Illegal Immigration- what to do?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2023 14:24
VIEWED: 9966
PAGE 8 of 9

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

KANEMAN

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:36 AM

The term used should be illegal alien..It is the only term used (for someone who enters the country illegally)in any federal law or regulation..not undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, etc. Recently lou dobbs had a story that claimed illegal aliens make up 33% of the US prison population. I've seen it stated as 25% but never that high. So when someone says we shouldn't stop people from working....It doesn't seem like they are coming here to work. That coupled with the fact that 46% of illegals are on some sort of welfare...illegally. It starts to get ridiculous.

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, July 24, 2006 6:52 AM

Rue,

I've been looking at language proficiency data from the 2000 census. Well, to back up for a second, I've been trying to get a feel for real data on undocumented immigration. For the most part, when I hear critics with a national media platform, the threats they rant about are pretty vague. Complaints such as, "They don't learn English," without any hard numbers to back up that assertion. Or even an acknowledgement that language proficiency changes over time. I realize that there is no desire on the part of many people to quantify their rants. It's enough that they get a large number thinking, "I don't want people in this country who can't be bothered to learn English." But, since we're members of the reality based community here, I think it's important to put some numbers on the issue and figure out the scope. Some of the questions I've been mulling over: how does the number of people living in the country who don't speak English compare with past generations, what level of proficiency is necessary, what are the situations when a higher level of proficiency is desirable. Stuff like that.

The census breaks language proficiency down into four categories (which I'm guessing is self-reported): none, not well, well, and very well. They only looked at the population 5 and over.

2000 census
Total: 262,375,152
English only: 82.1%
Speak English very well: 9.8%
Speak English well: 3.9%
Speak English not well: 2.9%
Do not speak English: 1.3%

1990 census
Do not speak English: 0.8%

1890 census
Unable to speak English: 3.62%

These are the only three years I've been able to find so far. More for, hmmmmm, rather than anything else at this point.

There are some jobs, IMO, where only a rudimentary grasp of English is necessary. I don't really need to carry on a conversation when I'm buying beer at a convenience store, or getting gas, etc. And I kind of see it as the job of the employer to screen for proficiency based on the nature of the job. You mentioned in an earlier post that it was considered rude to speak any language other than English at work, which seems sensible to me. In those situations you'd probably want someone to at least speak English well.

But, until I read the link you posted, I had only been thinking in terms of proficiency at work. Getting accurately diagnosed clearly requires precision of language, only speaking English very well perhaps. In that case, there's 8.1% of the population that are problematic. That's a pretty big number. I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Maybe having a translator hotline that many hospitals can tap into, or printed flash cards to aid in the diagnosis.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I assume that most everyone who speaks at least some English is improving their proficiency over time. Given enough time they moved up to, at least, the well category. But if an emergency happens before they get to a certain level of proficiency then we need to be able to ensure the quality of the diagnosis using some type of assistance.

Once again, I've kind of gone on longer than I thought. Where I'm coming from in all this is that I know people who can't stand hearing someone speak any language other than English. It doesn't matter what the context is. Even if they are just overhearing a conversation on the street. It ticks them off. They're offended that they can't understand, even if it's none of their business. I'm not sure if it's the arrogance of the monolingual or what but it's an attitude I find hilarious. I come from the point of view that I have no problem with varying levels of proficiency as long as I can carry out whatever business I need to.

FLAKBAIT

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:30 PM

There are a number of things about the illegal immigration situation that really bug me. I think a big problem with the debate is that the pro-immigrant side relies primarily on unrealistic ideals and the anti-immigrant side comes out looking racist. Neither side has reliable numbers to look at. Chances are I'm going to look racist, but this is based on everything I've seen and heard in my life.

Living in Texas, I meet a lot of immigrants. I've worked with them, gone to school with them, hung out with them, dated them, and so forth. One of my groomsmen was Mexican. I have no problem with the people but their presense here brings up a few problems, and my opinion on their moving here in the first place is pretty low. I don't think it has much to do with seeking out a better life and opportunity; they come here because they can cross the border, have half a dozen kids for free, then get a bunch more free stuff. For the most part, they're not really contributing much other than manual labor that I'm sure could be fulfilled if employers bothered to look. They can get ultra cheap housing that legal immigrants and natural born citizens haven't even heard of. They go to free health clinics that we can't qualify for. The only ones who learn English are the kids in school, who generally have to translate for their parents. I don't really care that they don't learn English, but the assertion that most do or even try is way off base.

My wife works for the state immunization department. She recently visited a hospital in Dallas that delivers something like 10,000 illegal immigrant children per year. The place is a mess, and none of those kids get their immunizations, because their mother didn't stick around in the hospital long enough to fill out a form she couldn't read, and the nurses are too swamped to do any of the paperwork properly. You can imagine who foots the bill when those kids get sick later down the line.

In a car wreck with an illegal immigrant? You're the one screwed, not them.

The problem with waiting for the Mexican government to do something is that they won't and never will. They have one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and it's not in their interest to change anything. It would be interesting to see if all those construction workers and janitors that cross the border to soak up our social programs could change their own system if they just stayed home. They seem to think that they only thing it takes to be a citizen is the "harrowing journey" across the border. You get over, you're a citizen, and suddenly you're entitled to all this free crap that full citizens don't get. Meanwhile, the people who actually apply and go through the process get the shaft.

Just my .02.

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:08 PM

Hi Soupcather,

This thread seems to have thoughtfully progressed while I've been away.

I did want mention an experience I had with the other situation you pointed out, which is employees' English proficiency. I once got very ill with E. coli O157-H7. (It's the bug that killed some kids in the Pacific NW about a dozen years back.) Because the closest ER was in a Hispanic neighborhood, it was staffed with an intake clerk who was Spanish fluent, but not English. I could just not get it across that I was shitting massive quantities of blood and having gut pain that put me on the floor. In accommodating the Spanish-speaking community, Anglophones (like me) were put at risk.

Thinking back to my grandparents' time, and looking around, I have regretfully concluded (in an inexact unquantified way) that the need to speak proficient English is greater than it used to be.

I see that a lot of that comes from the need to interact with government (driver's licenses, taxes, benefits, schools) in ways that didn't exist before; and also with the medical system (which is more effective but more interactive than in my grandparents' day).

As long as people speak passable English, I think it's great to hear other languages when you're out and about. But English speaking is a must.

--------------------------------------------------

Please forgive my very inappropriate humor, but the 'self-reported' English proficiency results reminded me of some airline instructions I saw once. In the middle of the instructions, was a sentence in bold font that said "If you do not speak English or cannot otherwise understand these instructions, please report it to the nearest flight attendant."

--------------------------------------------------

My experience with 'illegals' per se is that most are here to work hard. But there is a significant fraction that does want to game the system

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:05 AM

Rue,

(re: airline instructions).

That's a pretty chilling story about the intake clerk. It wouldn't seem to be too hard to mandate that at least one person on duty at a hospital speak English very well (although, since I know very little about hospitals it may be a lot harder than I think). And back up this policy with hefty fines. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the problems with our current immigration policy is that we have, for the most part, stopped enforcing it with respect to employers. In instances where the inability to communicate can result in death or bodily harm I think it is the employer's responsibility to make sure effective communication can occur.

I'm wondering if learning English could be used as a carrot. For example, passing high school exit type exams in English proficiency could cut 2 years off the time you have to wait to apply for citizenship (or maybe a lower level test, I'm not sure how many native born Americans could test out at 12th grade English). Or something along those lines. I don't know what level of proficiency is required right now during the interview. But some way to make tangible the intangible belief that an immigrant will be better off if they strive for English fluency.

So some combination of a policy that identifies jobs where a high degree of proficiency in English is necessary, levies heavy fines for employers who do not meet those standards, and provides incentives for those who improve their language skills (only for those between a certain age - 18 to 50 say).

flakbait,

Thanks for the information. You may be right that my expectations that immigrants (whether legal or illegal) are working to learn English is unrealistic. My experience has been more with families who have been in the country for a while and so, even though they might have thick accents, they have been working on their English for years.

The main reason, at least IMO, that the debate is characterized as between racists and open-borders-lovers is because of who actually sparked the national debate. Illegal immigration as a problem was championed for years by fringe racists. The threat of a less white America has been a great recruitment tool for white supremacist groups for a long time. And they have developed quite a litany of complaints. So when the various Minutemen groups, who have ties to white supremacist organizations, starting getting positive national attention by parroting many of these complaints that had previously been relegated to hate groups it raised red flags. It's what we (in my field) talk about as first-to-market. The first company to sell a product that accomplishes some new function defines what products of that type should be (until a - ugh, pardon while I hold back a gag - paradigm shift - phew, I got it out - occurs). The Minutemen groups were first-to-market and so the terms of the debate were defined using racist beliefs. I firmly believe that a majority of those who think the Minutemen are on the right track have no clue of the roots they are supporting. To me, part of the big problem with the immigration debate is that much of the material being used was developed over a period of years by folks who had a decidedly fringe agenda - rahowa (or, as I like to think of it, WASP jihad).

The open borders part is just part and parcel of the American right's way of defining debate. Don't agree that we should go to war in Iraq? You love Saddam. Don't think that we should hunt down immigrants illegally crossing the border? You want to let them all in. Granted, there are people who think we should have an open border policy. But they are a tiny fraction of the population and have no power whatsoever to enact that agenda. It's as close to a straw man as you are likely to get. I feel pretty confident in stating that no one will get elected to national office campaigning on the platform of opening the borders. But it's a useful way to marginalize any critique of the racist demogoguery spouted by the Minutemen.

It is

FLAKBAIT

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:32 PM

Excellent points about how polarized the debate becomes. I think that frequently, the national media is a hinderance rather than a help to debates over any issue of importance. After all, it's the extremists (of all sides) who yell and scream the loudest, and hence get the most attention. It's hard for anyone of reason to get a word in edgewise.

I've wondered why no one (that I've heard anyway) has brought up the possibility of changing the citizenship requirements. Make it so at least one of your parents has to be a legal citizen for auto citizenship at birth? And as far as I can tell there are no real incentives for becoming a citizen; they're getting services and jobs now, without having to go through all that bother. Why even sign up for a guest worker program, when you can do it indefintely already? Obviously none of that addresses all the illegals here already, but at least we could a) stem the tide coming in and b) make following the rules something to be desired.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:20 PM

Here's an interesting story about not knowing English: In Riverside, an Indian (from India) businessman thought he heard suspicious noises from his property (I as I recall it was a warehouse) and sent his cousin out with a gun to look for the intruder while he called 911. It was night, and when the police showed up they saw an armed man prowling the property. They called out for him to drop his weapon... but since he didn't understand English and thought he was facing intruders he apparently raised his gun in defense. Needless to say, he was shot and killed by the police. There are a LOT of morals to this story but one of them is that not knowing English can be immediately fatal.

I also want to quote a friend who said "There are no nations, only language groups." While I think that's an overstatement (religion is another coalescing factor) many nations (like Poland) have disappeared off the map entirely only to reappear later. The national identity couldn't be erased by erasing the "homeland", its borders and its power structure. Obviously the group identity was maintained by some other factor, and that appears to be most closely related to language. If you want to make a group disappear, kill its language (as the English attempted to do with Gaelic and Welsh). If you want to try to create a group, give it a common language... as India did with Hindi and English

IMO the need for a common language (needed by inhabitants as well as needed by the group) should be so self-evident as to be undebatable. Languages are meant for communication- they work best when they ARE common and they work poorly when they don't provide a common forum.

Everybody should be able to speak the common language moderately well. Not speaking the common language isolates people to their own little group, sometimes to their small community and sometimes even just to their immediate family.

My MIL never learned English very well, and was subject to her abusive husband for years because she was isolated ... by many factors, first and foremost by her husband and secondly by lack of language. I see this pattern in many first-generation couples, where speaking English preserves the male power structure and learning English upsets the balance. I've seen men actively sabotage their wives efforts to learn English (I'm friends with an ESL community college tutor). If I'm living in Sacramento and I only speak Hmong I'm isolated to my own little group. I may not know that 13-year-olds being kidnapped into marriage is not allowed, and even if I did I might not be able to appeal to CPS. The point is that not knowing the common language makes a person vulnerable in many ways- medically, legally, economically, and socially.

Perhaps one thing to do is to think about what the process of immigration SHOULD be and then figure out how much money we are willing to spend to support such a process and what the rate-limiting step would be. That would tell us how many tens or hundred or thousands of LEGAL immigrants could be processed each year.

As part of that I personally don't see any reason why immigrants should evade a regular, orderly process which includes intensive English instruction.

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:24 AM

So (here I am talking to myself!) the first thing we need to do is to handle "temporary visitors" better. At least half the illegals came in legally, on various temporary visas and so forth, while others slip over the border. And then they disappear into the system.

How do these people disappear so thoroughly? Some of them find above-ground jobs, others work in the underground economy, and still others are supported by friends and family. It should be relatively easy to find the white-market job holders (if we can get past business' kicking and whining) but people who dive into the underground economy or who are supported by others are impossible to ferret out. Heck, we can't even find mass murderers.. the ten most wanted... so what can we do?

The reason why I'm on this kick is because unless there is a good reason to think that you will be caught and punished for being here illegally there is no incentive to actually go through the process.

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

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:01 AM

We had something similar happen in San Jose where a Vietnamese woman was shot by police for brandishing a long vegetable peeler after they entered her apartment. The city ended up having to pay the family more than a million dollars.

I agree that one priority of our immigration policy should be fast-tracking English proficiency. Maybe we could learn something from the LDS. When my cousin went on a mission to Russia I was amazed at how quickly he went from zero proficiency to at least being able to do whatever it is they do on missions. I'm not sure what resources they bring to bear, but it appears they have it figured out. I wouldn't support, however, just farming it out to the LDS. Kind of rubs my separation of church and state the wrong way (which is a whole other topic). How to fund a program of this nature? Not sure. I'm kind of leery of using fines for employer offenses to pay for immigration services but it's a place to start. We do it with taxes on cigarettes. Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. I imagine that if we actually started enforcing penalties against employers we could generate quite a lot of money.

I like the idea of revising our immigration policy, but you both (flakbait and SignyM) raise good points about, "what's in it for the immigrant?" How to make getting on the track to citizenship desirable enough to get people to enroll in the program? I can imagine some type of points system where you gain or lose time to application based on behavior. Fluent in English? A year less. Let someone live in your house who is in the country illegally? A year more. Get convicted of a felony? Five years more. Report on an employer who hires illegal immigrants? Ding ding ding, jackpot (okay, that last one was a bit facetious but see where I'm going?). Although now I'm starting to think about indentured servitude, so maybe not.

RUE

Monday, July 31, 2006 3:41 AM

I'm just catching up on topics of interest.

I thought the idea of ^ English proficiency v time to legal status is GREAT! And it seems like the idea that it's good to know English has been converged on from several different directions.

That's why I keep coming back to RWE. I keep learning awesome stuff, and:

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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