him. That's his weakest standing among any major demographic group, according to an analysis of combined USA TODAY/Gallup Polls taken this year.

A local Latino rhythm-and-dance troupe performed at his midday rally here — brown plastic cacti and colorful piñatas decorated both sides of the stage — before Obama was introduced to the crowd by Juan Garcia, a Texas state representative and Harvard Law School classmate, and San Antonio Spurs forward Bruce Bowen.

In his speech, Obama noted that his work as a young community organizer in Chicago included Latino as well as black and white neighborhoods. He listed Cesar Chavez, the Chicano farm workers' organizer, among his civil rights heroes and pledged as president to build better relations with Latin America.

"We're not going to fan the flames on immigration," he shouted as the crowd cheered. Local campaign volunteers were sporting bright blue T-shirts declaring "AlamObama," a word play on the Alamo landmark a mile away.

"We're going to solve the problem and we're going to work together," he said. Some Republicans reach out

A month after the 2004 election, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus were so concerned about erosion among once-solidly Democratic Hispanics to Bush that they sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee warning that Republicans were "clearly winning the battle for Hispanic voters."

That was then.

Now, the same angst over the Iraq war and the economy that has cost Bush support among independent voters generally also has dismayed Latinos. Bush's job-approval rating among Hispanics is 29%, lower than his 32% rating overall. Some Hispanics have been alarmed and offended by the harsh rhetoric of some congressional Republicans in the immigration debate and the opposition by most of the GOP presidential field to designing a path to legal status for illegal immigrants now in the USA.

"People think just because I'm Hispanic, I'll open the gates and let them all come over," says Martha Gutierrez, 52, a middle school history teacher from Corpus Christi. That's not true, she says, but "a lot of us look at this as a more practical matter." The idea of forcing an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to leave is "crazy," she says.

"This country is based on immigrants, and now they want to send them all back?" says Mario Morales, 29, an engineer in San Antonio. "It'll hurt the economy, and it is a little racist."

Some GOP candidates are trying to reach out to Hispanic voters.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, an architect of the Senate's immigration bill, in the last GOP debate emotionally extolled the bravery and sacrifices of Hispanic veterans in the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney began airing Spanish-language TV ads in South Florida in March and has posted a video on his campaign website of son Craig touting "mi papa" in Spanish.

With the exception of McCain, however, the major Republican presidential contenders have been more concerned about appealing to tough-on-immigration conservatives who are likely to be important in the GOP primaries than to Hispanics who are swing voters.

Former New York mayor Giuliani dismisses the immigration bill as a "typical Washington mess." Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo is basing his long-shot campaign on fervent opposition to illegal immigration.

Still, in the end, many Hispanics are more likely to be swayed by a personal connection with a candidate than by ideology, Martinez says. That could create an opening for a Republican nominee.

"Once a candidate is identified, if that candidate is a person who can effectively represent himself to that community, we could be back in the game," he says.

Here today, where tomorrow?

Even if Democrats win back Hispanic voters in 2008, Latinos aren't likely to become the sort of reliable Democratic partisans that, say, African-Americans are. Hispanics are twice as likely as non-Hispanics to describe themselves as independents who don't "lean" to either party.

And while the GOP share of Hispanic votes overall fell sharply in the 2006 elections, some Republican candidates did well. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger carried 39% of Hispanic votes in his re-election race in California, for instance. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison won 44% for hers in Texas.

That's a signal to both parties, says Roberto Suro, director of the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center.

"You can see the difference with a constituency that doesn't budge and one that's got play in it, depending on the candidate in the race," Suro says. Vargas agrees. "It's a mistake to say that if Latinos are swinging back to the Democratic Party, they're there to stay," he says.

Frank Guerra, a San Antonio media consultant who worked on Hispanic-oriented advertising in Bush's campaigns, is preparing a report to the opening session of the NALEO convention that analyzes Hispanics as voters in the same ways that corporations analyze them as consumers.

Hispanics "are moving away from traditional brand loyalty" as more companies — and candidates — target them for their business and their votes, Guerra says. "It's very mobile," he says, "and no one owns it."http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3326182&page=1

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 09:19 AM
Agreed, but I will need a source for the italicized segment. The first <a href="http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm">result I found</a> doesn't seem to back that up.

That's a problem that can't be blamed on illegal immigration. It's not like illegal immigrants use 90% of the water.

It's not absurd, especially if there's more legal immigration.

The same kind of nation we've been... forever. And I don't see how the descendants factor into this so heavily, since the descendants are always more "Americanized" and that's been the same way for hundreds of years.

I don't have a problem with the fence. But the fence, even if it's impervious (it will never be) is only a physical solution to a physical problem (people crossing a border). But why are people crossing? Those aspects are either never mentioned by the fence crowd, or the solutions exarcebate those problems.

Because the Mexican government is all but physically pushing their poor and uneducated people towards our country. If they had proper support services and education, I don't think the US would be flooded by illegal immigrants.

What is their response to us.....'give us more economic help'. Demanding more economic support, taking, taking, taking......sound familiar?

-p

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 09:21 AM
That seems to support the idea that democrats are trolling for votes through promising back door amnesty, no?

-p

No.

So what is the alternative meaning....I mean, it isn't like there is countless proof of democrats pushing the hispanic community to vote for them, with promises of more services and leniency/amnesty for their relatives and countrymen. Oh wait....there *IS* countless proof of this exact thing happening.

-p

classicman2
11-27-07, 09:26 AM
That seems to support the idea that democrats are trolling for votes through promising back door amnesty, no?

-p

No, what it seems (may) to support is that there has been (soon will be) a sea change in voter demographics. The Hispanic vote may very well decide elections in the future - maybe as early as 2008.

Hispanic voters generally favor a more reasonable & comprehensive immigration policy. Republicans, on the whole, don't.

Many voters vote for the party that best represents what they believe is the best policy. I don't believe the majority of Hispanic voters will think that the Republican 'solution' is the best policy.

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 09:30 AM
And the democrats aren't beating that difference into the ground and pandering to the Hispanic vote, promising amnesty? I'm sorry if they don't agree with illegal immigration reform that will HELP this country.

btw.."reasonable & comprehensive" = amnesty.

All that does is reasonably SCREW america, in a very damning and comprehensive way.

-p

classicman2
11-27-07, 09:38 AM
Don't you believe that realistic people (primarily Democrats) can favor an immigration plan that is comprehensive and deals with the 12-20 million who are already here? How is that pandering?

wendersfan
11-27-07, 09:39 AM
So what is the alternative meaning....The alternate meaning is that you stop looking at it in a partisan way. It could easily be argued that the Republicans are pandering to people like you, but since you agree with their actions you don't see it as pandering, you see it as something else. When Democrats favor tighter trade restrictions and a higher minimum wage, are they pandering to organized labor? When Republicans advocate lower CAFE standards, are they pandering to the oil companies? It all depends on which side of the issue you fall, and whether or not you can divorce yourself from partisan bias.

classicman2
11-27-07, 09:44 AM
If I were a Republican, I don't believe I'd be accusing the Democrats of pandering since all one has to do is look at what the Republican candidates for president. Now that's pandering. ;)

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 10:31 AM
Don't you believe that realistic people (primarily Democrats) can favor an immigration plan that is comprehensive and deals with the 12-20 million who are already here? How is that pandering?

If "deals" mean reward 12-20 million ILLEGAL immigrants with amnesty AFTER they broke the law by illegally entering our country, AFTER they continued to break the law by staying here, and AFTER many broke more laws (gang related violence, drugs, stealing, raping, etc).

Yeah...I'm not okay with that kind of 'deal'.

-p

classicman2
11-27-07, 10:32 AM
Amnesty - come up with something else. That's old, and not accurate.

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 10:33 AM
The alternate meaning is that you stop looking at it in a partisan way. It could easily be argued that the Republicans are pandering to people like you, but since you agree with their actions you don't see it as pandering, you see it as something else. When Democrats favor tighter trade restrictions and a higher minimum wage, are they pandering to organized labor? When Republicans advocate lower CAFE standards, are they pandering to the oil companies? It all depends on which side of the issue you fall, and whether or not you can divorce yourself from partisan bias.

Wait.....this is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION thread, no? I'm talking about pandering for votes that support crap illegal immigration reform, not oil, CAFE, or labor reform.

Yes there is partisan bias, but that doesn't make what they are doing any less harmful.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 10:36 AM
Amnesty - come up with something else. That's old, and not accurate.
How is it not accurate?

How about providing "ID's" for illegal immigrants. For those unaware, that is just a step towards amnesty, and anyone who can't see that is blind. It is an attempt to legitimize them, and is a slippery slope. "Well...they already have ID, why not give them papers?" Oh, many have papers, but they are forgeries...ya know, not to be confused with the forgeries that terrorists have. Wait....they can come from the same place? Oh...and where do these forgeries come from....identity theft. Hmmm...that could be a problem, and NOT in the best interest of law-abiding tax paying CITIZENS of our country.

Providing a path towards any kind of legal status rewards people who committing crimes. LEGAL immigrants did everything right, only to get shat on by 20 million illegal immigrants and democrat politicians who are trolling for votes. Yeah....that's what I want to support. :rolleyes:

-p

wendersfan
11-27-07, 10:38 AM
Wait.....this is the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION thread, no? I'm talking about pandering for votes that support crap illegal immigration reform, not oil, CAFE, or labor reform.I see. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, that somehow makes it different than every other political issue out there.

Gotcha.

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 10:41 AM
I see. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, that somehow makes it different than every other political issue out there.

Gotcha.

I'm awesome....I don't deny that fact, but since this is the illegal immigration thread, I wanted to stay on topic.

As for other political issues, they are also very important, but I see this issue as the bastard child of politics.....no one wants to directly associate with it, even though it can and will tank our country if it isn't addressed.

-p

The Bus
11-27-07, 10:59 AM
I still find it very surprising when people are against giving illegal immigrants IDs. I guess I don't see the benefit of marginalizing a segment of our population. How does this "give them papers"?

Wouldn't you feel better knowing who is in our country?

Venusian
11-27-07, 11:09 AM
i'm guessing the idea is that when they come in to get the ID, the govt should be deporting them...not giving them the id. the govt is basically accepting them....maybe?

wildcatlh
11-27-07, 11:10 AM
CHICAGO, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Illegal Latino immigrants do not cause a drag on the U.S. health care system as some critics have contended and in fact get less care than Latinos in the country legally, researchers said on Monday.

Such immigrants tend not to have a regular doctor or other health-care provider yet do not visit emergency rooms -- often a last resort in such cases -- with any more frequency than Latinos born in the United States, according to the report from the University of California's School of Public Health.

The finding from Alexander Ortega and colleagues at the school was based on a 2003 telephone survey of thousands of California residents, including 1,317 undocumented Mexicans, 2,851 citizens with Mexican immigrant parents, 271 undocumented Latinos from countries other than Mexico and 852 non-Mexican Latinos born in the United States.

About 8.4 million of the 10.3 million illegal aliens in the United States are Latino, of which 5.9 million are from Mexico, the report said.

"One recurrent theme in the debate over immigration has been the use of public services, including health care," Ortega's team wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"Proponents of restrictive policies have argued that immigrants overuse services, placing an unreasonable burden on the public. Despite a scarcity of well-designed research ... use of resources continues to be a part of the public debate," they said.

The researchers said illegal Mexican immigrants had 1.6 fewer visits to doctors over the course of a year than people born in the country to Mexican immigrants. Other undocumented Latinos had 2.1 fewer physician visits than their U.S.-born counterparts, they said.

"Low rates of use of health-care services by Mexican immigrants and similar trends among other Latinos do not support public concern about immigrants' overuse of the health care system," the researchers wrote.

"Undocumented individuals demonstrate less use of health care than U.S.-born citizens and have more negative experiences with the health care that they have received," they said. (Reporting by Michael Conlon; Editing by Maggie Fox and Bill Trott)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26407393.htm

There are too many people in this country that have to put xenophobia aside and look at how damaging it would be to this country, both in the short and long term, to "kick out all the illegal immigrants". The facts just sometimes don't support the rhetoric.

wildcatlh
11-27-07, 11:15 AM
ped, I'm curious. What level of immigration would you accept. You have stated you want all 12-20 million illegal immigrants kicked out of the country. What do you do then? Do you allow a guest worker program? If so, do you allow the people you just kicked out to come back? Or do we find new ones? How do we replace the labor (and "they're taking jobs from hard-working Americans, so hard-working Americans will just get the job back!" is neither an acceptable nor a truthful answer)? How do we deal with the obvious short-term damage this would cause to our economy (whether or not you think it would be a long-term benefit, it would be extremely damaging, at least in the short term).

wishbone
11-27-07, 11:26 AM
Wouldn't you feel better knowing who is in our country?That is the purpose of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.uscis.gov/) department correct?

fujishig
11-27-07, 11:49 AM
ped, I'm curious. What level of immigration would you accept. You have stated you want all 12-20 million illegal immigrants kicked out of the country. What do you do then? Do you allow a guest worker program? If so, do you allow the people you just kicked out to come back? Or do we find new ones? How do we replace the labor (and "they're taking jobs from hard-working Americans, so hard-working Americans will just get the job back!" is neither an acceptable nor a truthful answer)? How do we deal with the obvious short-term damage this would cause to our economy (whether or not you think it would be a long-term benefit, it would be extremely damaging, at least in the short term).

On the flip side, for the pro-illegal-alien side, do you condone open borders? Do we just let everyone who wants to come in do so legally? What level of immigration would you accept?

How does legalizing the illegal aliens already here prevent more and more from coming over in the hopes of a future legalization?

I've said it before, but if they stopped the bleeding, I would concede some form of legalization for the ones already here... as long as you put them behind the ones that are already in the legal process of immigrating, and not to the front of the line. If they don't fix the incoming-illegal-alien problem first, how is amnesty or a guest worker program or whatever going to help at all?

Lastly, isn't that xenophobia comment similar to calling someone racist?

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 11:52 AM
i'm guessing the idea is that when they come in to get the ID, the govt should be deporting them...not giving them the id. the govt is basically accepting them....maybe?

Exactly.

Giving them an idea is sending the message that:

1. We want them to stay
2. We support their breaking of our laws

It is one step closer to amnesty....and that is the LAST thing we should be doing.

-p

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 12:06 PM
What level of immigration would you accept.

You have stated you want all 12-20 million illegal immigrants kicked out of the country. What do you do then?


1. Get rid of as many illegal immigrants as possible.
2. Assess the needs of the economy, and raise the number of LEGAL immigrants. This most likely will be a large number, and that is OKAY!
3. Streamline the LEGAL immigration process to help facilitate a large influx of legal immigrant workers.
4. Institute a modified guest worker program to address the needs of the economy.

Do you allow a guest worker program? If so, do you allow the people you just kicked out to come back?

I support a modified guest worker program. I would blacklist any illegal immigrant caught and deported from being able to participate in such a program. I would also bar any convicted felon from participating.

How do we replace the labor (and "they're taking jobs from hard-working Americans, so hard-working Americans will just get the job back!" is neither an acceptable nor a truthful answer)?

LEGAL immigrants. There are plenty that want to come here, but because of regulations (and them NOT wanting to break out laws through illegally immigrating over here) they do not come.

The whole, "they are taking our jobs" is BS. I'm all for fair wages, and LEGAL immigrants are a large part of making that happen. If there are no illegal immigrants willing to take sub-standard wages, it will help raise the compensation for legal immigrants. There will need to be better enforcement of employment laws. Corporations have already shown their inability to be trusted in this regard, so there needs to be more oversight in this area.

How do we deal with the obvious short-term damage this would cause to our economy (whether or not you think it would be a long-term benefit, it would be extremely damaging, at least in the short term).

It will take quite awhile to deport 10+ million illegals, so if we can work on stream lining the legal immigration process, it will go a long way in addressing the problem.

The Bus
11-27-07, 12:15 PM
i'm guessing the idea is that when they come in to get the ID, the govt should be deporting them...not giving them the id. the govt is basically accepting them....maybe?

There is no Federal ID outside of a passport. State and local governments are not going to deport anyone but if anything, it makes it a bit easier to know who people are and where they are, to an extent.

That is the purpose of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.uscis.gov/) department correct?

There is no such thing as an US ID card.

On the flip side, for the pro-illegal-alien side, do you condone open borders? Do we just let everyone who wants to come in do so legally?

We've done that before. Why can't we find some middle ground between that and what we're doing now, which is obviously not adequate?

Xytraguptorh
11-27-07, 12:26 PM
ped, I'm curious. What level of immigration would you accept. You have stated you want all 12-20 million illegal immigrants kicked out of the country. What do you do then? Do you allow a guest worker program? If so, do you allow the people you just kicked out to come back? Or do we find new ones? How do we replace the labor (and "they're taking jobs from hard-working Americans, so hard-working Americans will just get the job back!" is neither an acceptable nor a truthful answer)? How do we deal with the obvious short-term damage this would cause to our economy (whether or not you think it would be a long-term benefit, it would be extremely damaging, at least in the short term).

The SAVE Act addresses all these issues, since it gives businesses five years to comply with the E-Verify system, which is enough time to allow the economy to adjust. It is gradually phased in. Nobody reads links in this thread and just sticks to the same tired arguments, but here it is again: http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html This link also has links reports of Americans returning to take jobs that were held by illegal aliens. Fear mongering about how the economy can't function without cheap illegal labor is nothing new. Businesses fought to maintain their right to use child labor in the early twentieth century, but somehow the country managed to function without it. Long before that, the country couldn't manage without slave labor...

The SAVE Act was introduced by a Democrat and has nearly equal Democratic support vs. Republican. I think most reasonable people would find this bill acceptable and much more in line with public opinion rather than corporate or special interest opinion (and this includes Hispanic Americans who are the most likely to be affected by illegal immigration). So-called comprehensive immigration reform was just the opposite. The SAVE Act has a more narrow focus, as most of us realize that the 1986 amnesty just exaccerbated the problem. By focusing on border security, and even more importantly, workplace enforcement BEFORE addressing the status of those who broke the law to get here, I believe we can make some real progress.

Xytraguptorh
11-27-07, 12:50 PM
just heard a rather interesting piece of information of MSNBC.

The number of Hispanic voters has doubled over the past 10 years.

I would think this is not good news for one of our major parties.

In 2004, Hispanics were 6% of voters, but half of those are concentrated in California and Texas. From what I've read, they increase .6% every Presidential election cycle. Now if "comprehensive" immigration reform were passed, this number would grow much more quickly, but to imply that you either conform to Hispanics' agenda (which isn't necessarily for open borders) or you're doomed is nonsense. I believe Republicans are on the right side of this issue. You're going to alienate a lot more voters than you gain by supporting "comprehensive" reform, drivers licenses for illegals etc. Democrats are on the right side for public opinion on a lot of issues, but immigration isn't one of them.

wishbone
11-27-07, 01:09 PM
'This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier'
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?
Friday, November 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
John Fund

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.

But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.

While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting.

Mr. Carter has personal knowledge of why such laws are needed. He recounts in his book "Turning Point" how his 1962 race for Georgia State Senate involved a local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court challenge before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts. Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010814

Hopefully Indiana's Voter ID law will stand given the voter fraud that has occurred in Lake County (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3515986) and East Chicago (http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/08/21/news/lake_county/doc518ad7ee799c3d8c8625733d007f0636.txt) elections.

bhk
11-27-07, 01:21 PM
The good news: The UN came out with another crackpot best places to live list. Iceland and a few other countries were placed above the US. We need to get this info to the illegals so that they have a different target country to sneak into.

fujishig
11-27-07, 02:30 PM
We've done that before. Why can't we find some middle ground between that and what we're doing now, which is obviously not adequate?

What is the middle ground, though? I would think that even the illegal-alien-supporters would welcome tougher border enforcement as a first step. This doesn't affect the ones that are already here, but prevents more from coming in, so why the negative reaction?

NotThatGuy
11-27-07, 09:46 PM
What is the middle ground, though? I would think that even the illegal-alien-supporters would welcome tougher border enforcement as a first step. This doesn't affect the ones that are already here, but prevents more from coming in, so why the negative reaction?

That's what I don't understand.....I mean, BORDER CONTROL = SAFETY. Who doesn't want this? You can disagree about how many legal immigrants and whatnot, but I don't want just anyone walking across the border.

-p

Giantrobo
11-28-07, 01:16 AM
Except nobody here is calling you a racist. You only complain about how your position is accused of being racist to deflect the argument away from the lack of validity of solving this problem through meaningless, feel-good arguments like "deport them all."

wendersfan that's a lie. A straight up lie.

NotThatGuy
11-28-07, 01:21 AM
The subtle racism card has definitely been thrown out here (not applicable, but definitely used).

-p

Franchot
11-29-07, 01:48 AM
San Francisco welcomes you!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/ap_on_re_us/immigrants_id_cards

San Fran OKs ID card for immigrants

SAN FRANCISCO - The mayor signed legislation Wednesday requiring the city to issue identification cards to undocumented immigrants and other residents who can't or won't apply for driver's licenses.

The IDs would not enable cardholders to drive in San Francisco, and they would not stand in for a work visa or Social Security number for those seeking employment. But the IDs would qualify them for health services at city-run clinics, public library privileges and resident discounts at museums and other cultural institutions, according to Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Despite the strong emotions the immigration debate arouses, Newsom said, he sees the ID card program as a practical move that will make it easier for San Francisco citizens to qualify for local services and for city government workers to determine who is eligible to receive them.

"San Francisco does more than most other cities in the United States for its residents, but you need to prove you are a resident and there's no easier way to do it than having one card," he said. "I don't think it's that big of a deal and I think it's inevitable in other cities."

The legislation, which was approved by city lawmakers last week and is to take effect at the end of August 2008, was modeled after a program launched in New Haven, Conn., over the summer. Similar initiatives are under consideration in New York and Miami.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/headlines/2007/11/29/50670/San-Francisco.htm

San Francisco mayor signs law creating identification cards for undocumented residents

SAN FRANCISCO -- Mayor Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring the city of San Francisco to issue identification cards to undocumented immigrants and other residents who cannot or will not apply for driver's licenses.

Newsom said that despite the strong emotions the immigration debate arouses, he sees the ID card law signed Wednesady as a practical move that will make it easier for San Francisco citizens to qualify for local services and for city government workers to determine who is eligible to receive them.


"San Francisco does more than most other cities in the United States for its residents, but you need to prove you are a resident and there's no easier way to do it than having one card," he said. "I don't think it's that big of a deal and I think it's inevitable in other cities."


The legislation, which was approved by city lawmakers last week and is scheduled to take at the end of August 2008, was modeled after a program launched in New Haven, Connecticut, over the summer. Similar initiatives are under consideration in New York City and Miami.


The resident IDs would not enable cardholders to drive in San Francisco, and they would not stand in for a work visa or Social Security identity number for those seeking employment. But the IDs would qualify them for health services at city-run clinics, public library privileges and resident discounts at museums and other cultural institutions, according to the mayor.


San Francisco officials also hope the cards will embolden immigrants to work with the police when they have been a victim of or witness to a crime, he said.


"Let's deal again with reality: disproportionate amount of crime and violence within immigrant communities," Newsom said. "A lot of people feel intimidated to come forward because of immigration questions."

I think I read somewhere that most crime committed against illegal immigrants is brought on by other illegal immigrants. How about we get rid of and/or stop allowing illegal immigrants into our country? Maybe that would solve the problem?

Out of Bounds
11-29-07, 05:14 AM
"Black on black crime" anyone?

classicman2
11-29-07, 06:35 AM
The subtle racism card has definitely been thrown out here (not applicable, but definitely used).

-p


And you folks haven't thrown anything out here - have you? ;)

The Bus
11-29-07, 09:39 AM
What is the middle ground, though? I would think that even the illegal-alien-supporters would welcome tougher border enforcement as a first step. This doesn't affect the ones that are already here, but prevents more from coming in, so why the negative reaction?

I always have, as long as it's actually doing something.

classicman2
11-29-07, 09:46 AM
Every comprehensive proposal I saw debated in the U.S. Senate on immigration (mostly offered by Democrats - some Republicans) had border security as the first step in the process.

The sticking point(s) is not border security. It's what should follow that in any comprehensive immigration plan - guest worker program, for one. They can't even agree on that point.

The Bus
11-29-07, 10:19 AM
Well said, classicman2.

Also:

It is not known how exactly the producers of CNN, which co-sponsored the debate, chose which YouTube clips to show to the aspiring candidates. But the first half-hour of the debate, the longest dedicated to any single issue, focused on immigration. The subject is one of the most potent topics for Republicans. CNN asked a panel of undecided voters to turn up a dial when they heard things that pleased them: the broadcaster noted spikes of approval when the candidates talked tough on borders.

Source: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10212452&top_story=1

NotThatGuy
11-29-07, 10:21 AM
And you folks haven't thrown anything out here - have you? ;)

I admit to resorting to facts, references, and statistics to support my opinions...and I'm sorry if that offends your baseless opinions and contrived conjecture. In the future I'll be more aware of my soundly thought out opinions, and instead intersperse some random one liners and irrelevant information in my otherwise well informed posts.

:D

-p

wishbone
11-29-07, 10:41 AM
Immigration Milestones: The 1986 Amnesty
by Tom Shuford
Columnist EdNews.org

No society is immortal . . . Even the most successful societies are at some point threatened by internal disintegration and decay . . . Yet some societies, confronted with serious challenges to their existence, are also able to postpone their demise and halt disintegration . . . (Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, 2004)

Immigration chaos is such a challenge. Anyone concerned about education should have a working knowledge of how America arrived at its present state of near paralysis over uncontrolled immigration.

We have looked at three milestones:

1) the Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982, which required taxpayers to pay for the schooling of children brought to the United States illegally: The 5-to-4 Plyler decision was a creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Irony of ironies, Plyler v. Doe is the legal foundation for illegal immigration.

2) the 1999 nullification of California's Proposition 187, which would have denied services to illegal aliens and, no doubt, served as a model for other states: Prop 187, approved by 59 percent of voters, was derailed by a single federal judge. The appeal was dropped by newly-elected Democratic governor, Gray Davis.

3) "automatic birthright citizenship," the policy of granting citizenship to any child born in the United States: Automatic birthright citizenship derives from an expansive interpretation of a 1898 Supreme Court ruling giving citizenship to American-born children of legal Chinese immigrants. (A House measure, H.R. 698, which has 87 cosponsors, would end the practice of giving automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.)

There are other "milestones" of great consequence. IRCA, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, was a major overhaul of immigration law. Congress promised enforcement of new laws against hiring illegal aliens in return for a "one-time-only" amnesty for illegal aliens in the U. S. since 1982 or who had worked in agriculture for 90 days prior to May of 1986.

Congress delivered on the amnesty it promised; it reneged on enforcement of employer sanctions. This failure of the 1986 legislation led to 12 million new illegal aliens by 2006.

The 1986 Congress did have one notable achievement: An amnesty was actually called an amnesty in 1986. In 2006, immigration is such a radioactive issue euphemism is the required mode of communication. No national politician today wants to admit he or she favors "amnesty" for illegal aliens, even though that is exactly what most in the Senate and what the president and a large minority in the House want.

Thus the need for deceptive, saccharine terms such as "earned legalization." And "earned legalization" must be a part of "comprehensive" immigration reform. "Comprehensive" is code for everything-at-once reform: enforcement plus amnesty plus a "guest" worker program.

No politician wants a stand-alone vote on amnesty or on a guest worker program. Senators, the president, many in the House and the news media know that these special interest-coveted elements must be hidden under a "comprehensive" label — if they are to have any chance of making into federal law.

In late May, the Senate delivered on "comprehensive" reform. S. 2611, known as, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. S. 2611 was approved by 23 Republican senators and 39 Democrat senators.

The fly in the ointment is the House of Representatives. The House is insisting on an "enforcement-first" approach — H. R. 4437 — before it will talk about an amnesty or guest-worker program. Why would the two legislative bodies take such different approaches to illegal immigration? Vulnerability. The House is up for reelection every two years. Only one third of the Senate must face the voters this fall. Not surprisingly, 90% of the senators up for reelection voted against S. 2611.

But another reason for House caution about amnesty are memories of 1986.

IRCA looms large over the 2006 debate. Otis L. Graham, professor emeritus of history at UC Santa Barbara and author of Unguarded Gates: A History of America's Immigration Crisis (2004), sums up what happened after IRCA — with its amnesty and promise of work site enforcement — became the law of the land:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) . . . [was] a public policy failure of major proportions. Sanctions on employers of illegal aliens entered American law . . . but a proposed system of worker verification based on a computer registry of Social Security numbers was defeated by objections to "a national ID card" (which was never proposed), and the claim that Hispanics would be "singled out" for special scrutiny.

The final measure allowed employers to accept as proof of legal residence any two of a wide range of documents, most easily counterfeited. "The change in farm labor market made by IRCA," wrote economist Philip Martin, "is the switch from undocumented workers to falsely documented workers." For this toothless provision, Congress traded an unprecedented amnesty for illegal aliens who had been in continuous residence since 1982, plus a special program to legalize already present illegal agricultural workers. The double amnesty was justified on the theory that blanket legalization was preferable to mass deportation, and that the problem would not build up again because the magnet [jobs] would be inactivated.

Almost nothing promised by the legalization turned out as expected. The amnesty covered . . . 2.7 million people who could then apply for visas for their relatives . . .

For illegal aliens who were ineligible for amnesty, . . . document fraud quickly became almost universal . . . pp108-109http://www.ednews.org/articles/88/1/Immigration-Milestones-The-1986-Amnesty/Page1.html

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.
-- George Santayana

classicman2
11-29-07, 10:43 AM
I admit to resorting to facts, references, and statistics to support my opinions...and I'm sorry if that offends your baseless opinions and contrived conjecture. In the future I'll be more aware of my soundly thought out opinions, and instead intersperse some random one liners and irrelevant information in my otherwise well informed posts.

:D

-p

Facts - hell, you don't accept realities. :lol:

General Zod
11-29-07, 12:47 PM
Every comprehensive proposal I saw debated in the U.S. Senate on immigration (mostly offered by Democrats - some Republicans) had border security as the first step in the process.

The sticking point(s) is not border security. It's what should follow that in any comprehensive immigration plan - guest worker program, for one. They can't even agree on that point.
We should approach this one step at a time and the fist step is REAL border security. Then we can decide next steps. Otherwise it's like letting the patient bleed out while you decide next weeks treatment.

classicman2
11-29-07, 12:54 PM
No!

Adopt 'real' (as you call it) border security, and the Tancredos, Hunters, Sessions, Buchanans, etc. of this country will 'forget all about' the rest of what's necessary.

It has to be done at one time.

fujishig
11-29-07, 01:04 PM
No!

Adopt 'real' (as you call it) border security, and the Tancredos, Hunters, Sessions, Buchanans, etc. of this country will 'forget all about' the rest of what's necessary.

It has to be done at one time.

That's funny, because I could easily argue the opposite. That the supporters of illegal immigration bring up strengthening the border, but as soon as their "comprehensive immigration reform" passes, they'll "forget all about" securing the border and leave things as is.

wishbone
11-29-07, 01:08 PM
No!

Adopt 'real' (as you call it) border security, and the Tancredos, Hunters, Sessions, Buchanans, etc. of this country will 'forget all about' the rest of what's necessary.

It has to be done at one time.rotfl

As it has been said we cannot deport everyone so an accommodation will need to be made down the road. This is different from legalization with a promise to enforce existing laws...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Out of Bounds
11-29-07, 01:58 PM
I love how people are all about "we need to send them back" and "we need to seal our borders" but have no real plan for either of those things. It's all well and good to spout a bunch of rhetorical platitudes. It's another thing altogether to recognize the hard reality of the situation and offer a well considered course of action. Then again, most of the anti-immigration people in this thread are unwilling to admit that every European in America is from immigrant stock, that they "failed to assimilate" for the first couple of generations and that the Mexicans aren't doing anything that most of our ancestors did. So, to expect realistic solutions from any of them seems like a pipe dream at best.

classicman2
11-29-07, 02:08 PM
That's funny, because I could easily argue the opposite. That the supporters of illegal immigration bring up strengthening the border, but as soon as their "comprehensive immigration reform" passes, they'll "forget all about" securing the border and leave things as is.

Yes, you could argue that, but it would be a specious argument.

All of the comprehensive proposals have border security as the first priority. That means none of the other things that are necessary for a comprehensive program take place before the first priority takes place.

If you doubt it look at wishbon3's post - 'down the road.' That means never.

General Zod
11-29-07, 02:09 PM
No!

Adopt 'real' (as you call it) border security, and the Tancredos, Hunters, Sessions, Buchanans, etc. of this country will 'forget all about' the rest of what's necessary.

It has to be done at one time.
You know we can't realistically do real border security and deal with those already here at the same time. There's no point trying to identify and provide a plan for those here today when there will be millions more right behind them. You have to prevent them from coming in - and then you can logically deal with the ones here. Some of the very same politicians who promised real border security back in the 80's after that amnesty plan "forgot all about" real border security but when they promised it again last year you totally fell for it hook, line, and sinker. So you trust proven liars but you don't trust those that present a realistic solution to the problem. How many failures in the same policy do you need to see to understand that it won't work and something else needs to be done?

wishbone
11-29-07, 02:21 PM
If you doubt it look at wishbon3's post - 'down the road.' That means never.It has been 20 years since the 1986 amnesty and its provisions for enforcement that were never enacted. I doubt that my generality of down the road equates to 20+ years...

fujishig
11-29-07, 02:46 PM
I love how people are all about "we need to send them back" and "we need to seal our borders" but have no real plan for either of those things. It's all well and good to spout a bunch of rhetorical platitudes. It's another thing altogether to recognize the hard reality of the situation and offer a well considered course of action. Then again, most of the anti-immigration people in this thread are unwilling to admit that every European in America is from immigrant stock, that they "failed to assimilate" for the first couple of generations and that the Mexicans aren't doing anything that most of our ancestors did. So, to expect realistic solutions from any of them seems like a pipe dream at best.

Again, there have been many posts detailing possible solutions that do not involve mass deportation. Such as enforcing the laws against employers.

I have not seen many solutions from the pro-illegal-immigration crowd beyond amnesty or something similar, and hoping for the best. For instance, this post didn't offer any solutions.

Speaking of rhetoric, most of us are anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Please.

NotThatGuy
11-29-07, 04:26 PM
I love how people are all about "we need to send them back" and "we need to seal our borders" but have no real plan for either of those things. It's all well and good to spout a bunch of rhetorical platitudes. It's another thing altogether to recognize the hard reality of the situation and offer a well considered course of action. Then again, most of the anti-immigration people in this thread are unwilling to admit that every European in America is from immigrant stock, that they "failed to assimilate" for the first couple of generations and that the Mexicans aren't doing anything that most of our ancestors did. So, to expect realistic solutions from any of them seems like a pipe dream at best.

In this thread, and previous ones...I've outlined a plan to accomplish this exact thing.

Much like surgery, you need to stop the gusher, and then work on fixing the other areas...because if you don't stop the gusher, it won't matter what you do, because you've already bled out.

-p

General Zod
11-29-07, 04:44 PM
most of the anti-immigration people in this thread are unwilling to admit that every European in America is from immigrant stock
Your lame reference to the ever rhetorical "anti-immigration people" casts heavy doubt on your entire post.

Rockmjd23
11-29-07, 04:46 PM
Your lame reference to the ever rhetorical "anti-immigration people" casts heavy doubt on your entire post.
rotfl

NotThatGuy
11-29-07, 07:48 PM
Your lame reference to the ever rhetorical "anti-immigration people" casts heavy doubt on your entire post.

Agreed.

O-o-Bs.........for the 1,203th time....the people you call "anti-immigration people" are most likely "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant" people who are generally supportive of LEGAL immigrants.

-p

The Bus
11-29-07, 08:23 PM
Agreed.

O-o-Bs.........for the 1,203th time....the people you call "anti-immigration people" are most likely "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant" people who are generally supportive of LEGAL immigrants.

-p

There's a difference between supportive of legal immigrants and "supportive" of legal immigrants. Keeping legal immigration at anything near the current level isn't very supportive.

DVD Polizei
11-29-07, 08:29 PM
What would you consider supportive. Don't think I understand your response.

Franchot
11-29-07, 10:00 PM
For the pro-immigration crowd:

Is there any circumstance under which you would approve of a fence being built between Mexico and the United States?

Is there any circumstance under which you would approve of a fence being built between Mexico and the United States before any amnesty is granted to the illegals in this country?

NotThatGuy
11-29-07, 10:06 PM
There's a difference between supportive of legal immigrants and "supportive" of legal immigrants. Keeping legal immigration at anything near the current level isn't very supportive.

I agree with you. I think the current process legal immigrants go through for the opportunity to come over here could be easier. I'd like to eventually not only streamline this process, but open it up to more people who are willing to go through the proper channels. Currently there are many people who WANT to come here, but they are unable to secure LEGAL (and legitimate) papers. I'd like to eventually get those people into the system and working over here.....though first we need to address the illegals here and secure our borders. I wouldn't be against some pro-active measures to start to increase the # of legal immigrants in anticipation of needing them as we start to deport illegal immigrants, as long as there are REAL steps taken to start to address all of the illegals (ground being broken for a fence, raids on companies that knowingly hire illegals, etc).

-p

Xytraguptorh
11-30-07, 04:29 AM
I love how people are all about "we need to send them back" and "we need to seal our borders" but have no real plan for either of those things. It's all well and good to spout a bunch of rhetorical platitudes. It's another thing altogether to recognize the hard reality of the situation and offer a well considered course of action. Then again, most of the anti-immigration people in this thread are unwilling to admit that every European in America is from immigrant stock, that they "failed to assimilate" for the first couple of generations and that the Mexicans aren't doing anything that most of our ancestors did. So, to expect realistic solutions from any of them seems like a pipe dream at best.

People have posted solutions, yet certain people continue to ignore them. I've posted links to details about the bi-partisan solution called the SAVE Act which offers real solutions. Of course some people are too busy accusing others of being xenophobes or racists to take the time to notice...

Xytraguptorh
11-30-07, 04:35 AM
There's a difference between supportive of legal immigrants and "supportive" of legal immigrants. Keeping legal immigration at anything near the current level isn't very supportive.

Legal immigration is at its highest in our history, and the highest of any nation in the world. Currently about two million people per year are given legal status (though not necessarily citizenship). From 1924 to 1965, which I'd say were pretty good years for America, that number was around 250,000 per year. If two million per year is not enough, then what number would be???

The Bus
11-30-07, 07:15 AM
Legal immigration is at its highest in our history, and the highest of any nation in the world. Currently about two million people per year are given legal status (though not necessarily citizenship). From 1924 to 1965, which I'd say were pretty good years for America, that number was around 250,000 per year. If two million per year is not enough, then what number would be???

Yes, the 1930's were wonderful. And the 40's and 50's weren't bad... for whites. But that's another discussion.

According to the National Park Service, in 1907, <a href="http://www.nps.gov/archive/stli/serv02.htm#Ellis">Ellis Island processed 1.25 million immigrants</a>. Considering our population was around 90 million at the time, that is equivalent to 4 million people today.

So, no legal immigration is not at the highest in our history, either.

I'm not sure what the appropriate levels of legal immigration are, but I know they need to be higher.

The Bus
11-30-07, 07:18 AM
For the pro-immigration crowd:

Is there any circumstance under which you would approve of a fence being built between Mexico and the United States?

Is there any circumstance under which you would approve of a fence being built between Mexico and the United States before any amnesty is granted to the illegals in this country?

My only issue with the fence is if the fence is the main solution. You can't erect physical barriers to overcome economic and social problems. The benefits of a fence, to me, would not be to stop people from crossing illegally but to know who's crossing and make it easier for them to do so legally. That's the gist of it, to simplify it a bit.

General Zod
11-30-07, 09:26 AM
My only issue with the fence is if the fence is the main solution. You can't erect physical barriers to overcome economic and social problems. The benefits of a fence, to me, would not be to stop people from crossing illegally but to know who's crossing and make it easier for them to do so legally. That's the gist of it, to simplify it a bit.
Nobody has said it is main solution - only that it is the first step towards a solution. Once you can control who is and is not in the country we can take proper steps to deal with the people already in the country by a fast-track to citizenship or a plethora of other possibilities. However, until you can get control of the situation, anything else is going to wind up another horribly failed attempt that just makes the situation worse.

classicman2
11-30-07, 10:12 AM
If you can replace about 20 Senate Republicans - you might could 'take those proper steps.'

wishbone
11-30-07, 10:49 AM
If you can replace about 20 Senate Republicans - you might could 'take those proper steps.'http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5619/gv20070627cdkd3.jpg
I think Bush would be a better Frankenstein but the Monster is definitely S1639 (and S1348).

Out of Bounds
11-30-07, 11:32 AM
People have posted solutions, yet certain people continue to ignore them. I've posted links to details about the bi-partisan solution called the SAVE Act which offers real solutions. Of course some people are too busy accusing others of being xenophobes or racists to take the time to notice...


Guess what? That happens on both sides of this coin. I should have been specific when I said 'people'. What I meant was 'some people'. Obviously some of the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration people have offered solutions. Most have not. Neither have most of the people on the other side.

fujishig: I've offered some substantiative ideas. Basing your entire opinion of me on one post is silly.

Zod: Your lame reference to my original, funny and true post casts heavy doubt on your entire sense of humor.

The Bus
11-30-07, 02:11 PM
I posted this in an older version of this thread, but the most logical solution that I've ever heard came from Michael Badnarik, even if some of his other ideas are cooky. I don't think this is a 100% solution, but it's a start:

What's your position on illegal immigration and/or outsourcing? I would think a libertarian would say "keep the gov't out of it". However, at some point, doesn't having too much of either outsourcing or illegal immigration ultimately impact our national socio-economic stability?

We have two -- actually three -- separate issues here. I'll handle outsourcing first.

Capital migrates to where it is most profitably invested. That's just a fact of the market. If I can get a 10% return in Country A and a 25% return in Country B, you know where I'll be investing.

We can deal with that reality, or we can fight it. If we fight it, we'll lose. The future is not in trying to restrict trade or outlaw outsourcing -- it's in allowing innovation and competition, and in removing government impediments, like high taxes and expensive regulation, to keeping jobs here.

When a particular job or skill _does_ move offshore, all other things being equal, it merely frees Americans -- the most productive workers in the world -- to develop the NEXT job or skill or to come up with a more efficient, profitable way of providing the old one. And those innovations are make us the wealthiest country in the world. Instead of wondering where our jobs sewing soles on shoes went, we should be looking to what we can do that the sewing machine operator in Korea CAN'T do yet.

People also migrate to where they can make the most for their labor. Once again, that's just a fact of the market. One can hardly expect a Mexican agricultural laborer to work for $2.00 a day in Guadalajara when he can make $8.00 an hour in the San Joaquin Valley.

And, once again, we can deal with that reality or we can fight it -- and if we fight it, we'll lose.

Legal immigration is a net economic benefit to our country. The fact that workers come here to pick our crops, work in our poultry plants, -- even take coding jobs at computer firms -- lowers the cost of the goods and services we buy, and frees us up to pursue ever more profitable opportunities. That may be cold comfort to a particular worker who's just been sent home while an Indian on an H-2 visa sits down at his old workstation, but it's a fact. If that worker hadn't come to the job, the job would have gone to him via outsourcing -- or it would have gone undone because the profit margin was unattractive by comparison to other investments in labor.

I advocate lifting all restrictions on peaceful immigration. Immigration is not something we can stop. We might as well get the benefit of it instead of tying ourselves into knots fighting it.

This brings up the third issue: Borders. Some people believe that lifting immigration restrictions implies "open borders." That's like saying that an invitation to my house means it's okay for you to crawl through my bedroom window at four in the morning.

Immigrants should be welcome to come here -- as long as they're willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren't terrorists or criminals.

People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders. Illegal immigration creates an industry of "coyotes" to guide people across, and it provides cover for the non-peaceful -- terrorists and criminals -- to enter the country.

The border is a national security feature. I propose to treat it as such. In tandem with lifting immigration restrictions, I'd free our military to defend the border against invaders. And those invaders would no longer have a place to hide among real immigrants, or an underlying infrastructure of support for getting them across, because the peaceful immigrants would be entering legitimately.

[Source (http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219)]

Superboy
11-30-07, 04:01 PM
I love articles like that, that say things like

Immigrants should be welcome to come here -- as long as they're willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren't terrorists or criminals.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/1/15/CaptainobviousChooseOption.jpg

The Bus
11-30-07, 04:10 PM
That's funny, because nobody has suggested that.

NotThatGuy
12-01-07, 12:24 AM
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p21/wright4tw/bush-panhandled2-200x270.jpg

:lol:

-p

General Zod
12-06-07, 04:43 PM
http://www.firerescue1.com/news/320455/

Boston firefighter stabbed

BOSTON — A Boston firefighter is mending from what could have been deadly stab wounds he suffered early yesterday morning when he was allegedly jumped in East Boston while off duty by a group of Hispanic males who told him they "don't want any gringo here."

Though police are not classifying the incident as racially fueled, the Boston Police Department's Community Disorders Unit is investigating. The 32-year-old jake, whose name officials were not releasing, is white.

Ironically, the firefighter's life was likely saved because he sought refuge from his alleged assailants at Engine 5 on Saratoga Street - the station house he's assigned to.

"Fortunately, those firefighters were not out on a call," said Boston Fire Department spokesman Steve MacDonald.

MacDonald said the firefighter had gone to Chivas Restaurant in Day Square to grab takeout when "six guys started exchanging words with him. He indicated he was just there to get a sandwich and that he was a firefighter. They pushed him."

Hoping to avoid a confrontation, MacDonald said the firefighter got into his car and headed for his station for safety's sake, but the pack followed him on foot. It was shortly before 2:45 a.m.

"As soon as he got out of his car, six guys jumped him and started kicking and punching him," MacDonald said. "He felt two sharp pains in his chest and knew he had been stabbed."

The firefighter summoned the help of fellow jakes by ringing the station doorbell and his alleged attackers fled. MacDonald said his injuries do not appear to be life-threatening.

"He's more upset about the fact that he's going to miss several shifts," MacDonald said.

So just making sure this is right.. For those of us who want or borders protected to stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming into the country - we are obviously racist. But if a group of Hispanics jump a white guy, stab him, and say they "don't want any gringo here" that is NOT racist.

Franchot
12-06-07, 04:57 PM
http://www.firerescue1.com/news/320455/

So just making sure this is right.. For those of us who want or borders protected to stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming into the country - we are obviously racist. But if a group of Hispanics jump a white guy, stab him, and say they "don't want any gringo here" that is NOT racist.

Maybe. Probably not. If this had happened in California, then the Hispanics would be simply reclaiming land that had been stolen away from them by the United States. I don't think Massachusetts was part of the U.S.'s "land grab" from Mexico, but I'm sure someone from MECha or La Raza will prove me wrong.

NotThatGuy
12-06-07, 10:44 PM
Why do we need a fence and our laws strictly enforced....more crime by illegal immigrants: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=517383. It isn't discovered until towards the end of the thread, but it is just another example of why we need a fence and better law enforcement. Of course, this was an example where a homeowner was able to protect himself and his neighbor's property from the two armed criminals.....so maybe that will be a lesson for criminals trying to steal from law-abiding American citizens.

-p

The Bus
12-06-07, 11:06 PM
Why do we need a fence and our laws strictly enforced....more crime by illegal immigrants: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8339955&postcount=209 Of course, this was an example where a homeowner was able to protect himself and his neighbor's property from the two armed criminals.

-p

I'd respond, but I don't have a pithy cartoon of an alien on hand.

Franchot
12-13-07, 03:24 AM
I couldn't resist:

http://www.knbc.com/news/14832662/detail.html

Suspect Arrested In Rape On OC Freeway

ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. -- Authorities said Wednesday morning that they arrested a suspect in a rape on an Orange County freeway.

Alejandro Martinez Leyva was arrested late Tuesday night at the San Juan Capistrano home he shares with others near the location of the assault. About 15 people described as friends and co-workers of the suspect live in the home and several people had access to the vehicle, said OC Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said.

Police told KNBC that they used physical evidence taken from the crime scene and the 25-year-old gardener's home to make the arrest. A baby seat was still in the car, Amormino said.

"The suspect was taken into custody in relation to a crime that occurred on the southbound 5 Freeway," said Amormino. "(Detectives) located the car and staked out the home before obtaining a search warrant."

The arrest came after authorities on Monday released a sketch of a man who allegedly raped a woman on the San Diego (5) Freeway after her vehicle was disabled in a crash. The woman, in her 20s, was returning to her home in San Diego County on Saturday morning at about 2:30 a.m. when her vehicle spun out and hit a guard rail in the vicinity of Junipero Serra Road, said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino.

Authorities said the attack occurred after the man pulled his vehicle in front of hers and offered to help. But the victim, who was on a cell phone talking to a friend, said she did not need assistance, Amormino said.

The man grabbed the phone and threw it, then forced her into the front seat of the car and raped her, Amormino said. The attacker fled, and the woman found her cell phone nearby and called 911, Amormino said.

Police said this sketch helped them make an arrest in the investigation.

He declined to say what kind of vehicle the woman drove. The crash was not alcohol-related, according to Amormino, who said the pavement was wet at the time.

The freeway attack happened just two months after another rape was reported in the same city. In October, a 51-year old woman was sexually assaulted on Los Rios Street as she walked to work at about 3 a.m.

The attacker in that case has never been arrested.

Deputies said the cases are not connected.

One news agency which is not politically correct are reporting that the suspect has "questionable" immigration status in this country. Another "politically incorrect" news agency reported that the suspect lives in a house with twenty other men.

Illegal immigrants--bringing more crime into our country. I ask you, if they weren't allowed into this country wouldn't the crime rate be less?

wishbone
12-13-07, 12:51 PM
Immigration, and Its Politics, Shake Rural Iowa
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: December 13, 2007

STORM LAKE, Iowa — Along the main thoroughfare of this small meatpacking town, the transformation of a single shop, once known as the Ken-A-Bob restaurant, tells the story of the town itself.

The Ken-A-Bob, an old-fashioned buffet with American classics of fried chicken and roast beef, went out of business and reopened as Sichanh market, catering to a wave of immigrants from Laos. Now the shelves are also packed with Mexican spices, tostadas, chicharrones, the walls covered in signs in Spanish for Mary Kay cosmetics, baby sitters and Senator Barack Obama.

The nation’s struggle over immigration may seem distant in states like Iowa, hundreds of miles from any border, but the debate is part of daily life here, more than ever now as residents prepare to pick a president. Nearly all of more than two dozen people interviewed here last week said they considered immigration policy at or near the top of their lists of concerns as they look to the presidential caucuses next month.

And yet, nearly everyone interviewed said that none of the political candidates had arrived at a position on immigration that fully satisfied them. In real life, they said, the issues surrounding immigration, both legal and illegal, were far more complicated than bumper sticker slogans or jabs on a debate stage or even the carefully picked language of campaign policy papers.

The subject went largely unaddressed in Wednesday’s Republican debate in Des Moines after the moderator discouraged discussion of immigration, suggesting that Iowans already were familiar with the candidates’ positions.

Those who said they favored granting a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in this country were leaning mainly toward Democratic presidential candidates, but most said they wished their candidate could better explain how to carry out such a path practically and fairly.

And those who said they favored tough and immediate penalties for illegal immigrants said they mostly favored Republicans (though not Senator John McCain, who seemed to draw special ire here for what people called his disappointingly lax position), but said they had doubts that so many people could really be found or punished.

“I care about the illegal immigration issue a lot,” said David F. Friedrich, a farmer who said he was a supporter of President Bush and had yet to decide who he would support. “But when you start looking for solutions, I just don’t know. I think it’s too far gone.”

Like a handful of communities in Iowa — places named Denison, Ottumwa, Postville and Marshalltown — Storm Lake, a city of about 10,000, offers a glimpse at how new immigration has transformed the nation’s rural middle and with it, the political landscape.

Two decades ago, less than 1 percent of the people in Buena Vista County, where Storm Lake is the county seat, were Hispanic. By last year, the county had the highest percentage of Hispanic people of any county in Iowa, with 19.2, compared with less than 4 percent statewide. Buena Vista County also ranks highest in Iowa in percentages of those learning English in school, of recent international immigrants and of residents born in other countries.

In the interviews here, peoples’ focus on immigration held regardless of what perspective they brought to the debate, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, Hispanic or not, recent arrivals or lifelong Iowans.

Some, like Bob DeMey, said they were troubled by all the change in Storm Lake, which was once almost exclusively white but which, Mr. DeMey said, has come to be known among his friends as Little Mexico. So much immigration — mainly illegal immigration, he says — has taken meatpacking jobs away from the locals, left the schools jammed, and driven up crime.

“They ought to be all shipped back to where they came from,” said Mr. DeMey, who is retired.

Others, like Cindy Molgaard, said they worried that raids on illegal immigrants would drive away a group that kept Storm Lake thriving and growing and selling goods even as other Midwestern towns shriveled and eventually disappeared.

“As a country, we have saved so many human beings, so why wouldn’t we save the people who are already right here with us, part of us?” Ms. Molgaard, who favors Mr. Obama, said of creating a path to grant citizenship for those who are already here. “I used to swear there was not a bigot anywhere in Storm Lake, but as soon as minorities started moving in, they came out of the woodwork.”

Steve Salts, who sells cars, said he considered himself a “damn good Democrat” and was leaning toward Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, but was upset by notions the Democrats had offered in support of an immigration package, which failed this year in Washington and would have given some illegal immigrants a chance, ultimately, to stay.

“What’s right is right, and I just don’t like the illegal alien part of it with the Democrats,” said Mr. Salts, who added that he had been impressed by elements of what Fred D. Thompson, a Republican and former Tennessee senator, had suggested, including tough border enforcement and making English the official language.

“Then again, maybe we can’t remove all these people,” Mr. Salts said. “Maybe we’ve got to just live with it. I mean, look around.”

With processing plants for hogs and for turkeys, Storm Lake sits in Iowa’s northwestern region, an agricultural area with strong Republican leanings and one some say feels more than geographically remote from Des Moines, the state’s urban center.

In 1970, people of mostly German and Scandinavian ancestry dominated this town. Soon, refugees from Southeast Asia began arriving, many working in meatpacking. Then, in the 1990s, a wave of Latinos appeared, said Sara Huddleston, a native of Mexico first elected to the Storm Lake City Council more than four years ago.

Today, minority residents make up more than 40 percent of the population, law enforcement officials here say; the numbers in the local schools, the authorities there say, are even higher — 49 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian, 4 percent African-American.

What no one knows is how many of the immigrants are illegal. At Tyson Fresh Meats, which now owns the plant that was first built in 1953 and employs 1,800 people (about half of them Hispanic), officials said they had “zero tolerance” for employing people who were not authorized to work in the United States.

Residents here seem sympathetic to the companies; people who want to cheat will find a way to do it, they said. Most scoffed at the recent complaints against Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate, for employing a landscaping company that included illegal workers.

“It’s easy to say you’re against illegal immigration but how do you know who is who?” said Mike Rust, the owner of Rust’s Western Shed, which sells uniforms and work boots to Tyson employees.

Russell Eddie, a local Republican Party leader, said he thought illegal immigration would play a significant role in the presidential election. And Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has taken an extremely firm line against illegal immigration and has won three terms, said he heard from concerned constituents about it constantly.

But some Latinos here said the issue would backfire for the Republicans.

Raids in other meatpacking towns have left some people here fearful, said Roberto Gonzalez, who was working behind the counter of a Mexican restaurant. Some will not even venture outside now, Mr. Gonzalez said. But those who can vote, he said, will oppose the Republicans.

“To me, they look like they’re just about discrimination against Hispanics,” Mr. Gonzalez said, adding that he favored Mrs. Clinton. “She is for the Hispanics,” he said.

Inside the old Ken-A-Bob, now the Sichanh market, where the sign boasts “Mexican food” out front, Siamphay Khamphavong says she has yet to pick a candidate. Ms. Khamphavong, 21, who came to the United States from Laos at age 3 and whose relatives worked at the meatpacking plant before they bought this market, said she believed that immigration had brought a positive change to Storm Lake, that people mostly got along, that everyone could surely co-exist.

Still, she said, whoever becomes president must secure the border and stop illegal immigration right away. “If you don’t get the right papers, you need to go back,” she said. “You can’t just run in and not follow the rules.”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/politics/13voices.html

Interesting spectrum shown in Iowa from the "deport 'em all" side to the "Republicans discriminate against Hispanics" side. If middle-of-the-road Iowa is any indication of US sentiment on this issue then any path of legalization needs to be conducted practically and fairly, something the proposed S1348 and S1639 bills did not address.

Giantrobo
12-14-07, 03:34 AM
Illegal immigrants--bringing more crime into our country. I ask you, if they weren't allowed into this country wouldn't the crime rate be less?


Oh stop. Clearly this guy was raping the women Americans won't rape. -ohbfrank-

NotThatGuy
12-16-07, 03:31 PM
Franchot: They have research showing that many illegal immigrants entering the country have criminal records, and some of them are violent criminal records, so I'd think that the less people we have in the country who have shown a history of violence and criminal activity.....the better.

If I have 100 kids in a school, and 3 of those kids were bullies, and then I imported 10 more kids, with 3 of those kids being bullies, do you think there would be more bullying incidents with 6 bullies out of 110, or 3 bullies out of 100?

--

HERE (http://www.dolz.com/THE%20END%20OF%20ILLEGAL%20IMMIGRATION%20IN%20CALIFORNIA%20IS%20WITHIN%20REACH.pdf) was an interesting read. It is a legal immigrant's take in illegal immigration. He did everything the right way (went through the process, got his papers, established himself, learned english, and is now running for public office).

-p

Franchot
12-16-07, 04:00 PM
^^^^^

No argument on this from me.

Say, how is that fence building progressing on the southern border of the United States? Haven't heard much lately. Is a 1/4 of it finished yet?

General Zod
12-18-07, 09:22 AM
No wonder congress has only a 26% approval rating.. The latest bill passed by the Senate guts part of the funding for the border fence..

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/NATION/209889236/1001

Spending bill shrinks border fence

Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.

The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes, surrenders to President Bush's budget demands, meeting his spending limit with a $515 billion bill to fund most of the federal government and setting up votes to pay for the Iraq war. But Democrats reached his goal in part by slashing his defense and foreign-aid priorities to pay for added domestic spending.

The concessions promise to end a months-long budget standoff before Congress adjourns for the year and takes a Christmas break scheduled to start by Friday. In a rare two-step maneuver, the House first voted 253-154 to approve the bill to fund most of the civilian Cabinet agencies, and then voted 206-201 to add about $30 billion for Afghanistan war-spending to the measure.

But the measures did not pass before House Republicans blasted the changes to the border fence.

"The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority."

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.

House Democrats said they were just adopting the Senate version, which was backed by a bipartisan group of border-state senators and passed the Senate several times this year.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who has led the charge to change the 2006 law, said she wants to give Homeland Security more flexibility and wants local officials and landowners to be consulted.

Hopefully one day we'll get a president and a congress that is serious about enforcing our laws. The current group are certainly not working for the American people - hence the crappy approval rating.

classicman2
12-18-07, 09:29 AM
I wonder if John Boehner was calling the omnibus spending bills that the Repubs offered when they were in the majority in the congress - 'bloated.' ;)

Somehow I doubt it.

Superboy
12-18-07, 12:18 PM
I love this debate. Can't anyone take a side on this issue without being called either a racist or un-american?

wishbone
12-18-07, 01:07 PM
I wonder if John Boehner was calling the omnibus spending bills that the Repubs offered when they were in the majority in the congress - 'bloated.' ;)

Somehow I doubt it.Keep Politics Kosher
House Republicans need a low-pork diet.
BY JOHN BOEHNER
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON--The Republican agenda is at risk because of a growing perception that Congress is for sale. The guilty plea of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for bribery, the guilty pleas of scam artists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, and rumors of future indictments, have all cast a pall over the public perception of the House of Representatives and corroded the public trust in our collective commitment to principle.

We can't allow this to happen. Republicans need to prove to voters that our policies come directly from our principles. To rebuild trust in the institution and our commitment to governing, we need to recognize that most of the current ethical problems arise from one basic fact: Government is too big and controls too much money. If you want to dismantle the culture that produced an Abramoff or a Scanlon, you need to reform how Congress exerts power.

We must start by addressing the growing practice of unauthorized earmarks--language in spending bills that directs federal dollars to private entities for projects that are not tied to an existing federal program or purpose. The public knows the practice better by a different name--pork-barreling. Unauthorized earmarks squander taxpayer dollars and lack transparency. They feed public cynicism. They've been a driving force in the ongoing growth of our already gargantuan federal government, and a major factor in government's increasing detachment from the priorities of individual Americans. Earmarks have also fueled the growth of the lobbying industry. Entire firms have been built around the practice. As more entities circumvent the normal competitive process, confidence in the system erodes, encouraging others to take the same shortcuts.

Many pork-barrel provisions are inserted into legislation at the last minute to ensure passage, and relatively few members get a chance to see them before actually voting. My Republican colleague, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has bold ideas to solve this problem. He proposes that the earmarking process be transparent: All earmarks should be included in the actual text of legislation, so members can see them before they vote. He believes, as I do, that this would make it much harder to adopt earmarks that can't be substantively justified, while also allowing earmarks that are legitimate. I think Mr. Flake is off to a strong start, and I support his efforts.

I'd like to go even further, though. Last week, in a letter to David Dreier, the House Rules Committee chairman and the speaker's point man on lobbying reform, I called for a ban on earmarks that serve lobbying interests at the expense of the public interest. We need to establish some clear standards by which worthy projects can be distinguished from worthless pork, so that pork projects can be halted in their tracks as soon as they are identified. For example, earmarks should meet the specific purpose of the authorizing statute. They should not give a private entity a competitive edge unless it is in the immediate national security interest of the country. They should not be a substitute for state and local fiscal responsibility. They should be used sparingly, and ideally, they should be a one-time appropriation for a specific national need.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

There's something else needed, however, and that is unflagging support for earmark reform from the highest echelons of our conference. When I first ran for Congress in 1990, I told the people of our congressional district that if they wanted someone to go to Washington to raid the federal Treasury on their behalf, they should probably vote for someone else. A decade and a half later, my position hasn't changed.

My self-imposed "pork-free diet" has, to this point, been limited to a personal decision. For 15 years, I've abstained from pork and steered clear of special-interest earmarks. However, a personal crusade is no longer enough. We need to change the way Congress itself does business. This will require a huge change in the congressional culture, the type of change that can only be successfully driven from the leadership level.

Someone needs to lead this effort as our next majority leader--someone with a demonstrated independence from the pork-barrel process, someone with experience managing large legislative projects and keeping members focused on a mission. My record, coupled with my experience as a successful committee chairman and legislator, makes me the right person to lead this effort.

The next majority leader can place a greater emphasis on traditional representation. Leaders in Congress should help members find other proactive ways to represent their districts beyond securing earmarks. Developing and advancing policy proposals that reflect a district's interests is harder than getting an earmark, but ultimately it is much more important for the district and the nation. This has been my philosophy as committee chairman, and I am committed to working with my fellow chairmen to develop and promote our members' legislative accomplishments.

We also need to look at the credibility of the lobbying industry. Literally anyone can be a lobbyist. We need clearer ethical standards and greater transparency about their campaign contributions--if we're going to continue to allow such contributions at all--and we need to reform the laws governing so-called 527 organizations. Common-sense changes such as these, coupled with earmark reform in Congress, will increase public confidence and make it more difficult for inappropriate relationships to be built between legislators and lobbyists.

As long as the federal government is as big and powerful as it is, there will be corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff. The best way to deal with influence peddling in Washington is to move more power out of the Beltway and back to states and communities. We can start by putting Congress on a lower-pork diet and fixing the broken system we have today.

Mr. Boehner, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, is a candidate for U.S. House majority leader.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007825

Looks like Congressman Boehner is against congressional bloat regardless of being in the majority or the minority. ;)

Xytraguptorh
12-18-07, 01:13 PM
Not when it comes to this issue. It's amazing how so many Hispanic politicians as well as La Raza (The RACE) only represent those who are Hispanic, yet they're the ones accusing folks who want our laws enforced of being racist. It's a tired, desperate argument, but it still happens over and over. When elected officials try to represent their constituents' wishes by passing laws to combat illegal immigration (like in Oklahoma and Arizona) special interest ethnic groups inevitably try to find a judge to overturn those laws, even when they were passed as ballot initiatives. They are the ones ignoring the will of the people and those who represent them, while at the same time accusing citizens of being racists. THis is not a recipe for success.

parrotheads4
12-18-07, 06:34 PM
I don't know what everyone is so worried about. The current economic policy of the US should devalue the dollar enough that the peso will soon dominate. This dominate peso will cause a massive exodous. White men will soon be mowing Mexican lawns.

Giantrobo
12-19-07, 04:19 AM
I don't know what everyone is so worried about. The current economic policy of the US should devalue the dollar enough that the peso will soon dominate. This dominate peso will cause a massive exodous. White men will soon be mowing Mexican lawns.


You may be right. :lol: And it'll be interesting to see if Mexico will be as tolerant of Illegal Whites bogarting their way into Mexico. :lol:

NotThatGuy
12-19-07, 10:21 AM
Though I know it was said jokingly, but they really *ARE* a major contributor to our economic downturn. People say that they help keep costs low, but everyone underestimates the hidden costs of 20 million illegal immigrants. They may not have started cheap labor, but they sure have re-defined its place in the USA and severely influenced our economy....in a very bady way.

-p

wendersfan
12-19-07, 10:36 AM
Though I know it was said jokingly, but they really *ARE* a major contributor to our economic downturn.I'd like for you to be specific here? What economic downturn? Are you saying the current housing crisis or the falling dollar were caused by illegal immigration and wage deflation? Or are you saying that the long-term problems with stagnant real wages and a burgeoning trade deficit, each of which is rooted in problems dating back 35 years, id because of illegal immigration.

Maybe I should blame my hair loss and weight gain on illegal immigrants. Why not, they seem responsible for everything else that's going wrong. In fact, I bet an illegal immigrant knocked up Britney's sister.

General Zod
12-19-07, 11:48 AM
I'd like for you to be specific here? What economic downturn? Are you saying the current housing crisis or the falling dollar were caused by illegal immigration and wage deflation? Or are you saying that the long-term problems with stagnant real wages and a burgeoning trade deficit, each of which is rooted in problems dating back 35 years, id because of illegal immigration.
No, he's saying illegal immigration is a major contributor to our economic downturn.

Our infrastructure is not built to support the amount of illegals in this country so we are constantly having to move money earmarked for other purposes to keep up. That has a direct negative impact to our economy. I'm not going to say they are the direct cause of our economic downturn but saying they are a major contributor is certainly a fair statement.

parrotheads4
12-19-07, 12:47 PM
Lowering intrest rates devalues the dollar far more than immigrants. There is a window of opportunity at the begining of the trend for people to get loans that will buy more house. Soon the window closes, but people don't see it coming. They are already in the process, and feel committed. The devalued dollar buys less house so people take bigger loans.
The banks love this. Sucker you in at 5%, and wait for the recession. Soon your loan rate will jump, and the banks will break out the champagne. The risk for them is that you wont be able to keep up. I should say this used to be a risk. Now good ole Uncle Sam is swooping in like Superman to bail them out. But wait....wont this devalue the dollar even more?
It's not that your house is worth more, it's that it takes more crappy dollars to buy your house. But here's the problem. Average guys like us don'y have more of those dollars. We have the same number of dollars. Oops. I think that's called a recession.
The good news is it is cheap to travel to the US now. When walking around Manhattan I can't understand anything people are saying. Japanese cars will jump in price. German cars already have. Maybe this can save US car companies. Maybe we'll buy fewer Chinese goods, and buy more American goods. Will this be enough to save us? I don't know, but it should slow the number of people who want to live here.

The Bus
12-19-07, 12:52 PM
I love this debate. Can't anyone take a side on this issue without being called either a racist or un-american?

No, but logical arguments get cartoon responses.

Xytraguptorh
12-20-07, 07:27 PM
Another wonderful job by Mexican president George W. Bush and the Democratic congress. They've gutted the border fence, and are giving 1.4 billion dollars in aid to Mexico. Funny how we can't afford to defend our borders...

Congress Delivers Coal to America’s Christmas Stocking

Posted By Brenda Walker On 20 December 2007 @ 6:45 In General | Comments Disabled

How evil is Washington?

Evil enough to [1] destroy the border fence in the dark of night right before Christmas, when people are busy shopping and not watching Congress carefully. Legislators [2] know full welll that Americans want their border enforced, as required by the Constitution ([3] Article 4, Section 4).

According to Rep Brian Bilbray (interviewed on the [4] John and Ken radio show on Tuesday 12/18), the omnibus spending bill is even worse than how it’s been described in many reports.

It’s bad enough that the legislation reduces the fence from a substantial [5] double structure with a road in the middle to an easily scalable single wall. But in addition, the Congressional leadership cut out the provision that required federal contractors to use the e-verify system to make sure workers were legal; Congress doesn’t even want to prevent hiring illegals with federal funds. ([6] Listen here to what Rep Bilbray has to say.)

And the malevolence doesn’t stop there. Any fencing is now discretionary and subject to the desires of local Indian tribes, community groups and property owners. Since when did imaginary property rights trump the ability of the government to enforce the nation’s borders and sovereignty?

On Wednesday, John and Ken featured an “absolutely infuriated” Rep Ed Royce, who said, “The fence is not going to be built.” He was further incensed that at the same time as the fence was gutted, Bush still plans to [7] send Mexico a $1.4 billion aid package to help Mexico’s police against drug cartels.

“The American public should be infuriated about this,” he said. “We had one thing that we knew worked well because we had listened to the Border Patrol down there… Instead we’re going to spend $1.4 billion in taxpayer assistance, giving that money and technology across the border and I can tell how this will work. I was down there on the border, on the fence when we saw [Mexican] customs agents on the other side … helping the cartels tunnel underneath the US border.”

For $1.2 billion we could have built the border fence and kept many of the drug smugglers out of this country altogether. But no, not with a Mexiphilic Congress as well as a [8] Mexichurian President.

Royce continued, “And this isn’t all of it. It provides $10 million to pay lawyers to defend illegal immigrants that are in this country.”

Our tax dollars at work!

(There’s more — listen to the whole [9] interview here from the [10] John and Ken podcast page.)

No doubt el Presidente Calderon is happy with his big Christmas present from Washington. The American people, however, will not be pleased when they find out how thoroughly we have been shafted by our elected representatives, as US sovereignty is dismantled by those who swore to protect and defend it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/12/20/congress-delivers-coal-to-americas-christmas-stocking/print/

General Zod
12-20-07, 08:32 PM
I've long said I don't trust this President or this congress when it comes to illegal immigration (or really much of anything else). They go to the American people with smiles and promises. Both parties talked about the importance of a fence and defending out border when the bill passed - along with the president. I'm sure the plan all along was to strip it out when it came to the next military funding bill. I said in the previous immigration thread when the fence bill was passed along with funding that this president is an amnesty president and I didn't feel he would honestly let this fence be built. Today he proved me correct.

DVD Polizei
12-20-07, 08:45 PM
Bush's War On Terror is more like War On America.

Here we have Bush raising his sword, proclaiming Iran and Iraq were such a danger to Americans, and yet he strokes the genitals of a country who has a clear agenda of bankrupting and disrupting the way of life for millions of Americans.

I hope the fucker dies on a Disney ride.

Xytraguptorh
12-20-07, 09:30 PM
To stoke your firey anger even more, you can listen to the podcast interview Rep. Ed Royce here: http://kfiam640.com/podcast/JohnandKen.xml

For those who ridicule folks who are worried about internationalism and a threats to our sovereignty like the North American Union, this is just more proof that these lying snakes will stop at nothing to further their agenda. Not even the steady flow of drugs across our borders will make any damn difference.

DVD Polizei
12-20-07, 10:14 PM
Maybe we should all vote for a Hispanic President--or nominate one ourselves. Get'em where it hurts. Vote for minority leaders. At least minority leaders have a sense of duty to their own people. And they don't necessarily hide it, either. I respect that. What I certainly do not respect, are these "snakes" indeed, who promise one thing, and do another. Honesty goes a long way, regardless of whether we agree on the issue or not.

The ones who are doing the most damage to the US are our own politicians. Not terrorists. Not illegal immigrants. Our politicians and leaders are the real enemy. They live off our sweat and hard work, they laugh in private about how they control the masses, they laugh at how they are semi-gods who can do what they please with very little or no consequences, and they will continue to do so until society is ready to do something about it.

But seriously, every single one of you who resents illegal immigrants and how many Hispanic leaders are pro-illegal immigration, might need to re-think the strategy.

We should seriously consider voting for our Hispanic leaders, whether or not we agree with them. Not to sound racist, but our "white" leaders are worse than any minority leader could be. Our own people are selling out, just to get votes and $$$. They play both sides.

I say we use the system and give them a big middle finger. Use the system to vote in so many minorities in as many offices available, our own leaders will regret the day they decided to play both sides of the issue.

Use the momentum of their own sell-out agendas against them. Give them what they want. A complete Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc. government. Vote for anyone but a white male or white female.

----

Damn, it's amazing the kind of ideas that go through your head when you're eating Cheddar Jalapeno Cheetos. :eek:

NotThatGuy
12-20-07, 10:52 PM
No, he's saying illegal immigration is a major contributor to our economic downturn.

Our infrastructure is not built to support the amount of illegals in this country so we are constantly having to move money earmarked for other purposes to keep up. That has a direct negative impact to our economy. I'm not going to say they are the direct cause of our economic downturn but saying they are a major contributor is certainly a fair statement.

A-Yup!

-p

wishbone
12-23-07, 11:52 AM
Published: 12.19.2007
Crackdown has illegal immigrants leaving Arizona
The Arizona Republic

NOGALES, Sonora - It's a common scene this time of year: streams of overloaded cars, pickups and vans with U.S. license plates crossing into Mexico for the holidays.

Most are filled with Hispanic families from Arizona and other states on their way to visit relatives south of the border for a few weeks before heading back to the U.S. But this year, the holiday travelers are being joined by scores of families such as Jorge and Liliana Franco, who are driving to Mexico not to visit but to stay - permanently.

Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, immigration crackdowns, Arizona's new employer-sanctions law and a sluggish economy have combined to create a climate families such as the Francos no longer find hospitable.

The number returning to Mexico is difficult to calculate, but there is no question that many families are leaving, according to Mexican government officials, local community leaders and immigrants themselves.
"The situation in Arizona has become very tough," Jorge said minutes after driving into a Mexican immigration and customs checkpoint south of the border on Mexico 15.

Dozens of immigrants are leaving the U.S. daily, and even more are expected to leave once the sanctions law takes effect in January, provided the law survives a last-minute legal challenge, said Rosendo Hernandez, president of the advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders.

"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said.

In what are considered bellwethers of permanent moves back to Mexico, the Mexican consulate in Phoenix has seen a dramatic increase in applications for Mexican birth certificates, passports and other documents that immigrants living in Arizona will need to return home.

In November alone, the consulate processed 240 applications for Mexican birth certificates, three times as many as the same month last year, said Carlos Flores Vizcarra, Mexican consul general of Phoenix.

Processing applications
The consulate also has processed more than 16,500 applications for Mexican passports this year, nearly twice as many as last year. Vizcarra attributed some of the demand for passports to stricter travel regulations among the U.S., Mexico and Canada slated to take effect in January. But he said many illegal immigrants are applying for passports in case they lose their jobs due to the sanctions law or a slowdown in the economy and therefore want to go back and live in Mexico.

"People are fearful. They are getting ready as much as they can (to leave)," he said.

Mexican officials and border authorities expect southbound traffic to rise significantly this week as Christmas approaches.

The exodus has drawn cheers from foes of illegal immigration.

"That is the whole purpose of the (sanctions) law," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, "to not only stop people from coming, but to have these who are here illegally go back to whence they came. They shouldn't be here."

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, and they make up about 9 percent of the state's population. Illegal immigrants make up 10 percent to 12 percent of the work force, according to Pew and the Center for Immigration Studies.

The economy could be devastated if all were to leave, advocates say. But Kavanagh, one of the most outspoken backers of the sanctions law, doubts the law will have much impact on Arizona's economy. He hopes any economic problems caused by illegal immigrants leaving Arizona will pressure Congress to create a guest-worker program to allow more foreign-born workers to enter legally to help fill labor gaps.

But unlike illegal immigrants, guest workers will enter in "an orderly and legal fashion with screening," he said.

Leaving for good
On Mexico 15 on the outskirts of Nogales, Son., the Francos were getting ready for the final leg of their journey from Arizona to Ciudad Obregon, their hometown six hours south of the border.

Jorge, 34, was driving an extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup that was so overloaded with the family's belongings that the vehicle no longer looked safe for highway travel. The bed of the pickup sagged under the weight of a full-size refrigerator, an air-conditioning unit, a television and a microwave oven, while the Francos' three young children grew restless inside the cab.
Franco's wife, Liliana, 25, drove a second vehicle. Her Dodge minivan was packed just as full, with clothing, toys and household items. Several suitcases that didn't fit inside had been lashed to the roof.

Living in Wickenburg
The couple said they had lived in Wickenburg for the past five years. They and their two children had originally entered the United States legally with tourist visas and then stayed beyond the expiration dates. The couple had no legal status to work in the U.S., but both were able to get jobs using fake documents, Jorge at a small landscaping company, Liliana at a Burger King. Two years ago, their third child, Michael, was born in Arizona, making him a U.S. citizen.

The couple said life for them in Arizona began to unravel earlier this year when Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The collapse caused the Francos to give up hope that Congress would pass a legalization program anytime soon. Then, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed Arizona's employer-sanctions law.

The law threatens to suspend or revoke business licenses from employers caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. It also requires employers to use a federal computer program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires.

The law takes effect Jan. 1, and several business groups are suing to have the law tossed out, claiming it is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, thousands of illegal immigrants have been let go as worried employers conduct reviews of I-9s, the federal forms employers are required to use to verify the employment eligibility of their workers.

In November, employers checked the Francos' employment records and discovered they had used false documents to get their jobs, the couple said. Both were let go.

The Francos tried getting other jobs but were turned down every place they applied.

"Everyone wants a good Social Security number now," Liliana said.

The couple said a crackdown on illegal immigration by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio also prompted them to move back to Mexico. Sheriff's deputies trained to enforce immigration laws have been arresting illegal immigrants in the Wickenburg area, and the couple feared their family would be split apart if one of them got deported.

Earlier this month, they sold their trailer home in Wickenburg and began packing their bags. They also took their oldest child, Yulissa, 7, a second-grader at Hassayampa Elementary School, out of school.
What did they plan to do for work in Mexico?

Jorge shook his head. He didn't know. Then, after clearing immigration and customs, the couple climbed back inside the pickup and the minivan and drove back onto the highway, headed south.http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/related/71835.php

Interesting notion of getting your paperwork in order to leave the US and enter Mexico instead of the other way around.

General Zod
12-24-07, 08:43 AM
Self-deporting? I was told I was living in a fantasy world if I thought people would actually self-deport.

"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said.
Wow, who would have thunk it?

Now take away all the freebies and they will leave in even quick numbers.

NotThatGuy
12-24-07, 10:03 PM
Self-deporting? I was told I was living in a fantasy world if I thought people would actually self-deport.


Wow, who would have thunk it?

Now take away all the freebies and they will leave in even quick numbers.
I'm with Zod.

You mean cracking down using existing laws can help the problem?!! Unfortunately for the "dozens" that leave daily, hundreds/thousands are breaking in. We still need a wall.

-p

DVD Polizei
12-24-07, 10:21 PM
Yeah but physical walls are so...physical. We need a wall of Hope, man.

"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said.

And Hernandez be a dumbass. If they can't find work, they certainly don't go back home where their government most certainly treats them shittier than America. They'll just resort to drug running and other crimes to live in the US.

NotThatGuy
12-25-07, 11:58 PM
Yeah but physical walls are so...physical. We need a wall of Hope, man.

"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said.

And Hernandez be a dumbass. If they can't find work, they certainly don't go back home where their government most certainly treats them shittier than America. They'll just resort to drug running and other crimes to live in the US.

Let's hold hands.....AND HUG!

A life of crime isn't a leap, as they all broke the law at least once to come in (or however many times they illegally broke into our country).

-p

The Bus
12-26-07, 02:03 PM
And Hernandez be a dumbass. If they can't find work, they certainly don't go back home where their government most certainly treats them shittier than America. They'll just resort to drug running and other crimes to live in the US.


A life of crime isn't a leap, as they all broke the law at least once to come in (or however many times they illegally broke into our country).

I agree. The last time I got a parking ticket, I immediately got a call from someone interested in bringing me into their Belarussian sex worker smuggling ring.

Which is why we need to have minimum 30-year sentences for underage drinking. These are murderers in training!

wishbone
12-26-07, 02:33 PM
I agree. The last time I got a parking ticket, I immediately got a call from someone interested in bringing me into their Belarussian sex worker smuggling ring.

Which is why we need to have minimum 30-year sentences for underage drinking. These are murderers in training!Just remember the safe word: Fluggengegeholen -- or is it Fluggengecheimen?

crazyronin
12-26-07, 04:33 PM
Just remember the safe word: Fluggengegeholen -- or is it Fluggengecheimen?


The safe word this week is strohmann

The Bus
12-26-07, 08:24 PM
I saw some teenagers smoking earlier today. I can only imagine how they fuel their dirty and illegal habit. I bet they are mercenaries for the LTTE on the side.

I.Flores
12-28-07, 01:51 PM
If they can't find work, they certainly don't go back home where their government most certainly treats them shittier than America.

There are plenty of Work in Mexico, if one cares to look for it. Illegal Immigration would stop if immigrants looked right through the "American Dream" smoke screen. Sure, you earn a lot more in the US when compared to Mexico, but you also SPEND a lot more for the same things when compared to Mexico.

I'm sure if a Poll could be made, 95% of all immigrants would tell life isn't at all of what they expected of it to be.

fujishig
12-28-07, 01:58 PM
There are plenty of Work in Mexico, if one cares to look for it. Illegal Immigration would stop if immigrants looked right through the "American Dream" smoke screen. Sure, you earn a lot more in the US when compared to Mexico, but you also SPEND a lot more for the same things when compared to Mexico.

I'm sure if a Poll could be made, 95% of all immigrants would tell life isn't at all of what they expected of it to be.

But a lot of the time, they funnel most of the money back into Mexico to their families...

I read an article in the LA Times last week about how the dearth of construction jobs due to the subprime mess, coupled with the threat of immigration enforcement, meant that the money being funneled into the Mexican economy from the US had decreased drastically.

The Bus
12-28-07, 02:07 PM
But a lot of the time, they funnel most of the money back into Mexico to their families...

Most? Hardly.

I'll <a href="http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/supply_side_chart.htm">quote VDare here</a>, which is a site I barely ever agree with.

Remittances to Mexico in 2002 were $10.5 billion. That sounds like a lot, but consider this:

1 million Mexicans = $10,500 per person
10 million Mexicans = $1050 per person

How is that "most" of the money?

wishbone
12-28-07, 02:08 PM
But a lot of the time, they funnel most of the money back into Mexico to their families...

I read an article in the LA Times last week about how the dearth of construction jobs due to the subprime mess, coupled with the threat of immigration enforcement, meant that the money being funneled into the Mexican economy from the US had decreased drastically.Illegal aliens are making lower wages here in the US but remittances of USD for those lower wages has much greater buying power back home than the peso, etc.Mexico remittance growth to slow in 2007 - cenbank
Mon May 7, 2007 7:28pm EDT

MEXICO CITY, May 7 (Reuters) - The flow of remittances from Mexicans living abroad will grow as little as 5 percent this year due to tougher migration controls and an economic slowdown in the United States, a top central bank official said.

After years of spectacular growth, remittances from Mexicans living in the United States make up Mexico's second-biggest source of foreign currency, and surged more than 15 percent last year to a record $23 billion.

But the flow of dollars is in danger as the U.S. economy slows, particularly in the construction sector where many Mexican immigrants work, and as U.S. authorities make it harder for would-be illegal workers to get across the border.

Jesus Cervantes, a top statistician at the country's central bank, told Reuters remittances would probably only grow by about 5 or 6 percent this year and not likely exceed $24.5 billion.

With the economy cooling, remittances grew at an annual rate of 3 percent in the first three months of 2007, down from a 28 percent rise during the same period last year.

"Migrating (to the United States) is already much more difficult and that is evident in the remittance income," said Cervantes.

Some economists fear remittances could even decline this year and worry that a diminished flow could have a negative effect on economic growth, which the government already sees slowing from 4.8 percent last year to 3.3 percent this year.http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN0739389720070507

fujishig
12-28-07, 02:53 PM
Most? Hardly.

I'll <a href="http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/supply_side_chart.htm">quote VDare here</a>, which is a site I barely ever agree with.

Remittances to Mexico in 2002 were $10.5 billion. That sounds like a lot, but consider this:

1 million Mexicans = $10,500 per person
10 million Mexicans = $1050 per person

How is that "most" of the money?

Okay, "most" was an exaggeration. The original post I responded to said that they couldn't understand why Mexicans would illegally cross the border here to get more money, when the cost of living is higher here. Obviously, they have to pay for essentials, and I'm not saying they're all living on the street and sending every penny back home. But the reason it's attractive is that they can send a lot of the money back home with increased buying power.

Also, the remittances have grown by leaps and bounds every year since that 10.5 billion in 2002. As wishbon3 mentioned, it was more than double that last year. I was also incorrect in saying that the amount sent to Mexico was decreasing... it's the rate of growth that's decreasing, that's concerning the Mexican economy.

I.Flores
12-28-07, 03:26 PM
Illegal aliens are making lower wages here in the US but remittances of USD for those lower wages has much greater buying power back home than the peso, etc.

Not at all. Granted, the US Dollar is worth "More" than the Mxn Peso, but that doesn't mean that the USD has a greater buying power because of that.
I live in Mexico, close to the US border, and know a bit about that.

When was the last time you guys bought a 12 OZ coke, directly off the convenience store's fridge, for .27 cents?
Or a pound of Prime Angus RibEye Steak for $3.92?

Because that's what it costs here.

wishbone
12-28-07, 03:50 PM
Not at all. Granted, the US Dollar is worth "More" than the Mxn Peso, but that doesn't mean that the USD has a greater buying power because of that.
I live in Mexico, close to the US border, and know a bit about that.

When was the last time you guys bought a 12 OZ coke, directly off the convenience store's fridge, for .27 cents?
Or a pound of Prime Angus RibEye Steak for $3.92?

Because that's what it costs here.Sorry, this is what I was referring to:Choosing Dollars Over Pesos

U.S. dollars are increasingly worth more in Mexico, especially when earned in the United States. A Mexican worker in the U.S. can earn five to ten times more than in Mexico when providing the same labor. In 2003 the financial resources of migrant workers being sent home to Mexico became Mexico's third largest source of income behind oil and manufacturing.http://www.houstonculture.org/border/intro.html

wabio
12-30-07, 09:49 PM
Arizona setting to test pilot their laws against illegal immigration. -popcorn-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071230/ts_alt_afp/usimmigrationeconomyarizona

wishbone
12-30-07, 10:37 PM
Arizona setting to test pilot their laws against illegal immigration. -popcorn-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071230/ts_alt_afp/usimmigrationeconomyarizona"It's not the right way to go. I don't think people did their homework on it, and no one consulted small companies on how they feel about it," he added.Arizona Leads U.S in Identity Theft Cases

The weather is not the only thing that is hot in Arizona. For the fourth year in a row, Arizona leads the country in per capita identity theft related crimes. In 2006 Arizona filed 148 identity theft related complaints per 100,000 residents. Arizona State Attorney General, Terry Goddard, suggests that Arizona is major target for identity thieves for a variety of reasons, particularly as it relates to Arizona's large illegal-immigrant population. Illegal's are increasingly turning to identity theft to gain employment in Arizona and other Southwestern states.http://idtheft.about.com/b/2007/02/08/arizona-leads-us-in-identity-theft-cases.htm

It's not the right way to go to supplant low wage workers that commit document fraud or ID theft to obtain these jobs either.

General Zod
01-22-08, 08:30 AM
Only a few more states to go..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080122/D8UAMCJG1.html

Mich. Denies Illegal Immigrants Licenses

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Michigan will no longer let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, a practice just seven other states continue to allow.

Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who oversees the motor vehicle department, announced the new policy Monday and said it takes effect Tuesday.

The new policy also prohibits people who are legal but not permanent U.S. residents from getting licenses. Legislation to allow those on temporary work or student visas to get licenses is pending in the Legislature.

The change is aimed at complying with an opinion issued last month by Attorney General Mike Cox, who said granting licenses to illegal immigrants is inconsistent with federal law. Opinions by the attorney general's office are legally binding on state agencies and officers unless reversed by the courts.

The new policy applies to first-time applicants for a Michigan driver's license or identification card. Updated procedures for renewals will be released soon.

"This is one more tool in our initiative to bolster Michigan's border and document security," Land said in a statement. "It also puts Michigan's procedure in line with those of most other states."

Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain a license. Michigan borders Canada and contains some of the nation's busiest boundary crossings.

Driver's licenses are among several hot-button issues surrounding the debate over illegal immigration. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer last year proposed allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses, but withdrew the idea under heavy criticism.

:up:

General Zod
01-23-08, 12:25 PM
More..

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/texas.law/index.html

Dallas suburb bans rentals by illegal immigrants

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas (CNN) -- Illegal immigrants cannot rent or own homes in Farmers Branch, Texas, under an ordinance the city's council passed Tuesday night.

Immigration policy sparks a debate outside a 2006 Farmers Branch, Texas, City Council meeting.

The measure requires the Dallas suburb to check a renter's legal status with the federal government.

"The federal government will verify if the person is in the country legally," Mayor Pro Tem Tim O'Hare said. "If not, we will notify that person as well as the landlord in writing that they do not have the right to be in the country."

The City Council tried to crackdown on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants last year -- the latest among local and state governments to focus on illegal immigration. Yet immigrant advocates sued to block that law, and the city said it has spent $770,000 in attorneys' fees to defend it.

The case is still in court after a federal judge blocked that law, finding that city officials were trying to control immigration differently from the U.S. government, according to The Associated Press.

Attorneys for Farmers Branch have said they believe the new ordinance clears up any constitutional questions.

"If we were sued for this ordinance and had to defend this ordinance as well, it wouldn't surprise me," O'Hare said. "We're not in this for the short term. We're in this for the long haul -- for the upcoming years and decades."

If landlords continue to rent to illegal immigrants, the new ordinance would let the city fine tenants and landlords $500 a day.

Jose Galvez, a contractor and 16-year resident of Farmers Branch, criticized the decision.

"Basically you have to apply for a visa before you can become a resident of this city," Galvez said. "If there's a glitch where the federal government made a mistake or they don't have your proper information, you're the one who now has to prove once again you're here legally.

"There are other apartment complex owners who believe they've invested in this community before all of this and the way they're going on about this is not healthy."

In a referendum last year, residents in Farmers Branch approved the City Council's stance by a 2-to-1 margin.

Escondido, California; Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Riverside, New Jersey; and Pahrump, Nevada. have passed similar laws. Most cities said they acted out of frustration with the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws more vigorously.

"The effects of the government -- the feds -- not enforcing the law is 100 percent local," Escondido City Council member Marie Waldron said in November. "We have to deal with the overcrowding in our neighborhoods. We have to deal with the overcrowding of our schools and the diseases that our children are exposed to. Our police department has to fight the gangs."

In addition, the nation's governors are looking for compensation from the federal government for the cost of housing illegal immigrants in local jails.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is one of a nearly dozen governors demanding that Washington pay the costs that states incur for jailing criminal illegal immigrants.

Franchot
01-29-08, 01:02 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080129/ap_on_re_us/immigration_activist_church

Church harbors woman facing deportation

CHICAGO - A Mexican woman says she is "picking up the torch" from another illegal resident who became a symbol for immigration reform when she took shelter in a Chicago church for a year before being deported.

Flor Crisostomo, 28, who paid a smuggler to drive her across the U.S. border in 2000, spurned a deportation order Monday and moved into Adalberto United Methodist Church.

Crisostomo hopes her actions send a message similar to Elvira Arellano, who became a beacon of hope for millions of illegal immigrants and a lightning rod for those who saw her brazen refusal to leave the U.S. as proof of lax enforcement.

Arellano lived in an apartment on the church's upper floor for a year before leaving in August to visit Los Angeles, where immigration authorities arrested her and, within hours, deported her to Mexico.

Adalberto's pastor said no one pressured Crisostomo to take sanctuary at the church, which is in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood.

"It's unfortunate we have to do this. This church has other priorities, like helping the poor in this neighborhood," the Rev. Walter Coleman said. "But God didn't give us a choice. When God says do this, we say, 'Yes, sir!'"

Coleman complained that the push for immigration reform has stalled, saying even sympathetic politicians have put the sensitive issue on the back burner.

"So what are we supposed to do?" he said. "Who's moving this movement forward? It's not moving forward."

Crisostomo, who spoke through a translator, said she left Iguala Guerrero, Mexico, after she was unable to find a job that would allow her to buy enough food for her two boys and one girl, ages 9 to 14.

In July 2000 she paid a smuggler to take her across the border and spent three days lost in desert-like conditions before making it to Los Angeles, she said. A month later she arrived in Chicago, where she worked 10 hours a day, six days a week in an IFCO Systems site that made packing materials.

By last year, she earned about $360 a week, sending $300 to her children for food, clothes and school books, she said. To keep her own costs down, she lived with four other women in a two-bedroom Chicago apartment.

"My children's lives improve a lot as a result," she said. "It wasn't luxury. But it meant they could survive."

Immigration authorities raided more than 40 IFCO sites in the U.S. in 2006 and arrested Crisostomo, along with more than 1,100 other people. The Board of Immigration Appeals last year denied Crisostomo's appeal and told her to leave the United States by Monday.

Crisostomo said she didn't know how long she would stay in the church, adding that she would keep busy by lobbying via phone, e-mails and letters on behalf of millions of illegal immigrants. The apartment, which is maintained by the church, includes a bedroom, office area and living room.

Groups opposed to illegal immigration say the case is a direct challenge to federal authorities.

"It will give American citizens a great opportunity to see if Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is good at his word on strict immigration enforcement," said Rosanna Pulido, a spokeswoman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration enforcement.

The move to re-create the same sanctuary situation as Arellano will backfire, Pulido said.

"This tactic is ineffective," she said. "This is creating more outrage, more bad feelings toward our government and toward people who are aiding and abetting illegals."

The judicial process had given Crisostomo more than enough time to comply with U.S. law following her arrest two years ago, the Chicago office of the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement Monday.

"If Ms. Crisostomo does not comply with the immigration judge's order by tonight, she will become an immigration fugitive," the statement said.

But Crisostomo said she believes immigration authorities would not dare storm a house of worship to grab her.

"I hope they don't come for me," she said. "I hope they fear God enough."

Hmmm. I have a few questions for you, Flor.

If my math is correct, you elected to have your first child when you were 14 years old. If having a child was such a financial burden, why did you then choose to have two more children? Where is the father of these three children, Flor? Can't he pitch in a few bucks to feed the family? Flor, are you an unmarried mother of three? (You do know that churches look down on premaritial sex, don't you? Ask Reverend Walter Coleman about this. I wouldn't want you to pop out another kid and make God more angry with you.)

Flor, I do applaud you for trying to improve your children's lives, but maybe it would be a good idea to keep your legs closed if you can't afford the consequences of irresponsible sex.

I.Flores
01-29-08, 04:16 AM
(You do know that churches look down on premaritial sex, don't you? Ask Reverend Walter Coleman about this. I wouldn't want you to pop out another kid and make God more angry with you.)


The church also looks down on Birth Control.

Rockmjd23
01-29-08, 08:20 AM
The church also looks down on Birth Control.
Not the United Methodist Church, which is the subject of that article.

General Zod
01-29-08, 08:37 AM
I think these churches should immediately get their tax exempt status suspended whiley the aid and abed criminals. Once they have to choose between money and their morals they suddenly will not appear so brazen.

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:50 AM
I think these churches should immediately get their tax exempt status suspended whiley the aid and abed criminals. Once they have to choose between money and their morals they suddenly will not appear so brazen.

Why not just whole hog - suspend the First Amendment while we are at. :lol:

btw: Did you fence builders appreciate the immigration portion of the SOTU last evening?

wishbone
01-29-08, 10:15 AM
Why not just whole hog - suspend the First Amendment while we are at. :lol:

btw: Did you fence builders appreciate the immigration portion of the SOTU last evening?Did you raise the minimum wage (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8057458&postcount=8) proponents appreciate the continued call in the SOTU last evening for low wage labor, i.e. guest worker program?

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:21 AM
He called for comprehensive immigration reform.

wishbone
01-29-08, 10:42 AM
He called for comprehensive immigration reform.The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html

You can probably substitute need for low wage labor for economy in his speech given that this country does have a lawful way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa) for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.