Illegal Immigration- what to do?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2023 14:24
VIEWED: 9966
PAGE 6 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* edited one more time to add: I want to specifically say that when I say immigrant in the preceding paragraph what I mean is the subset of immigrants who are not white. This is for the simple reason that I have not seen any argument from the "build a wall" folks that we have a European immigrant problem. For the most part, the complaint is about Mexicans.

But go back in U.S. history far enough, and you'll see the same "keep them out" argument used against the Irish, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans. I get the feeling that the prejudice sort of defaults to whoever is coming in the largest numbers.

Now it's the Hispanics from various parts of the Americas. Over 50% of immigrants, legal or illegal, come from Mexico, and a big bunch more pass through Mexico from south of there. Add into the mix that it's easier for them to get here illegally, since they can "just" walk across the border rather than having to go through seaports or airports with their tighter security, and the potential to focus on them as the main immigration problem just increases. There's probably some amount of racial prejudice in there as well, but I don't think it's a main driver of attitudes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, July 17, 2006 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But go back in U.S. history far enough, and you'll see the same "keep them out" argument used against the Irish, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans. I get the feeling that the prejudice sort of defaults to whoever is coming in the largest numbers.

Now it's the Hispanics from various parts of the Americas. Over 50% of immigrants, legal or illegal, come from Mexico, and a big bunch more pass through Mexico from south of there. Add into the mix that it's easier for them to get here illegally, since they can "just" walk across the border rather than having to go through seaports or airports with their tighter security, and the potential to focus on them as the main immigration problem just increases. There's probably some amount of racial prejudice in there as well, but I don't think it's a main driver of attitudes.

The Irish and Italians were not considered white when they first started emigrating in large numbers. There's some books on the subject of how immigrant groups like the Irish were initially discriminated against until they were perceived as being white and then they joined in the discrimination. It's difficult to distinguish between ethnicity and religion in the 19th century prejudice. A lot of the anti-immigrant groups were anti-Catholic as well (I'm specifically thinking about the Know Nothings).

So, yeah, it's convoluted. It seems like the grandkids of the immigrants are sometimes the ones that are most vociferous against new immigrants. I almost get the feeling that every generation wants to shut the door on the next generation.

* edited to add: Here's a quote that I'm sure many of you have read (it's gotten some publicity recently).

Quote:

... why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?

I don't find it too much of a stretch to replace the German people being talked about in the quote with Mexican and the language with Spanish. It's a quote that, with minor updating, could be uttered today (and many variants are being uttered). It's from Ben Franklin back in the 1750s (his rant is even more surprising when you remember that he printed the first German language newspaper in America back in the 1730s).

We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

GEEZER

Monday, July 17, 2006 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

"Dog in the manger" seems to be an enduring American paradigm. Like the old saw, "An environmentalist is someone who has already built a house in the mountains."

People are always afraid of losing what they have. It's not really an unreasonable fear. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there who will try to convince you that you're going to lose it to the immigrants, or the liberals, or the conservatives, or the social welfare system, or the corporations, or whatever, just to advance their agenda. As others have noted here, that's what threatens any chance of actual intelligent discussion of the issue.

My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 17, 2006 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"Dog in the manger" seems to be an enduring American paradigm. Like the old saw, "An environmentalist is someone who has already built a house in the mountains."

People are always afraid of losing what they have. It's not really an unreasonable fear. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there who will try to convince you that you're going to lose it to the immigrants, or the liberals, or the conservatives, or the social welfare system, or the corporations, or whatever, just to advance their agenda. As others have noted here, that's what threatens any chance of actual intelligent discussion of the issue.

My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well said. Only it seems like such a slim hope, methinks our national bullshit meter is burnt out.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, July 17, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well said. Only it seems like such a slim hope, methinks our national bullshit meter is burnt out.

Agreed, with a caveat. During the Schiavo proceedings polls showed that a strong majority of Americans thought it should've been a non-issue. That the husband probably knew Terri's wishes best and that she should be allowed to die with dignity. In other words, a national debate on the issue would've had little resonance (IMO). However, if you simply watched the news stations you would've got the impression that the vast majority of Americans wanted a national debate on the issue. That there was resonance. I guess the lesson may be that it doesn't really matter if the bullshit meter goes off. The ones who get to write the narratives forgot where that particular meter was located.

* edited to add: I think I'll finally get around to addressing the thread title. What to do? Well, here's a good place to start:

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006
061800613.html

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

I recommend the entire article (if you have the time). There are some fascinating examples of what happens when the government actually enforces immigration law. And who ends up complaining. I do have one nitpick with the article, but it's pretty minor.

** link to WaPo article found via Common Dreams

DANFAN

Monday, July 17, 2006 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a very hard time learning languages. All that rote memorization! I used to be fluent in French, and I can stumble my way around German but that doesn't help when everyone around me is speaking Tagalog or Cantonese.

Forgive me for wandering off topic a bit...

Do you find yourself in the company of people who speak Tagalog often? I am trying to learn Tagalog. I too am struggling with learning a new language. My 51 year old brain has a hard time with new linguistic concepts.

As for fluency... I have a story about that. A friend I work with is retired Navy. His job in the Navy was to listen in on comms chatter between Russian jets. As he was wandering past my office one day, I heard him singing a Russian song. I stopped him and asked just how fluent he was in Russian. He said "Fluency is a word that was avoided in the Navy language classes... its too hard to define. The Navy grades your competency in a foreign language at 5 levels. Level 1 is crude basic conversation like 'where is the bathroom.' Level 3 is functional, everyday conversation. Level 5 is the ability to converse easily with a college professor in his field of expertise. I was trained to Level 3 in Russian. But I consider myself fluent in Russian Fighter Pilot!"

For some reason, his last comment tickled me.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:23 PM

A couple of comments

Quote:
An eager flow of immigrants has been the fuel source that's driven our country since it's inception. I fail to see the advantage in shutting that down.

Sarge, I don't think you can make a case for immigration making us special, different, or more advanced. Europe -including England- has a long history of emigration. Canada experienced less immigration than the USA. Japan has virtually no immigration. And yet these nations are at least as advanced and with a comparable living standard... and arguably more advanced and more comfortable. I don't think you can say that immigration per se made us any better than what we would have been without it. So it's fair to say that immigration has POPULATED this nation.... but that's about it. Do we want or need a higher population?

And there is another question- assuming that the third generation assimilates, how diverse a current population can a nation tolerate and still maintain it's identity? Canada is still struggling with Quebec. India has 400 languages, but one common language (English). the USSR fractured into it's smaller parts again, despite decades of attempted integration. Ditto Yugoslavia and (I propose) Iraq.

I see Jews and Lebanese reacting to the current Israeli-Hizbollah conflict very differently depending on their heritage... but neither party is reacting like an "American" ie from a USA viewpoint.

Soup- Thanks for the link. I get squirmy whenever I find myself on the same "side" as exploitative meatpacking companies, mega-farms and sweatshops. To argue that people should come here to get exploited is a little like saying that the Marianas benefit from their sweatshops exporting directly to the USA (no customs, no tariffs). But the only thing I see happening is a few people getting very very rich.

In my humble opinion, the only way to resolve the problem is to raise the minimum wage and to enforce working conditions AND immigration status. Exploitation is exploitation, whether it takes place here or someplace else.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:27 PM

Quote:
Do you find yourself in the company of people who speak Tagalog often? I am trying to learn Tagalog. I too am struggling with learning a new language. My 51 year old brain has a hard time with new linguistic concepts.

The language du jour follows my workplace population. A few recent retirements made Tagalog less spoken than Mandarin.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Soup- Thanks for the link. I get squirmy whenever I find myself on the same "side" as exploitative meatpacking companies, mega-farms and sweatshops. To argue that people should come here to get exploited is a little like saying that the Marianas benefit from their sweatshops exporting directly to the USA (no customs, no tariffs). But the only thing I see happening is a few people getting very very rich.

In my humble opinion, the only way to resolve the problem is to raise the minimum wage and to enforce working conditions AND immigration status. Exploitation is exploitation, whether it takes place here or someplace else.

SignyM,

Yeah. That was the one nitpick I had with the article. They trot out the old, "undocumented workers do the jobs Americans won't," argument. To me we can't know this (anecdotal experiments - such as the gardener experiment one reporter ran - aside). What is definitely true is that American born workers won't do those jobs for the compensation that the employers provide.

Employers need to pay their workers a living wage. We need to enforce our existing immigration policy before we even think about revising it. Providing health care for employees should not be the responsibility of employers, the federal governement should handle that. Every hourly worker should be able to join a union. It should not be cheaper to relocate your company, or a portion of your company, over the border (which is the big stick that companies can use to threaten workers to agree to unacceptable conditions). The second a company relocates outside of the country they should lose all their tax exemptions and should be treated like a foreign based company. American companies should be able to pay their workers a living wage, provide a safe work environment and leave an acceptable footprint on the environment while still being able to compete with foreign companies. We need to do whatever it takes, trade agreements wise, to ensure that. We need to make it easier for people to move into the middle class. Upward mobility, not this trickle down crap that results in increased stratification.

If employers aren't hiring undocumented workers then their main reason for crossing the border evaporates. To borrow a phrase, we don't have an illegal immigration problem as much as we have an illegal employer problem.

* edited to add: The thing I've never understood is why we don't negotiate from our strengths when it comes to international trade. It seems to me that our main goal is trying to make it easier for our own companies to sell in foreign markets and offshore their manufacturing and assembly operations. In other words, we put ourselves in a position of weakness by drooling over what other countries have. We should instead be hyping up what we have and that's a consumer base that likes to buy crap and spends a lot of money on crap. You should have to pay through the nose to be able to sell your products in the US because it'll be worth it.

Our negotiations should go something like this, "We have millions of people who want to spend billions of dollars on crap. You make crap. How much is it worth it to you to be able to sell your crap to our crap-buyers?"

Although, we've kind of neutered our ability to negotiate by our debt situation. Thanks a lot assholes.

* edited to change employees to employers

RUE

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:39 AM

Hi Soupcatcher,

I know you weren't replying to me, but that's an interesting idea. (The 'pay for the right to sell crap' one.)

One thing I wonder about is the wisdom of cheap imports. As wages go down in the US, could cheap imports artificially inflate the standard of living? (You make less but you pay less for junk.) And if they can, is / where is the endpoint of such a system?

Quote:
American companies should be able to pay their workers a living wage, provide a safe work environment and leave an acceptable footprint on the environment while still being able to compete with foreign companies.

Some other places manage (not all - China uses prison labor and is in the process of detroying its environment.) if those other places can, why can't the US?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE