In This Thread: We Catch Illegal Mexicans [Archive]

.Andy

Jan 7, 2009, 01:37 AM

.Andy, how in the world is pointing out fact somehow xenophobic?
"I guess it's funny if you're not being shot at" is not fact. It's xenophobic stereotyping to demonising a group of people. I could make the exact same charges you made to stereotype Americans in comparison to Australians. I'd stick up for Americans if our society decided to take extraordinary measures based on a fear that Americans are rapists, murderers, and drug runners because statistically you have higher rates of those crimes in America. Stereotyping the people that cross the border as packing high powered weapons, running drugs, being out to rape and kill and therefore requiring vigilante surveillance to keep America safe is rubbish. It's completely stoking the xenophobic fires. I don't doubt that some do cross borders whilst engaging in illegal and dangerous activity - but your post managed to go out of it's way to add the connotation to everyone crossing the border with your fearful anecdotes.

I'll copy and paste this article from the Palestine/Israel thread as it's apt here. You're trying exactly the same device. Demonise a group of people to justify your opinions. The fact that you're referring to any other humans as "illegals" illustrates perfectly how desensitised you are.

Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries -- from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan -- are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human.

For obvious reasons, one typically finds this full-scale version of sociopathic indifference -- this perception of brutal war as a blood-pumping and exciting instrument for feeling vicarious sensations of power and strength from a safe distance -- in the society's weakest, most frightened, and most insecure individuals.

Here's right-wing blogger (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds revealing that wretched mindset for all to see:

“Cycles of violence” continue until one side wins decisively. Personally, I’d rather that were the Israelis, since they’re civilized people and not barbarians.

Or, as Goldfarb put it: "it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us."

If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings: as "barbarians" -- just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats -- then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer.

For people who think that way, arguments about "proportionality" won't even begin to resonate -- such concepts can't even be understood -- because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn't accepted.

Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives? How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?

So many of these conflicts -- one might say almost all of them -- end up shaped by the same virtually universal deficiency: excessive tribalistic identification (i.e.: the group with which I was trained to identify is right and good and just and my group's enemy is bad and wrong and violent), which causes people to view the world only from the perspective of their side, to believe that X is good when they do it and evil when it's done to them.

X can be torture, or the killing of civilians in order to "send a message" (i.e., Terrorism), or invading and occupying other people's land, or using massive lethal force against defenseless populations, or seeing one's own side as composed of real humans and the other side as sub-human, evil barbarians. As George Orwell wrote in Notes on Nationalism -- with perfect prescience to today's endless conflicts (h/t Hume's Ghost):
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them
For those who evaluate moral questions from that blindingly self-regarding perspective, anything and everything becomes easily justifiable.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../04/terrorism/

Are you suggesting that we should make no effort to detect and stop illegal crossing of our borders?
Your strawman arguments do get exceedingly tiresome. Suggesting that homemade vigilante webcams are completely futile and a waste of time does in no way suggest what you charge. You've resorted to similar nefarious methods in addressing my comments in two threads in a row now. I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

n8236

Jan 7, 2009, 02:43 AM

OMG, that made me LOL in real life.

takao

Jan 7, 2009, 03:02 AM

I've lived here on the Border for 25 years, now. Until you learn something about the subject, you're just all hat and no cows.

'Rat

and what are simply webcams going to solve ? very little except for perhaps counting illegal crossings as long as they are operational simply for the fact of ultra long reaction times

against actual criminal trafficers it's not gonna use much either because they will know right beforehand where the cameras are and can thus can either move outside of their view or jam them using electronics or good old wire cutting

and your "the illegals crossing over are doign criminal things" is everywhere the same .. just like in Austria with the border from Burgenland to Hungary ... and just like there the fear of illegal crossers is bizarre

i've seen quite a bit of illegal crossings and believe it or not the huge gigantic minority of that people have only the clothes they are wearing (if they have extra plastic bags they are the more lucky ones)

MacTraveller

Jan 7, 2009, 03:19 AM

I've lived here on the Border for 25 years, now.

How are the Taco Bells there?

obey908

Jan 7, 2009, 10:17 AM

^hahaha

Desertrat

Jan 7, 2009, 11:03 AM

.Andy, nowhere did I say that ALL border jumpers are Bad Guys. I first-hand know better, just from living among some and working a few. But you don't need to be shot at but once to start wearing a Caution Cap. Me, I prefer vicarious learning from the problems of others. I suggest that you climb off your high horse and actually get some first-hand experience in some of these trouble spots along the border. Or, maybe, at least read a newspaper.

MacTraveller, we commonly refer to them as the "Mexican Telephone Company". :D But the nearest is 240 miles away, in Odessa...

it5five

Jan 7, 2009, 01:49 PM

Or, maybe, at least read a newspaper.

I've read one.

Despite public perception and stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws in recent months in Maricopa County, undocumented immigrants are not charged with a disproportionate number of crimes in Maricopa County.

According to the Sheriff's Office, only 10 percent of the people booked into county jails are subject to ICE holds...The number corresponds closely to the estimated percentage of illegal immigrants thought to live in Maricopa County.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/byauthor/77871

I know it's only Maricopa County specific, but it still proves your xenophobic theory (and many Arizonans) wrong.

floyde

Jan 7, 2009, 02:30 PM

You've obviously never been to Juarez or Tijuana.

So I guess that it's also safe to judge the entire USA by the conditions of the slums of Detroit or St. Louis?

synth3tik

Jan 7, 2009, 02:34 PM

So much attention to the southern border. What about all the Americans and Mexicans crossing the boarder into Canada to find jobs?

That may be me soon.

.Andy

Jan 7, 2009, 04:38 PM

.Andy, nowhere did I say that ALL border jumpers are Bad Guys.
You made no attempt at all to say that it was only a very small minority. The gist of your post was that webcams were justified because people crossing the border we exceptionally dangerous. Your post was to instill fear, not offer any special insight. i.e. sensational anecdote including hummers and high powered weapons (presumably we'll be able to watch this on the webcams). There was nothing in your post about webcams being effective at stopping illegal activity. Just that people crossing the border are dangerous.

But you don't need to be shot at but once to start wearing a Caution Cap. Me, I prefer vicarious learning from the problems of others.
You're doing it again. You're not going to get shot at by random mexicans that have crossed the border. Your "vicarious learning" appears to be driven by nothing more than irrational overestimation of your likelihood of being shot at.

I suggest that you climb off your high horse and actually get some first-hand experience in some of these trouble spots along the border. Or, maybe, at least read a newspaper.
Here's one (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/2-million-texas.html) - your ridiculous low-res webcams (13 of them along how big a border?) cost $2 Million and have only managed to catch a single pot smuggler. This is what happens when xenophobic fear drives policy and not intelligent research into effective policing. Perhaps with all the newspapers you read you could provide one that shows just how effective these webcams have been?

You see someone on the border via webcam. You type out an email. It gets vetted and then perhaps sent on to the border patrols. By the time it is eventually read the perps are a million miles away. It's utterly futile and a complete waste of time and $2 million dollars. It's all about the perception that you're doing something as an official "virtual texas deputy". It's a PR exercise that might bag the occasional crook and nothing more. If you used that money to pay another law enforcement officers salary it would be more effective at reducing crime. However perhaps in time I'll be proven wrong and these cameras can be put up all over the US.

mgguy

Jan 7, 2009, 08:31 PM

Your strawman arguments do get exceedingly tiresome. Suggesting that homemade vigilante webcams are completely futile and a waste of time does in no way suggest what you charge. You've resorted to similar nefarious methods in addressing my comments in two threads in a row now. I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

Sheesh. Try not to be so sensitive. I merely asked the question to try to figure out what your position is on detection and apprehension at the border. I read the following sentence you wrote several times and honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say (but I do now):

"If creative demonising of mexicans is the only way you can justify voyeurs with too much time peering through webcams all day it's obviously completely futile."

I've read your subsequent posts and now understand that you may not be totally against trying to stop illegal entries and are concerned that the approach discussed in the thread is not effective. I agree with you that if the use of webcams isn't effective, let's not waste money on it.

mgguy

Jan 7, 2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:
According to the Sheriff's Office, only 10 percent of the people booked into county jails are subject to ICE holds...The number corresponds closely to the estimated percentage of illegal immigrants thought to live in Maricopa County.

Don't you find it troubling that 10% of the Maricopa population are in this county illegally? That's a huge number. What's even more disconcerting is that 10% of the crimes that were serious enough to result in incarceration would not have been committed were they not here. This 10% rate, by the way, does not include other lesser crimes they commit for which they are never arrested, convicted, and jailed, including the first violation of our immigration laws.

.Andy

Jan 7, 2009, 10:21 PM

Sheesh. Try not to be so sensitive.
I can't help it. I'm a really sensitive guy. I cry every time I read Pride and Prejudice :D!

I've read your subsequent posts and now understand that you may not be totally against trying to stop illegal entries and are concerned that the approach discussed in the thread is not effective. I agree with you that if the use of webcams isn't effective, let's not waste money on it.
It doesn't take much creative thought to come up with a better ways to spend $2 million to reduce crime. If that money was invested it'd pay the salary of a border patrol guard/texan police officer for a many years. Heck, investing it mexico or donating it to education facilities there would probably be a far better long term investment in reducing crime. But unfortunately that wouldn't be politically palatable.

Desertrat

Jan 7, 2009, 10:34 PM

.Andy, lemme try it this way: Not all bank customers are Bad Guys, but banks have guards and cameras. Sometimes banks get robbed, right? Same deal on the Border. Not only do we have basically honest Jose Moja'o trying to get este la'o del rio to find a job, but some of his border jumping compadres haul drugs and are willing to kill in the process. And if you don't believe that, Google for "zetas". Or ask any LEO who works in our Border counties.

So: The world of law enforcement, as always, tries to rely on "just folks" for help. No different from any Neighborhood Watch; just a bigger neighborhood.

.Andy

Jan 7, 2009, 11:32 PM

.Andy, lemme try it this way: Not all bank customers are Bad Guys, but banks have guards and cameras. Sometimes banks get robbed, right? Same deal on the Border.
Lets even up the bank camera analogy to illustrate my point. We install the cameras only in a small number of banks (we keep which ones are a secret). The majority of banks are left unprotected (like the vast majority of the border). We drop the resolution and move the bank cameras back to a distance where you can't make out any facial features or indeed what people are actually doing. Only their gross movements. ie. cameras are no longer any use for identification purposes. We have to start assuming that people are up to no good are therefore overreact, wasting more police time. To boot these cameras in the banks are now manned by volunteer civilians. If there is a robbery and they happen to be logged on and care, they type out an email that is sent to the police. The police have to then check through all the emails, decide that there is something worth acting on that is not a hoax, and then mobilise their patrols.

The robbers would already long gone and counting their money.

So: The world of law enforcement, as always, tries to rely on "just folks" for help. No different from any Neighborhood Watch; just a bigger neighborhood.
I've got no problem with people helping out police. However I think the money could be far better spent here. To me it seems like a $2 million public relations exercise rather than a serious crime prevention initiative. As I said before the cameras might end up being a massive success which will herald them placed everywhere in the US to pick up all sorts of illegal activity. From their track record so far this doesn't seem to be the case.

it5five

Jan 8, 2009, 01:22 PM

Don't you find it troubling that 10% of the Maricopa population are in this county illegally? That's a huge number. What's even more disconcerting is that 10% of the crimes that were serious enough to result in incarceration would not have been committed were they not here. This 10% rate, by the way, does not include other lesser crimes they commit for which they are never arrested, convicted, and jailed, including the first violation of our immigration laws.

Why should it trouble me? Undocumented immigrants are still human beings, and the vast majority of them are just here to find work. I don't think you understand something. It is 10% of people booked into county jail. It's not convicted felons, just people being held for a few hours or overnight at the least. So yes, the 10% really only is lesser crimes. Read up on our joke of a sheriff (the clown Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)).

atszyman

Jan 8, 2009, 01:27 PM

Are we only interested in the Mexicans as this thread title suggests? or are we trying to spot any illegal border crossing? How good are these cameras? I'd be hard pressed to tell you where someone is from if I were standing face to face, much less over a grainy web cam...

Desertrat

Jan 8, 2009, 01:38 PM

I've no clue as to how much good they'll do. But, like a lot of LE efforts, they create constrictions and force the various BGs into corridors. Sometimes that's helpful. Example: When they first built the fence at El Paso, many, many years ago, the illegals headed toward the ends of the fence to go around. Oops! That's where the BP guys were waiting. It only took one BP guy on patrol to protect against would-be fence cutters. So, the interdiction rate went way up.

In-ground sensors on back-country jeep trails seem to work fairly well. The BP/Customs folks fairly regularly catch northbounders who are headed from the Rio toward Marfa or Alpine. Walkers as well as drivers.

I was going through the checkpoint south of Alpine, one day, and they had a full-size Blazer in the lockup. The smugglers had left the highway and were on a ranch road, trying to bypass the checkpoint. Wrong! Sensors on the ranch road. Pretty good load of MaryJane, too. Rooftop high, rear window to back of the front seats.

yojitani

Jan 8, 2009, 02:32 PM

Realign political boundaries. Call it Oceania. Problem solved?

mgguy

Jan 8, 2009, 09:55 PM

I don't think you understand something. It is 10% of people booked into county jail. It's not convicted felons, just people being held for a few hours or overnight at the least. So yes, the 10% really only is lesser crimes. Read up on our joke of a sheriff (the clown Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)).

So the 10% you alluded to doesn't account for the more serious crimes committed by illegal immigrants that would have put them in prison. Do you have any data on the representation of illegal immigrants in those higher-level crimes? My guess is that the proportion is probably at least 10% of that group as well. Keep in mind too that the crimes you are referring to do not include cases in which the illegal immigrant was just deported rather than convicted and put in jail to save the cost of trial and incarceration. So you have left out a lot.

noodle654

Jan 8, 2009, 10:14 PM

Great idea...love it.

mactastic

Jan 9, 2009, 02:12 PM

I guess the question is, is this just a feel-good stunt -- ala the AWB -- or is this producing results?

gkarris

Jan 9, 2009, 02:14 PM

Wait! THERE'S SOMETHING...

oh, it's just a duck... :eek:

:D

Desertrat

Jan 9, 2009, 09:58 PM

mactastic

Jan 10, 2009, 10:51 AM

mac, about all anybody can do, I guess, is speculate. If a fair number of folks are watching, and do indeed phone the appropriate responders, it could have some utility. Otherwise, it's more feelgood than do-good. Trouble with this sort of thing is the boredom factor. Hard to really focus, hour after hour, when nothing is happening.
No, one can do better than speculate. That's just an excuse to allow this to continue because it "feels good" to be doing something without asking the hard questions about whether it works or not.

As I recall, you were quite critical of the AWB because the hard questions were asked and it didn't appear to be having the desired affect. Yet here, for some reason, you don't care if we ask the hard questions. In fact, you don't even seem to want the hard questions asked. All you want to do is "speculate".

If this system isn't producing arrests of illegals without undue hardship on legal border residents, it should be scrapped along with the AWB. If it's working better than existing methods, it can be called a valid LE tool.

Desertrat

Jan 10, 2009, 04:09 PM

"If this system isn't producing arrests of illegals without undue hardship on legal border residents, it should be scrapped along with the AWB. If it's working better than existing methods, it can be called a valid LE tool."

Sure, I agree. But until there's some data, all we can do is speculate. We had ten years of data on the AWB.

Ever seen one of these radar balloons that US Customs uses? They spent some $10 million on one near Marfa, Texas. I've seen another one over by Lordsburg, NM, and there are two or three down in south Florida or in the Keys. I don't know about recent history, but at the time of the Marfa installation, none had been responsible for any arrest of any smuggler's airplane. SFAIK, they're still operating...

Just because something does little good doesn't mean the feds will quit using it.

costabunny

Jan 10, 2009, 04:15 PM

In This Thread: We Catch Illegal MexicansI didnt know it was illegal to be mexican....

themoonisdown09

Jan 10, 2009, 04:19 PM

I've been watching cameras 625 and 683 for about 30 minutes now and I haven't seen anything... damn.

it5five

Jan 10, 2009, 04:28 PM

I didnt know it was illegal to be mexican....

It is in the United States, apparently. Especially Maricopa County in Arizona, where you will get pulled over because of your skin color and then asked about your immigration status and where our sheriff has set up a "hotline" you call if you suspect someone of being a undocumented immigrant.

dukebound85

Jan 10, 2009, 04:38 PM

It is in the United States, apparently. Especially Maricopa County in Arizona, where you will get pulled over because of your skin color and then asked about your immigration status and where our sheriff has set up a "hotline" you call if you suspect someone of being a undocumented immigrant.

Is it wrong to try and keep illegals out of the US? I don't think so.

mactastic

Jan 10, 2009, 04:54 PM

"If this system isn't producing arrests of illegals without undue hardship on legal border residents, it should be scrapped along with the AWB. If it's working better than existing methods, it can be called a valid LE tool."

Sure, I agree. But until there's some data, all we can do is speculate. We had ten years of data on the AWB.
And did you wait ten years before condemning the AWB? I thought not...

Ever seen one of these radar balloons that US Customs uses? They spent some $10 million on one near Marfa, Texas. I've seen another one over by Lordsburg, NM, and there are two or three down in south Florida or in the Keys. I don't know about recent history, but at the time of the Marfa installation, none had been responsible for any arrest of any smuggler's airplane. SFAIK, they're still operating...

Just because something does little good doesn't mean the feds will quit using it.
There's a difference between it not being phased out by the feds, and supporting it yourself, wouldn't you agree?

.Andy

Jan 10, 2009, 05:09 PM

Is it wrong to try and keep illegals out of the US? I don't think so.
It's the means by which your country accomplishes this that should be under scrutiny. They shouldn't be pulling anyone over wholesale based on the colour of their skin. That is abhorrent and harassment. Authorities should always be bound to having a reason for suspicion other than race. Pulling over people that look "mexican" in the hope of finding someone in violation of immigration laws in your country is nothing more than a police fishing trip.

Remove the connotations of "illegal immigrants" and go with the analogy of drug dealers. Most people would agree it's not wrong to go after drug dealers. However granting police the unrestricted power to stop and search people and property with no reason for suspicion is a violation of your rights and liberty. The ends of stopping drug dealers does not justify extraordinary means.

dukebound85

Jan 10, 2009, 06:30 PM

It's the means by which your country accomplishes this that should be under scrutiny. They shouldn't be pulling anyone over wholesale based on the colour of their skin. That is abhorrent and harassment. Authorities should always be bound to having a reason for suspicion other than race. Pulling over people that look "mexican" in the hope of finding someone in violation of immigration laws in your country is nothing more than a police fishing trip.

Remove the connotations of "illegal immigrants" and go with the analogy of drug dealers. Most people would agree it's not wrong to go after drug dealers. However granting police the unrestricted power to stop and search people and property with no reason for suspicion is a violation of your rights and liberty. The ends of stopping drug dealers does not justify extraordinary means.

i agree with you there somewhat* but if they were crossing legally, wouldn't they go through the boarder patrol?

*in the case here,say illegal immigrants are working in the us but otherwise breaking no laws besides being here illegally, under what suspicion would you pull them over? or do they simply deserve to be left alone because they arent breaking any laws once in the US as they got past detection when crossing? if so, then why is there an issue with people monitoring the boarder with cameras placed at areas known to be points of illegal crossings? isn't that suspicious enough?

how does one act suspicious if they are in the country illegally? do they try and avoid cops whenever they see them or what exactly? what actions would you deem suspicious?

whether or not these cameras are fiscally responsible for the taxpayer, i dont know. i like the thought but if its costs way more than what it returns (as you have pointed out earlier), its not worth it.

Desertrat

Jan 10, 2009, 06:52 PM

iParis

Jan 10, 2009, 06:54 PM

LOL. Mexican members, please don't take this thread to offense.
So has anyone here caught someone?

Peterkro

Jan 10, 2009, 07:04 PM

Could someone tell me what AWB is,it's obviously not the agribusiness company, the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging or presumably the Average White Band (although thinking about it that may be possible)?

mactastic

Jan 10, 2009, 07:06 PM

mac, you're being silly. Things like the AWB are obviously foolish from the git-go, as they address imaginary problems. Illegal border crossings are a real-world problem.

Be that as it may, until the cameras have been in place long enough for some results to actually be reported, there's no data. At this point, I neither support nor object.
Now 'Rat, you're being obtuse. Supporters of the AWB would *strongly* disagree that gun violence is an imaginary problem. They might also suggest that the problems of illegal border crossings could be described as "imaginary".

Be that as it may, it falls on the supporters of programs such as these to demonstrate their effectiveness. I neither support nor object at this point either, but I am highly skeptical that this is an effective means of controlling the border. My suspicion is that this is nothing more than a means for anti-immigrant folks to feel good about themselves, kind of like slapping an "al Qaeda Hunting Club" bumper sticker on your truck makes a certain type of person feel like their "doing something" about terrorism.

leishan

Jan 10, 2009, 09:06 PM

Oh...my...word...:eek:

it5five

Jan 11, 2009, 01:35 PM

Is it wrong to try and keep illegals out of the US? I don't think so.

If trying to keep out "illegals" means that you violate the constitutional rights of even one citizen then it's wrong. If trying to keep out "illegals" means that an entire community, "legal" or not becomes afraid of the police which are in theory supposed to protect them, then it's wrong. If trying to keep out "illegals" is done as a publicity stunt for an attention starved sheriff, then it's wrong.

You do not pull somebody over because of the color of their skin. The sheriff here has "crime suppression sweeps" in which him and his deputies go to an area in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood and watch for cracked taillights or cracked windshields. They then pull these people over, inquire about immigration status, and then arrest anybody that does not have proper identification on them that proves they are in the country legally.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 11, 2009, 02:31 PM

The U.S. is a sovereign country. Whats so hard about that? Im offended as hell that everytime I get on the phone I now have to deal with the spanish version because my Govt did nothing for decades on this problem.
We have people who go through the system to become U.S. citizens and these illegals think they can just stroll in and use everything we have from highways to hospitals to our entire infrastructure.
You want to become a U.S. citizen then do it the legal way.
I support our borders.:)

it5five

Jan 11, 2009, 03:51 PM

floyde

Jan 11, 2009, 04:54 PM

LOL. Mexican members, please don't take this thread to offense.

Nah, we're used to it already. You guys are free to waste your time/money with this while avoiding the real underlying issues.

The U.S. is a sovereign country. Whats so hard about that? Im offended as hell that everytime I get on the phone I now have to deal with the spanish version because my Govt did nothing for decades on this problem.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/national_language.jpg

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 11, 2009, 05:21 PM

I forgot bilingualism is anti-American.The Constitution was written in one language. You want to speak French, Russian, Chinese or Spanish:p etc then do it but dont expect every sign, every phone call,every school ,every hospital to have your language. You come to the U.S, then you should expect to learn this country's language if you want to function in it legally . Its called English.:eek:

mgguy

Jan 11, 2009, 05:54 PM

If trying to keep out "illegals" is done as a publicity stunt for an attention starved sheriff, then it's wrong.

Can't you think of some other justifiable reasons for enforcing our immigration laws?

.Andy

Jan 11, 2009, 06:40 PM

Its called English.:eek:
This in itself is a misnomer :D;)!

dukebound85

Jan 11, 2009, 06:55 PM

If trying to keep out "illegals" means that you violate the constitutional rights of even one citizen then it's wrong. If trying to keep out "illegals" means that an entire community, "legal" or not becomes afraid of the police which are in theory supposed to protect them, then it's wrong. If trying to keep out "illegals" is done as a publicity stunt for an attention starved sheriff, then it's wrong.

You do not pull somebody over because of the color of their skin. The sheriff here has "crime suppression sweeps" in which him and his deputies go to an area in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood and watch for cracked taillights or cracked windshields. They then pull these people over, inquire about immigration status, and then arrest anybody that does not have proper identification on them that proves they are in the country legally.

what is your idea for a solution?

the issue is once they get in, how do you check ones nationality without violating others rights? especially when those in arent breaking any other law besides working/living here illegally

skunk

Jan 11, 2009, 06:56 PM

The Constitution was written in one language. You want to speak French, Russian, Chinese or Spanish:p etc then do it The French were in Louisiana before the English, the Dutch were in New Amsterdam before the English, the Russians were in Alaska before the English, the Spanish were on the West Coast before the English, the Vikings were in the North East before the English, the Chinese probably, too, and the Native Americans were all over. What is your point? :confused:

skunk

Jan 11, 2009, 06:59 PM

what is your idea for a solution?Check which way they vote, of course. Oh, and make sure you aren't employing any of them to clean your pool first...

SmartIndianKid

Jan 11, 2009, 07:10 PM

what is your idea for a solution?

the issue is once they get in, how do you check ones nationality without violating others rights? especially when those in arent breaking any other law besides working/living here illegally

Checking the yearly tax records?

While the illegal immigrants may not be breaking any laws by living here illegally, what they are doing is working against those who do come here legally, skewing with the currently instated quotas.

mgguy

Jan 11, 2009, 09:28 PM

what is your idea for a solution?

the issue is once they get in, how do you check ones nationality without violating others rights? especially when those in arent breaking any other law besides working/living here illegally

They do break other laws. Most use fradulent (often stolen) identification for jobs, government services, and business transactions, drive illegally, abandon their children when their work site is raided, fail to appear in court, disobey deportation orders, as a few examples. All of this costs taxpayer dollars. They also take jobs they are not legally entitled to, and incentivize employers to violate labor laws. It's ILLEGAL.

mactastic

Jan 12, 2009, 02:30 PM

They also take jobs they are not legally entitled to, and incentivize employers to violate labor laws. It's ILLEGAL.
If you're going that route, wouldn't it also be fair to say that employers who violate labor laws are incentivizing people to become illegal immigrants?

shu82

Jan 12, 2009, 04:50 PM

The French were in Louisiana before the English, the Dutch were in New Amsterdam before the English, the Russians were in Alaska before the English, the Spanish were on the West Coast before the English, the Vikings were in the North East before the English, the Chinese probably, too, and the Native Americans were all over. What is your point? :confused:

Our forefathers spent a lot of time and effort killing and running those people off. Think of their sacrifices :p

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 12, 2009, 05:30 PM

The French were in Louisiana before the English, the Dutch were in New Amsterdam before the English, the Russians were in Alaska before the English, the Spanish were on the West Coast before the English, the Vikings were in the North East before the English, the Chinese probably, too, and the Native Americans were all over. What is your point? :confused:Legal documents are in English , it is our countrys official language . We the People of the United states in order to form a more perfect union decided on everyone speaking english, love it or go back to your own screwed up country. Ours is screwed up enough allready.

skunk

Jan 12, 2009, 05:36 PM

We the People of the United states in order to form a more perfect union decided on everyone speaking english, love it or go back to your own screwed up country.Hmm. What to do if it is our country?

Anyway, you can't have "more perfect". It's either perfect or it ain't. I'd keep practising if I were you.

Desertrat

Jan 12, 2009, 05:42 PM

For foreign-born younguns, learning the language of a new country is easy. After all, the initial learning is of a foreign language. We found in the 1940s that if teachers are bi-lingual and accentuate the learning of English, the majority of all kids do quite well by the end of the third grade.

I don't understand the objection to declaring English as the national language. De facto, it is, for the majority of all people here. For one thing, I don't know why we should be different from the non-English-speaking countries. While I don't feel it's all that necessary to actually declare a national language, I note that Germany/China/Mexico/Iran don't print ballots or utility bills in English.

Why are we supposed to spend the money and go to the trouble to cater to any minority's language? And why favor one minority over all the others? Why do we snub those from Asian countries? Or European countries? It's insulting to favor one group of newbies over another. Where's the equality?

No matter the country, financial success is far more likely to accrue to those who speak the language, whether it's official or simply the majority language. If the goal is a better life, then one learns the language. Doesn't matter what country it is.

What we do know is that if people can get by with minimal learning of anything new, they generally won't bother--which means a lesser standard of living when language is the issue. Not pushing people to better themselves--and learning any second language is a betterment--is one way of holding them down.

skunk

Jan 12, 2009, 05:45 PM

I don't understand the objection to declaring English as the national language. De facto, it is.The unconscious ones are the best. :D

mgguy

Jan 12, 2009, 08:26 PM

If you're going that route, wouldn't it also be fair to say that employers who violate labor laws are incentivizing people to become illegal immigrants?

Yes, and both should be penalized--the employer through fines and, in egregious cases, through incarceration, and the immigrant through deportation. If they violate the deportation order, or reenter illegally, they can be convicted of a felony and, in my opinion, should be fined or have their possessions confiscated, be jailed, and then later re-deported.

hulugu

Jan 12, 2009, 10:49 PM

If you're going that route, wouldn't it also be fair to say that employers who violate labor laws are incentivizing people to become illegal immigrants?

Any good immigration law has to deal with this reality. There's a strange duality in America with regard to illegal immigrants. We need them to pick strawberries and for cheap labor on housing developments, and yet we simultaneously spend millions trying to arrest and deport them, ignoring the very reason they're here.

...I don't understand the objection to declaring English as the national language. De facto, it is, for the majority of all people here. For one thing, I don't know why we should be different from the non-English-speaking countries. While I don't feel it's all that necessary to actually declare a national language, I note that Germany/China/Mexico/Iran don't print ballots or utility bills in English.....

I think the problem is the proponents of English Only often end up arguing their point in effectively ethnocentric terms. Rather than pushing for good bilingual programs for kids and adults they fight for signage in English-only and end up sounding like the French Academy at best.

In some cases, for example pharmacies, there's a good case for printing directions in Spanish just to protect patients.

Not pushing people to better themselves--and learning any second language is a betterment--is one way of holding them down.

If the English First crowd were able to put their point so succinctly I think the conversation would be very different.

apsterling

Jan 12, 2009, 11:06 PM

What's so bad about them being here illegally?

Let's see, in this economy in particular, it makes it very difficult for real tax paying citizens to find jobs. As a teen I'm looking for a first job but I can't get one at McDonald's or Subway because the already limited spots are taken by primarily Hispanics. Now, it's not my place to say they're hired illegally but by statistics it would show at least a few of their employees are illegal in theory.

That's a few jobs that legal citizens looking for a job can't have, and taxes that may not get paid to the government.

The language barrier is another very valid point, however it's difficult to argue. I don't think the US government should make an effort to go bilingual, as the US has been teaching English as a primary language for centuries, and it makes little or no sense to force bilingual signs and service into restaurants, and other places. It seems to work okay in Canada but there's still a marginal divide between French and English (at least in Toronto and Niagara Falls and that region of Ontario, the places I've been in Canada) and it's been there for most of Canada's modern history.

It may seem short-sighted of me, but I'd rather see Arizona still speak English, because I'm tired of having to re-order my meals at fast food restaurants, and I'd hate to see that same problem in my classrooms and other places. I can only imagine a bilingual society in education becoming a very defined rift that could potentially send us into a similar situation to divisions in the pre-desegregation times. (EG, Spanish and Non-Spanish service at restaurants and other Service locations).

This issue needs to be solved, both on an immigration level and a less-related language level.

hulugu

Jan 12, 2009, 11:20 PM

...
Let's see, in this economy in particular, it makes it very difficult for real tax paying citizens to find jobs. As a teen I'm looking for a first job but I can't get one at McDonald's or Subway because the already limited spots are taken by primarily Hispanics. Now, it's not my place to say they're hired illegally but by statistics it would show at least a few of their employees are illegal in theory.

In practice this is fairly rare, illegals tend to do work in places and jobs that most Americans would really prefer someone else do. This includes the very lowest paying jobs of construction, the most labor intensive aspects of farming, and factory work. However, they may or may be legal and

That's a few jobs that legal citizens looking for a job can't have, and taxes that may not get paid to the government.

Illegal aliens do pay taxes, they pay sales taxes, gas taxes and basically any other tax that affects the poor. Since you're young, you wouldn't pay any income taxes anyway, so there's not much of an effect there.

It may seem short-sighted of me, but I'd rather see Arizona still speak English, because I'm tired of having to re-order my meals at fast food restaurants...

That's easy, its quiero el número uno.

apsterling

Jan 12, 2009, 11:43 PM

In practice this is fairly rare, illegals tend to do work in places and jobs that most Americans would really prefer someone else do. This includes the very lowest paying jobs of construction, the most labor intensive aspects of farming, and factory work. However, they may or may be legal and Illegal aliens do pay taxes, they pay sales taxes, gas taxes and basically any other tax that affects the poor. Since you're young, you wouldn't pay any income taxes anyway, so there's not much of an effect there.
That's easy, its quiero el número uno.

And at the same time, those rare few are still blocking youth and job seeking Americans from jobs. Even if it's one per every 100 jobs, that's 1 per every 100 legal jobs blocked.

As per the not paying taxes, in some cases they're still getting federal support where they shouldn't. Also rare but sill an occurance.

And i'd rather not have to order my food in spanish, seeing as the US is a predominantly English speaking nation and as far as I'm concerned you ought to be able to speak it if you're in a job that requires human interfacing, because it just lowers efficiency and overall experience. (unless of course you speak Spanish)

hulugu

Jan 13, 2009, 12:12 AM

And at the same time, those rare few are still blocking youth and job seeking Americans from jobs. Even if it's one per every 100 jobs, that's 1 per every 100 legal jobs blocked.

Estimates of the number of illegal immigrants is 8-20 Million, with general estimates ranging around 8-12 Million. That's a lot of people, but with a country of 300 Million, how many jobs are there? Couldn't it be that these jobs would go unfilled if not for illegal aliens?

As per the not paying taxes, in some cases they're still getting federal support where they shouldn't. Also rare but sill an occurance.

Sure, but this is widely overstated IMHO. The health-care aspect I think is a much bigger problem than the amount that doesn't go to State and Federal Taxes.

And i'd rather not have to order my food in spanish, seeing as the US is a predominantly English speaking nation and as far as I'm concerned you ought to be able to speak it if you're in a job that requires human interfacing, because it just lowers efficiency and overall experience. (unless of course you speak Spanish)

I was being facetious.

Oddly, I live much closer to the border and I don't have the same problem; everyone seems to speak English. Broken and sometimes confusing English, but English nonetheless. Even the girls at Guero Canelo, a burrito place that has all the TVs on Spanish stations, phone cards to call Mexico and Guatemala, and sodas in the old glass bottles from Mexico. The busboys use spanglish, but they're learning.

mgguy

Jan 13, 2009, 12:17 AM

hulugu

Jan 13, 2009, 12:28 AM

Not true. After they are here for awhile, they improve their skills and take better jobs. Or they may form their own business, perhaps a restaurant or landscaping company. The idea that no one else will do the work they do is a myth, especially in this economy. I'm worried that the new jobs that may result from the stimulus will be filled by illegals and will be a magnet for them to come here in even greater numbers. A crackdown on employers who hire them may help control this and should have been done long ago.

I wish there were better statistics on this, but AFAIK, this is fairly limited. And, furthermore, once someone starts a business, do we really care? They're probably inputing more into the local economy than taking it away.

I don't have the statistics on this, so I won't belabor the point, but from what has been quantified, most illegal immigrants—especially those sending money back to Mexico—tend to stay in lower wage jobs. Once someone starts to really build up a presence here in the United States, paying their taxes and raising a family, we're talking about a bureaucratic process. Part of the problem, as I understand it is, people who have built a life in the United States and have a home and business are afraid to apply for citizenship because they're afraid they'll be deported and have to legal return to the United States. This costly and daunting process leads many to ignore the citizenship route.

Clearly, our current immigration policy is busted.

mactastic

Jan 13, 2009, 02:44 PM

Yes, and both should be penalized--the employer through fines and, in egregious cases, through incarceration, and the immigrant through deportation. If they violate the deportation order, or reenter illegally, they can be convicted of a felony and, in my opinion, should be fined or have their possessions confiscated, be jailed, and then later re-deported.
Maybe we should put up cameras that monitor business owners hiring process...

...taxes that may not get paid to the government.
Not so. Most of these illegals have a SSN -- albeit fraudulent -- that allows them to present the necessary paperwork to a prospective employer (who is all to often willing to be complicit by not verifying that the SSN is valid for the person in front of them) to gain employment.

This means that federal and state taxes are deducted from this person's paycheck. However, due to their illegal status, they cannot collect any of the benefits of the taxes they pay.

The only people for whom there are "taxes that may not get paid to the government" are those who are working completely off the books -- and that problem is hardly limited to illegal immigrants.

atszyman

Jan 13, 2009, 03:14 PM

Not so. Most of these illegals have a SSN -- albeit fraudulent -- that allows them to present the necessary paperwork to a prospective employer (who is all to often willing to be complicit by not verifying that the SSN is valid for the person in front of them) to gain employment.

This means that federal and state taxes are deducted from this person's paycheck. However, due to their illegal status, they cannot collect any of the benefits of the taxes they pay.

There you go. Want to fix social security, only hire illegals. The employer and employee will keep paying into the system, but no one will be able to withdraw anything.

mgguy

Jan 13, 2009, 05:03 PM

This means that federal and state taxes are deducted from this person's paycheck. However, due to their illegal status, they cannot collect any of the benefits of the taxes they pay.

The only people for whom there are "taxes that may not get paid to the government" are those who are working completely off the books -- and that problem is hardly limited to illegal immigrants.

Illegal residents do get benefits in the form of health care, police and fire protection, school enrollment and lunches, use of parks and roadways, and many subsidies offered to the poor. They also often don't make enough to pay taxes and get refunds or, worse, a tax credit. This is easy to do if they spread their income reporting under several different ssn cards. Since many cities don't ask about legal status, and don't report to INS generally, they often receive many of the same government services as legal residents. Their kids who are illegal also may qualify for out of state tuition and even grants.

mactastic

Jan 13, 2009, 05:24 PM

Illegal residents do get benefits in the form of health care, police and fire protection, school enrollment and lunches, use of parks and roadways, and many subsidies offered to the poor. They also often don't make enough to pay taxes and get refunds or, worse, a tax credit. This is easy to do if they spread their income reporting under several different ssn cards. Since many cities don't ask about legal status, and don't report to INS generally, they often receive many of the same government services as legal residents. Their kids who are illegal also may qualify for out of state tuition and even grants.
You'll have to show me exactly how someone with a fake SSN gets a tax credit. Do they file taxes and request a refund?

As far as making use of general services, sure. They do have access to those things. But they do not get the benefit of disability, medicare, social security or other programs that their paycheck goes to funding.

And of course they pay sales tax, use fees, road tolls, and many other forms of taxation.

I'm not arguing that any of this is ok, only that it is clearly incorrect to say that illegals do not pay taxes.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 13, 2009, 05:39 PM

Hmm. What to do if it is our country?

Anyway, you can't have "more perfect". It's either perfect or it ain't. I'd keep practising if I were you.Read the Constitution, its right there in ENGLISH. Were still working on it didnt you know?

dukebound85

Jan 13, 2009, 05:48 PM

Legal documents are in English , it is our countrys official language . We the People of the United states in order to form a more perfect union decided on everyone speaking english, love it or go back to your own screwed up country. Ours is screwed up enough allready.

show me where in the Constitution it says English is the official language.........oh jeeze cant find it can ya

Read the Constitution, its right there in ENGLISH. Were still working on it didnt you know?

um English is not the official language:cool:, its just that the majority use it

PlaceofDis

Jan 13, 2009, 05:51 PM

Legal documents are in English , it is our countrys official language . We the People of the United states in order to form a more perfect union decided on everyone speaking english, love it or go back to your own screwed up country. Ours is screwed up enough allready.

there is no national language. you know that right? no law or other pronouncement stating that English is our national language, its just used by default.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 13, 2009, 06:10 PM

What language was the Constitution written in? come on this is a easy one. real easy or how about this one, pull out your driver license.....look close is it in spanish?:p

BoyBach

Jan 13, 2009, 06:24 PM

Read the Constitution, its right there in ENGLISH. Were still working on it didnt you know?

It's about time you Yanks* started paying us some bloody royalties for use of our language. And that goes for all you Aussies* and Kiwis*, too. Invent your own bloody language, you lazy sods! :p

*Aboriginals exempt.

dukebound85

Jan 13, 2009, 06:34 PM

What language was the Constitution written in? come on this is a easy one. real easy or how about this one, pull out your driver license.....look close is it in spanish?:p

That doesn't mean anything other than its the most common language:rolleyes:

It's not official. Really, show me where in the Constitution it says we have an official language? Until then, your claims have no validity.

I'll even spare you the time searching as it's not there. Period.

Please stop with this nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing it being the official language as well, but I'm not insisting that it is when I know for a fact it isn't, like you are doing.

hulugu

Jan 13, 2009, 09:56 PM

It's about time you Yanks* started paying us some bloody royalties for use of our language. And that goes for all you Aussies* and Kiwis*, too. Invent your own bloody language, you lazy sods! :p

*Aboriginals exempt.

Sure. We'll do that right after you start paying the French, Greeks, Germans and the Italians (closest modern equivalent to the Romans) for yours. ;)

garybUK

Jan 14, 2009, 05:23 AM

Sure. We'll do that right after you start paying the French, Greeks, Germans and the Italians (closest modern equivalent to the Romans) for yours. ;)

You know Romans were Italian... right? :) Also don't forget Indian.... pyjamas is a Indian word, as it Bungalow.

Our language also developed a lot because of the empire.

We have the same problems with illegal immigrants here in the UK trying to cross the border, they come in from Africa into Spain and then make their way upto France and try to get across the chunnel.

Though, unlike the US, we are a tiny island with about 61m people on it :-s 1/2 of the problem HAS to be the ridiculous immigration process the USA has! No wonder these pour souls have to resort to desperate measures. And don't forget they often put their lives on the line to get there!

mgguy

Jan 14, 2009, 06:51 AM

And don't forget they often put their lives on the line to get there!

And how, specifically, is the level of risk they take when violating the law relevant to decision making regarding detection, enforcement, and deportation?

hulugu

Jan 14, 2009, 10:27 AM

You know Romans were Italian... right? :)

No, I thought Romans were from Romania. ;)

Also don't forget Indian.... pyjamas is a Indian word, as it Bungalow.

Our language also developed a lot because of the empire.

That's one of the things I find fascinating about English as a language, it just steal words from other languages.

We have the same problems with illegal immigrants here in the UK trying to cross the border, they come in from Africa into Spain and then make their way upto France and try to get across the chunnel....

Wouldn't that be through the chunnel? Or across the channel? ;)

BoyBach

Jan 14, 2009, 11:19 AM

Sure. We'll do that right after you start paying the French, Greeks, Germans and the Italians (closest modern equivalent to the Romans) for yours. ;)

Or you could pay them for us and cut out the middleman! :p

hulugu

Jan 14, 2009, 11:24 AM

Or you could pay them for us and cut out the middleman! :p

This sounds like a fair deal. Can you make the down payment and we'll carry the loan?

skunk

Jan 14, 2009, 01:26 PM

This sounds like a fair deal. Can you make the down payment and we'll carry the loan?Your credit rating has just been downgraded to junk.

hulugu

Jan 14, 2009, 02:19 PM

Your credit rating has just been downgraded to junk.

Hah! You co-signed the loan.

Suckers.

KingYaba

Jan 14, 2009, 05:42 PM

I wish there were better statistics on this, but AFAIK, this is fairly limited.

From Gov. Perry: These cameras, paid for with millions of dollars made available by my office, will cover vast stretches of farm and ranchland located directly on the border where criminal activity is known to occur, and not the neighborhoods where families will continue to enjoy their privacy. Landowners will be able to monitor and defend their property from criminals who might endanger their families. --2006 (http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/5485/)

From an article in December:

Border cameras net 2 million hits, 1 drug bust, 6 illegal entries (7:49 a.m.)

Author: Brandi Grissom / For the Sun-News
Article ID: 11252503
Date: December 17, 2008
Publication: Las Cruces Sun-News (NM)
AUSTIN - Nearly 2 million Web hits and a thousand e-mails from watchers of Texas' latest border camera project resulted in one drug bust and reports of about a half-dozen illegal border crossings in the past month, officials said Tuesday. "We still feel very strongly that the program is righteous, that it's doing the right thing and that as it grows it will make our communities even safer," said Donald Reay, executive director of the Texas Border link (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LCSB&p_theme=lcsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(border%20camera)%20AND%20date(last%2031%20days)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=-31qzD&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22border%20camera%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no)

I don't care if these cameras are privately funded but using the state's money to help maintain this elaborate system is a poor idea. But hey, I did find some numbers (no news if the trespassers were caught) in one month's time with multi-million dollar equipment. I seriously think, and have said in the past, keeping boots on the ground is cheaper and more effective. These cameras are a waste (in my opinion).

takao

Jan 15, 2009, 09:48 AM

I don't care if these cameras are privately funded but using the state's money to help maintain this elaborate system is a poor idea. But hey, I did find some numbers (no news if the trespassers were caught) in one month's time with multi-million dollar equipment. I seriously think, and have said in the past, keeping boots on the ground is cheaper and more effective. These cameras are a waste (in my opinion).

cheaper, no way .. our border guard program here which covered only perhaps 200-300 km did cost around 36 million euro per year ... and that only because most are conscripts who get 400 euro per month

more effective: hell yes
during my 7 week turn in total it was around 700-800 illegal crossings... and the record somewhere holds around 1000-1200 in 6 weeks
not counting other prevented criminal crossings

i have to admit i laughed a little bit at the "about a half-dozen illegal border crossings in the past month" part

KingYaba

Jan 15, 2009, 12:24 PM

i have to admit i laughed a little bit at the "about a half-dozen illegal border crossings in the past month" part

I stand corrected on the cheaper part but I didn't clarify what I meant. We have a group called the Minutemen (http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/) who play border guard. Far as I know, they're all volunteers who walk in the desert lookin' for them illegals. I was thinking instead of sitting on computers watching video feeds these same people and farmers should simply get outside and walk... Personally, I'd rather have National Guard on the border and yes that's an expensive bill.

Half-dozen sightings caused a merge between my face and palm.

iObama

Jan 17, 2009, 09:46 PM

I didnt know it was illegal to be mexican....

It is if you crossed the border illegally. Or any other race, for that matter.

But there's a serious need of immigration reform in this country. It needs to be WAY easier to become a citizen than it is now. People forget why the majority of people cross the border: To get a job!

mgguy

Jan 17, 2009, 10:02 PM

But there's a serious need of immigration reform in this country. It needs to be WAY easier to become a citizen than it is now. People forget why the majority of people cross the border: To get a job!

Why should it be easier to become a citizen? Is there a shortage?

Why does it matter what the reason is for trespassing? Looking for work isn't an excuse, and it actually is harmful to citizens who are out of work and have to compete for jobs with those who are here illegally.

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 11:18 AM

Why should it be easier to become a citizen? Is there a shortage?

Why does it matter what the reason is for trespassing? Looking for work isn't an excuse, and it actually is harmful to citizens who are out of work and have to compete for jobs with those who are here illegally.
I don't feel threatened in my job hunting by illegals. Please do not speak for me.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 12:05 PM

I don't feel threatened in my job hunting by illegals. Please do not speak for me.

You might not but there are plenty who do, especially now with more people out of jobs. Unfortunately, even if Obama's stimulation package succeeds in creating more jobs, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants waiting there to take them. Anyone who loses out on one one of these jobs to an illegal immigrant will probably no feel as sanguine as you about competing will illegals for a job they need to support their family.

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 12:22 PM

You might not but there are plenty who do, especially now with more people out of jobs. Unfortunately, even if Obama's stimulation package succeeds in creating more jobs, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants waiting there to take them. Anyone who loses out on one one of these jobs to an illegal immigrant will probably no feel as sanguine as you about competing will illegals for a job they need to support their family.
Then perhaps they should take some personal responsibility to make themselves more marketable than an illegal immigrant? If you're an unskilled worker, how is it anyone else's fault but your own? A college education and upward mobility can be had by anyone in this great nation, right? Or perhaps they should have not made the decision to have a family to support if they don't have the ability to do so?

Funny how conservatives always bash liberals for saying that the government should provide help getting employment; yet then when it comes down to it, demand help from the government in getting employment.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 12:42 PM

Then perhaps they should take some personal responsibility to make themselves more marketable than an illegal immigrant? If you're an unskilled worker, how is it anyone else's fault but your own? A college education and upward mobility can be had by anyone in this great nation, right? Or perhaps they should have not made the decision to have a family to support if they don't have the ability to do so?

Funny how conservatives always bash liberals for saying that the government should provide help getting employment; yet then when it comes down to it, demand help from the government in getting employment.

Whatever their skill set and marketability, legal residents shouldn't have the additional burden of having to compete with someone for a job who is willing to take payment under the table or work for wages below the legal requirement.

Funny how liberals always bash conservatives for not supporting unionization and fair employment practices; yet then when it comes down to it, are willing to throw out all legal requirements when those guidelines might prove harmful to illegal immigrants and cause liberals to lose their votes.

.Andy

Jan 18, 2009, 02:40 PM

Whatever their skill set and marketability, legal residents shouldn't have the additional burden of having to compete with someone for a job who is willing to take payment under the table or work for wages below the legal requirement.
I was born in Australia. Middle class family. Never lacked food or healthcare growing up. Got to go to school and had support to go to university. Regular holidays. I'm educated, fed, and healthy.

Sometimes people who were born on pacific islands with none of the opportunity I had try to sail boats to Australia to find a better life for themselves and their children. We lock them up and send them back because it would be unfair for me to have to compete with them for work. Sometimes when I'm on my $3000 computer I take a sip of wine and imagine the gall of them to try to come here where they weren't born.

iJohnHenry

Jan 18, 2009, 04:27 PM

When were you planning on moving to one of those Pacific islands, the better to make room for others there??

.Andy

Jan 18, 2009, 04:44 PM

When were you planning on moving to one of those Pacific islands
If all goes to plan in two years.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 05:08 PM

Sometimes people who were born on pacific islands with none of the opportunity I had try to sail boats to Australia to find a better life for themselves and their children. We lock them up and send them back because it would be unfair for me to have to compete with them for work. Sometimes when I'm on my $3000 computer I take a sip of wine and imagine the gall of them to try to come here where they weren't born.

With your lavish lifestyle, I can see how you may feel guilty. But the people who are impacted the most by illegal immigration are those at the lower end of the income spectrum who have to compete for jobs, social services, living space, and other things that most upper income people already have. It is funny how the more well off are so willing to support the illegal work performed by immigrants, perhaps because they stand to directly benefit by the low-wage work the immigrants perform for them.

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 05:13 PM

Whatever their skill set and marketability, legal residents shouldn't have the additional burden of having to compete with someone for a job who is willing to take payment under the table or work for wages below the legal requirement.
Then better yourself so that you're not competing with them. Or choose not to have a family to support. America is the land of opportunity, and the only thing holding you back from success in this country is your own laziness. Or so I always hear from conservatives when the subject is the American poor. :rolleyes:

Funny how liberals always bash conservatives for not supporting unionization and fair employment practices; yet then when it comes down to it, are willing to throw out all legal requirements when those guidelines might prove harmful to illegal immigrants and cause liberals to lose their votes.
LOL... this response just reeks of the desperation of someone on the losing end of an argument. Where have I ever advocated throwing out all legal requirements for employment?

Also, provide proof that illegal immigrants vote in any more than statistically insignificant numbers. Come on... you made the claim. What's the matter? Are you fingers writing checks your ego can't cash, son?

.Andy

Jan 18, 2009, 05:23 PM

With your lavish lifestyle
Only to you would education, adequate food, and healthcare that I'm afforded by being born into a random country be considered lavish.

It is funny how the more well off are so willing to support the illegal work performed by immigrants, perhaps because they stand to directly benefit by the low-wage work the immigrants perform for them.
As expected. A beautifully executed mgguy talking point strawman :). I don't support immigrants working anywhere illegally. Largely because they're ripe for exploitation. Let them come and let them be entitled to full benefits and pay taxes as everyone else is afforded. I don't see policing borders to protect my quality of life at the expense of others anything but reprehensible.

I don't think that just because I was born on one side of an arbitrary line that I should be any more entitled to healthcare, education, food, and opportunity that those who were born on the other. You might be able to wallow guilt free in the situation you've been born into whilst others struggle.

Then better yourself so that you're not competing with them. Or choose not to have a family to support. America is the land of opportunity, and the only thing holding you back from success in this country is your own laziness. Or so I always hear from conservatives when the subject is the American poor.
Isn't it heartwarming to see mgguy caring about the poor?

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 05:33 PM

Where have I ever advocated throwing out all legal requirements for employment?

Also, provide proof that illegal immigrants vote in any more than statistically insignificant numbers. Come on... you made the claim. What's the matter? Are you fingers writing checks your ego can't cash, son?

And where did I ever say that the government should provide help getting employment and then demand help from the government in getting employment? I answered your stupid comment with another one to make a point, but I can see you didn't get the sarcasm and took it seriously, yet again.

It's not just illegal immigrants who vote but also the huge and growing population of Hispanic voters who support their causes, many of which were illegal before the last amnesty was granted. Granting legal status and eventual citizenship to 20 million additional illegal immigrants would result in a huge and statistically significant (p less than .0001) ) increase in the number of voters who would be inclined to vote for those who support further immigration for their family members in their home country.

Your argument might have more credibility if you would refrain from making personal snide remarks. I am not your son, and I assure you I don't need to get my ego stroked by engaging in such juvenile exchanges with you.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 05:50 PM

I don't support immigrants working anywhere illegally.

...

I don't think that just because I was born on one side of an arbitrary line that I should be any more entitled to healthcare, education, food, and opportunity that those who were born on the other. You might be able to wallow guilt free in the situation you've been born into whilst others struggle.

I think we have reached agreement on the primary point that immigrants should not be able to work here illegally.

I can see how a sense of guilt might make someone want to change the law and allow more immigrants than the law currently allows. I might even consider that effort commendable. But I have a problem with those (perhaps not you) who would try to achieve that goal by disregarding our current immigration laws, which were passed by a majority of our elected representatives.

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 05:51 PM

And where did I ever say that the government should provide help getting employment and then demand help from the government in getting employment?
You'll need to start making sense before I can even begin to respond. Coherent sentences please! How can the government demand help from the government? And why does the government even need to seek employment to begin with? :confused:

I answered your stupid comment with another one to make a point, but I can see you didn't get the sarcasm and took it seriously, yet again.
You must have missed the sarcasm in my stupid comment which was a response to your original stupid comment that you apparently took seriously. Yet again.

It's not just illegal immigrants who vote but also the huge and growing population of Hispanic voters who support their causes, many of which were illegal before the last amnesty was granted. Granting legal status and eventual citizenship to 20 million additional illegal immigrants would result in a huge and statistically significant (p less than .0001) ) increase in the number of voters who would be inclined to vote for those who support further immigration for their family members in their home country.
Again I ask: Do you have any proof that illegal immigrants vote in any statistically significant way? You've made this assertion twice now, but as far as I can tell, it's yet another strawman for you to flog. Provide proof. Kay?

You might have more credibility if you would refrain from making personal snide remarks. I am not your son, and I assure you I don't need to get my ego stroked by engaging in such juvenile exchanges with you.Not a Top Gun fan, I see...

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 06:05 PM

You'll need to start making sense before I can even begin to respond. Coherent sentences please! How can the government demand help from the government? And why does the government even need to seek employment to begin with? :confused:

Your confusion is getting tiresome. Please read your own earlier post (post #107) and you will realize that you are the one who originally constructed that sentence, not me. I merely paraphrased you.

zap2

Jan 18, 2009, 06:58 PM

You might not but there are plenty who do, especially now with more people out of jobs. Unfortunately, even if Obama's stimulation package succeeds in creating more jobs, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants waiting there to take them. Anyone who loses out on one one of these jobs to an illegal immigrant will probably no feel as sanguine as you about competing will illegals for a job they need to support their family.

He is a radical idea.....we deal with the problem, and not just its effects. End NAFTA, help Mexico work its economy so its not awful, and we are off to a good start!

Of course, we won't get support for that idea now....hopefuly after these rough times in US, we can convince people to offer help worldwide!

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 07:05 PM

Your confusion is getting tiresome. Please read your own earlier post (post #107) and you will realize that you are the one who originally constructed that sentence, not me. I merely paraphrased you.
That was a piss-poor job of paraphrasing then. Let's examine the sentence structure:
Funny how conservatives always bash liberals for saying that the government should provide help getting employment; yet then when it comes down to it, demand help from the government in getting employment.
Notice how I use the word *conservatives* as the subject. My sentence states that it is *conservatives* that bash liberals for saying etc etc.

Now lets look at what you wrote:
And where did I ever say that the government should provide help getting employment and then demand help from the government in getting employment?
Your subject is *the government*. Your sentence states that the government should provide etc etc.

Perhaps you should learn the English language before condemning illegal immigrants. Aren't you one of those who would demand competency in English of those who live here?

My confusion is entirely justified. Yours is faked to make a point. Again, I ask: Provide proof that illegal immigrants vote in statistically significant numbers.

And while your at it, maybe you could explain how the government needs help from the government in seeking employment...

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 07:39 PM

That was a piss-poor job of paraphrasing then. Let's examine the sentence structure:

Notice how I use the word *conservatives* as the subject. My sentence states that it is *conservatives* that bash liberals for saying etc etc.

Now lets look at what you wrote:

Your subject is *the government*. Your sentence states that the government should provide etc etc.

Again, I ask: Provide proof that illegal immigrants vote in statistically significant numbers.

And while your at it, maybe you could explain how the government needs help from the government in seeking employment...

Nice try, but your are wrong again. My paraphrase of your initial comment was as I would respond as a conservative taking issue with your claim that conservatives would bash liberals for saying that "the government should provide, etc." It was that part of the sentence (having government as the noun), which YOU wrote, that you said didn't make sense. Now you are trying to attribute it to me, but it doesn't stick.

Your reference to whether illegal immigrants vote in statistically significant numbers suggest to me that you are not well trained in statistical procedures, probability theory, or research methodology. Statistical significance has more to do with sampling error, not the actual number of illegal immigrants who vote. In the case of one election, sampling error has no relevance because you would not take repeated samplings of the same election but rather would count all votes not only some of them. Neither would you generalize the results from that election because the votes and the outcome would speak for itself. The point of the election is not to estimate how the total population would have voted but rather how those who voted actually voted--there is not generalizing of the result to an underlying broader population. Perhaps you meant to refer to the meaningfulness of the number of illegal immigrants who might have voted. If so, that is not a statistical issue as much as a practical one. In close elections, even 200 fraudulent votes can make a difference in the outcome.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 07:51 PM

Aren't you one of those who would demand competency in English of those who live here?

No. Is this one of the straw men you keep referring to?

mactastic

Jan 18, 2009, 08:12 PM

Nice try, but your are wrong again. My paraphrase of your initial comment was as I would respond as a conservative taking issue with your claim that conservatives would bash liberals for saying that "the government should provide, etc." It was that part of the sentence (having government as the noun), which YOU wrote, that you said didn't make sense. Now you are trying to attribute it to me, but it doesn't stick.
LOL... You're deliberate obtuse-ness isn't fooling anyone.

Your reference to whether illegal immigrants vote in statistically significant numbers suggest to me that you are not well trained in statistical procedures, probability theory, or research methodology. Statistical significance has more to do with sampling error, not the actual number of illegal immigrants who vote. In the case of one election, sampling error has no relevance because you would not take repeated samplings of the same election but rather would count all votes not only some of them. Neither would you generalize the results from that election because the votes and the outcome would speak for itself. The point of the election is not to estimate how the total population would have voted but rather how those who voted actually voted--there is not generalizing of the result to an underlying broader population. Perhaps you meant to refer to the meaningfulness of the number of illegal immigrants who might have voted. If so, that is not a statistical issue as much as a practical one. In close elections, even 200 fraudulent votes can make a difference in the outcome.
So PROVE IT! Show me some "meaningfullness" that proves that illegal immigrants vote in anything other than minute quantities. Showing me one example doesn't cut it. I've asked you numerous times, and thus far you have done everything in your power to avoid the question. Back up your assertions, sir. Or can you not do so?

No. Is this one of the straw men you keep referring to?
Actually it's a question. Do you not know the difference? Are you a fan of English-only legislation, or not? It's a simple question.

hulugu

Jan 18, 2009, 08:16 PM

He is a radical idea.....we deal with the problem, and not just its effects. End NAFTA, help Mexico work its economy so its not awful, and we are off to a good start!

Of course, we won't get support for that idea now....hopefuly after these rough times in US, we can convince people to offer help worldwide!

Now, that's a radical idea.

Illegal immigration is a problem for a multitude of reasons, but I think the threat to American jobs is widely and consistently overstated.

Illegal immigration is a problem because it creates a black-market for people that foments abuse and provides cover for drug trafficking. A long-term solution is economic support for the originating countries, but short and mid-term solutions will include enforcement and some form of amnesty.

mgguy

Jan 18, 2009, 08:55 PM

So PROVE IT! Show me some "meaningfullness" that proves that illegal immigrants vote in anything other than minute quantities. Showing me one example doesn't cut it. I've asked you numerous times, and thus far you have done everything in your power to avoid the question. Back up your assertions, sir. Or can you not do so?

Here's an example: A recent voter fraud investigation in Bexar County, Texas, discovered more than 300 noncitizens had registered to vote and that 41 of them had actually cast a ballot. This is arguably a small number, but the number compounds when you sum the incidents occurring across jurisdictions. The occurrence of voting by illegal immigrants and non-citizens would be expected to exceed the number of cases that have been detected and reported. Since every legitimate vote that is countered by a fraudulent one is important to the person whose vote was nullified and enough to change election outcomes, this one example can be considered meaningful and enough to prove my point. I'll leave it to you to find additional examples.