Illegal Immigration- what to do?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2023 14:24
VIEWED: 9966
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:12 PM

After much consideration, I've come down on the side against illegal immigation. But like "the war on terror" doesn't (in my mind) meand a "war on terrorist", fighting illegal immigration does not necessarily mean fighting illegal immigrants.

What to do?

The floor is yours.

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

GEEZER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:44 PM

Whatever we do will have to involve dialog with Mexico. Most illegal immigrants come from there, and most from other countries pass through there on their way here.

Not much can be done along this line until the election controversy there gets settled.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:50 PM

How about we let them in legally? Then they wouldn't be illegal. Hmmm. That was simple. Next problem?

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
How about we let them in legally? Then they wouldn't be illegal. Hmmm. That was simple. Next problem?

Haha. I second.

I entered the country once illegally. I left the country for my honeymoon and reentered with my student visa. Turns out marriage to an American automatically invalidates all non-immigrant visas (including my student visa). The only way I could have reentered the country legally was to wait 6 months abroad while they processed my green card. I wouldn't have been able to come back to school on time. So I lied and said my husband was Canadian, and they let me in with my student visa.

Eventually my illegal entry was discovered, and I paid a fine of $90. I was legally allowed to enter as a student and a wife of an American, but I couldn't go on a honeymoon and just come back in.

I'm all for getting rid of silly, convoluted laws that artificially create crime and "illegality."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:17 PM

Sarge- There is still the minor issue that even "legal" immigrants aren't citizens and as such have no political representation. How is that different from living in a nation ruled by a generalissimo, where you are "legal" but have no political representation? Won't that just create the same hellhole situation here?

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

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:36 PM

OK, so let them become citizens. 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.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:38 PM

I'm cool with that. What process? What requirements? How long? Really curious- please xplain.

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

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:52 PM

I dunno. You're implying those details are important for a reason, I presume?

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

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm cool with that. What process? What requirements? How long? Really curious- please xplain.

We could go back to the old process (in effect until the 1920s IIRC).

Pass a physical.

Welcome to America.

(unless you were from China, then no way, no how).

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
We could go back to the old process (in effect until the 1920s IIRC).

Pass a physical.

Welcome to America.

Unfortunately we live in a much different time now. How can all the immigrants who want to come to America be properly screened for past indiscretions? The Country's infrastructure could not possibly support the additional mass of people which could be expected. New immigrants might have to live in camps and not get access to doctors or schools. This may have been a viable option 90 years ago, but not so much today.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

RUE

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:19 PM

I'm just interjecting that roughly 10% of the entire population of Mexico resides in the US. Does that seem weird to anyone else?

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Unfortunately we live in a much different time now. How can all the immigrants who want to come to America be properly screened for past indiscretions. The Country's infrastructure could not possibly support the additional mass of people which could be expected. New immigrants might have to live in camps and not get access to doctors or schools. This may have been a viable option 90 years ago, but not so much today.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

I don't really buy any of this. I know it's the 'conventional wisdom', but it seems like a convenient rationalization for more selfish motives.

We've all got our 'indiscretions'. Or our immigrant ancestors certainly did.

Living in camps? Well, I guess that's their call. I doubt it would be that bad, but if they were willing to go through that to be a US citizen, well, citizens with that kind of enthusiasm would be a welcome addition, eh?

My guess is that today's immigrants would have an easier time of than they did 90 years ago.

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

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm just interjecting that roughly 10% of the entire population of Mexico resides in the US. Does that seem weird to anyone else?

Just as a thought experiment, try crunching the numbers on what would happen if the entire population of Mexico moved to the US.

It's the end-of-the-world scenario for those who want to shut our borders. Likelihood of it happening, even with an open-door immigration policy, is so low as to be negligible. And the results surprised me (especially if you compare it to the percentage of foreign born and non-English speaking Americans of the total population during the late nineteenth, early twentieth, centuries).

*edited to add one table:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab02.html

* edited again. Mexico population at about 100 million. 10% already here. Using numbers from above link and census data from 2000.
year (percentage of population foreign born)
1850 (9.68%)
1860 (13.16%)
1870 (14.44%)
1880 (13.32%)
1890 (14.77%)
1900 (13.61%)
1910 (14.70%)
1920 (13.17%)
1930 (11.57%)
1940 (8.81%)
1950 (6.89%)
1960 (5.43%)
1970 (4.73%)
1980 (6.22%)
1990 (7.95%)
2000 (11.05%)
2000 + 90 million from Mexico (32.61%)

We could absorb the entire population of Mexico and the entire foreign born population of the United States would be a third of the total population.

As it stands, the foreign born population of the US is proportionally below historical highs (although moving in that direction).

I can't find the data I used for the language numbers. So I'll withdraw that part.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't really buy any of this. I know it's the 'conventional wisdom', but it seems like a convenient rationalization for more selfish motives.

In your opinion, what do you think these selfish motives are?

Quote:

We've all got our 'indiscretions'. Or our immigrant ancestors certainly did.

I agree that we all have our indiscretions. I was trying to politely state that it would be nice to know, at the very least, if any of the new immigrants have criminal records in their countries of origin.

Quote:

Living in camps? Well, I guess that's their call. I doubt it would be that bad, but if they were willing to go through that to be a US citizen, well, citizens with that kind of enthusiasm would be a welcome addition, eh?

In my neck of the woods, finding any type of housing is becoming increasingly difficult. Lower cost or affordable housing is almost non-existant. I guess you could 'suggest' certain areas of the Country where immigrants could settle based on socio-economic factors.

Quote:

My guess is that today's immigrants would have an easier time of than they did 90 years ago.

I agree with this statement if the immigrants come to America with some funds. Unfortunately a number of immigrants come to America because they are trying to escape the low standard of living in their Countries of origin. I'm not against immigration at all. I just think it should be somewhat controlled to ensure the newcomers both pay into the 'system' as well as reap the benefits of the 'system'.

Letting in too many people too fast may actually solve the illegal immigration problem. As numbers grow and services cannot keep up, Folks might start moving on (or up

) to greener pastures.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

HIPPIEBROWNCOAT

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:09 PM

Here's my end-all-written-in-stone answer for when i rule the world: (that's sarcasm-i know it doesn't always come through in my typing.)

Anybody wants into America, let them in. Put em in a six week camp where they will learn to speak basic English, begin to learn reading (if they don't already know), tip their waitstaff, locate their family or friends, and undergo a physical to ensure that they are not carrying smallpox or plague, and background checks to ensure they are not known violent felons. Citizenship is awarded at the end of their six weeks. Bus them to the city of their choice, a one-way one-time ticket. Bam. Hundereds of new citizens each day. People needing homes and places to work and shop and recreate. Federal taxes will apply. They are allowed to vote and go to school, all that citizenship jazz we all take for granted. Employers have no reason to pay them lower wages or cash under the table, so we have no reason to fear for our jobs. (the manufacturing and other factory jobs are being shipped to...Mexico, anyways...give it time, we'll all be in Texas trying to go to Mexico for factory work anyhoo!) New immigrants will be able to speak English and write, at least a little bit, so they are less likely to be exploited in a sweatshop or in the red-light districts. My view is that most Mexican immigrants are coming here to work. Are we so threatened by that? Anti-Irish and anti-Chinese movements caused riots and injust laws at their own points in time, when Irish and Chinese were coming here in masses. Mexicans are just the new kids on the block. And having worked side by side with Mexican immigrants (or maybe illegals, i dunno) for years in restaurants, i know firsthand that they work hard. Restaurant work is hard stuff, and most of the guys i knew had two jobs. They work hard, go home, pay taxes, maybe have a beer or smoke a j. Just like the rest of us. What's the problem?

That's just my way of thinking.

Oh, i am a tweaked one, yes i am...

RUE

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:27 PM

Hey Soupcatcher,

The thing I was thinking about is not that there are 'so many' Mexicans in the US, but that they are allowed to vote in Mexican elections. I haven't thought it through as to what kind of vote motivations that might inspire, but I think it could put a spin on the voting.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Soupcatcher,

The thing I was thinking about is not that there are 'so many' Mexicans in the US, but that they are allowed to vote in Mexican elections. I haven't thought it through as to what kind of vote motivations that might inspire, but I think it could put a spin on the voting.

Hey Rue,

Yeah. I don't know quite what to do about the voting. On one hand I think if you plan on living in a country and raising your kids there you shouldn't be voting in the country you came from. On the other hand, if you can't vote in the country you live in and raise your kids in, at least you can vote somewhere.

GEEZER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
We could absorb the entire population of Mexico and the entire foreign born population of the United States would be a third of the total population.

But what about China? They could ship three or four hundred million potential voters over here and not even miss them. Elect a bunch of commissars and proceed to amend the constitution out of existence and put us all on a diet of fishheads and rice while they ship our SUVs and plasma TVs to Beijing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But what about China? They could ship three or four hundred million potential voters over here and not even miss them. Elect a bunch of commissars and proceed to amend the constitution out of existence and put us all on a diet of fishheads and rice while they ship our SUVs and plasma TVs to Beijing.

The operative word here being ship.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
In your opinion, what do you think these selfish motives are?

Not that you have such motives, but I hear this sort of reasoning frequently from people who are also willing to admit that mostly they're worried about someone 'taking their job', or milking our welfare systems.

Whatever. Jobs aren't some limited resource. A job isn't something you own, it's something you do. No one 'takes' a job from someone else simply because they start working too.

Quote:

In my neck of the woods, finding any type of housing is becoming increasingly difficult. Lower cost or affordable housing is almost non-existant. I guess you could 'suggest' certain areas of the Country where immigrants could settle based on socio-economic factors.

I believe it's still legal to build more houses.

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that today's immigrants would have an easier time of than they did 90 years ago.

Unfortunately a number of immigrants come to America because they are trying to escape the low standard of living in their Countries of origin. I'm not against immigration at all. I just think it should be somewhat controlled to ensure the newcomers both pay into the 'system' as well as reap the benefits of the 'system'.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'system'. The vast majority of our immigrants have come here looking for opportunity, usually to escape a serious lack of it in their previous homes. It's part of what makes them motivated, hard working taxpayers.

If there's something about the 'system' that will break because people come here looking for freedom and opportunity, then there's something wrong with the 'system', not with the immigrants.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, July 14, 2006 3:21 AM

Quote:
Whatever. Jobs aren't some limited resource. A job isn't something you own, it's something you do. No one 'takes' a job from someone else simply because they start working too.

This is exactly where you're wrong. Under capitalism, jobs ARE limited. And furthermore, since they're limited by aggregate consumption, people coming in and willing to work for... fostering CHEAP jobs... creates a double whammy on the economy and sends the economy spiraling in another direction.

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is exactly where you're wrong. Under capitalism, jobs ARE limited. And furthermore, since they're limited by aggregate consumption, people coming in and willing to work for... fostering CHEAP jobs... creates a double whammy on the economy and sends the economy spiraling in another direction.

So there's a cap on jobs? Better get me one before we run out! Maybe I'll get an extra to keep in storage.

C'mon, that holds up to pretty much no scrutiny. Performing valuable work isn't a zero-sum game. The more people work, the wealthier we all get. Someone working on the other side of town doesn't prevent you from doing likewise. '

Seriously, how exactly are jobs limited by 'aggregate consumption'?

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, July 14, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Jobs aren't some limited resource. A job isn't something you own, it's something you do. No one 'takes' a job from someone else simply because they start working too.

Unless that person is willing to do the same job for less money.

Quote:

I believe it's still legal to build more houses.

Where do I start with this comment. Who is going to build these houses? Who will pay for the raw materials? How will services such as water, sewage, electricity, and gas be supplied to all of these new houses. I suppose these new suburbs will require roads and perhaps bus or train service. It is simple to say if new houses are needed they should be built. Much more complex of an issue when you really start to look at it.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'system'. The vast majority of our immigrants have come here looking for opportunity, usually to escape a serious lack of it in their previous homes. It's part of what makes them motivated, hard working taxpayers.

If there's something about the 'system' that will break because people come here looking for freedom and opportunity, then there's something wrong with the 'system', not with the immigrants.

So every person that comes across the Mexican border will immediately be fluent in English, know the Constitution and the laws of the land, walk into their newly built and paid for house, get a job and fill out their tax forms. Once again a great sentiment, but not realistic.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
So every person that comes across the Mexican border will immediately be fluent in English, know the Constitution and the laws of the land, walk into their newly built and paid for house, get a job and fill out their tax forms. Once again a great sentiment, but not realistic.

You're right, that's not realistic, but it's not my sentiment. No, most of them would show up flat broke, complete newbs in a foreign land. Pretty much like all of our families were when they first got here.

But, they'll build houses (or maybe they'd start with the tents you mentioned), they'd begin to learn the language. Constitution? It wouldn't surprise me if many of them already know it better than your average citizen. The tax man will catch up to them soon after.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, July 14, 2006 3:58 PM

Quote:
C'mon, that holds up to pretty much no scrutiny. Performing valuable work isn't a zero-sum game

It is under capitalism. How do you suppose they get the Irish to compete with the Costa Ricans for electronics jobs, and the Marians to compete with Haiti for clothing assembly, and the Chinese to compete with the Indians, and EVERYONE to compete with the USA? I DO have solutions but none of them involve denying the problem or playing their game.

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
C'mon, that holds up to pretty much no scrutiny. Performing valuable work isn't a zero-sum game
It is under capitalism....

I'm not sure what you mean I guess. It's not like you can prevent people from working to make their lives better - and that's essentially all a 'job' is. If someone collects junk no one else wants and recycles it (for example), that's a job. Work isn't a limited commodity that can be hoarded or denied others. I'm not getting how or why you're seeing it that way.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, July 14, 2006 4:21 PM

Quote:
Work isn't a limited commodity that can be hoarded or denied others. I'm not getting how or why you're seeing it that way.

Work that involves using complex tools or distant trade IS a limited commodity. When was the last time you assembled an automobile or made your own antibiotics or sold oranges to Canada or built an office building? If you fall out of the economic structure you can survive by living on a garbage dump or hammering out belt buckles from tin cans on a street corner but that is not the kind of economy I would wish to create.

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

ONETOOMANY

Friday, July 14, 2006 4:55 PM

I'm curious as to what country everybody here is from or what age. I see alot of comments that show some of the people here don't have enough direct experience (such as worked in the manufacturing, construction,or service fields) or haven't done proper research on what our (the U.S) neighboring countries require for people to move to them. I suggest these links:

MEXICO IMMIGRATION:

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm#ImmPolicy

CANADA IMMIGRATION:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.html

Look at these sites & see just what other countries require for immigration before stating how WE should just let peolpe in. ALSO if you don't live in the US you don't get to have a DAMN opinion about how we should respond to our immigration problem. Deal with your own by letting in as many people as you want & see what the results are. By the way I challenge anyone to find an industrialized country with a stable economy that has a working open border policy like the one suggested for the US.
-------------------------------------------------

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...but that is not the kind of economy I would wish to create.

Hmmm. Well, we've all got our preferences I suppose. But you seem convinced that anyone who 'falls outside the economic structure' (which interpret to mean isn't working for an 'employer') is somehow digging through trash. It's not really that way. Working as an "independent" actually has many perks and can be very rewarding. I've done it many times in my life and I find it very reassuring to know that it's an option. Working isn't always about begging 'the man' for a 'job'.

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

Friday, July 14, 2006 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
Look at these sites & see just what other countries require for immigration before stating how WE should just let peolpe in.

And look at what is written on the Canadian and Mexican Statues of Liberty. Those hypocrites!

Seriously though, If you don't see that our country has a unique history in terms of immigrants, then we're talking past each other.

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
ALSO if you don't live in the US you don't get to have a DAMN opinion about how we should respond to our immigration problem. Deal with your own by letting in as many people as you want & see what the results are.

It's one thing to state that you give no credence to the opinion of someone who doesn't live in the US on this particular topic. I could see the logic of that. It's another to state that people can't have an opinion on a topic. That's just silly.

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
By the way I challenge anyone to find an industrialized country with a stable economy that has a working open border policy like the one suggested for the US.

That's exactly the policy that the US had for more than half of our existence. We seemed to do alright.

To satisfy my own curiousity, would you mind answering some questions?

What is the size of the community that you live in? (rural, town, etc - or just ballpark it by order of magnitude: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc.).

What region of the US do you live in?

Do you live in a suburb that was established after 1900?

What are the demographics of your community?

Did the demographics of your community substantially change after 1890 and then remain consistently homogenized (wrt skin color) until only recently?

The reason why I'm asking these questions is because I'm curious about the whole, "why now," with respect to the immigration debate on a national level.

* edited to add: Just to expand on the last sentence. I grew up in Los Angeles - where the illegal immigration debate has been ongoing from well before I was born. So it's a surprise to me that, all of a sudden, the entire country is having it. Where were you all decades ago? One possible explanation I've read is that communities that previously had not had an immigrant population now do. That a number of predominantly white communities, and communities that became all-white by design in the 1890s (sundown cities) or suburbs that were created all-white by design after 1900 (sundown suburbs), were becoming less all-white. So I'm curious if you come from a sundown city or sundown suburb.

* 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. Since the only group that people seem to have a problem with are non-white, I will only address non-white immigration. And also you will note that I have not asked what your skin color is because I feel the environment a person grows up in is more relevant to this discussion, especially if that environment is one which has historically embraced racism.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 14, 2006 7:16 PM

My sister works as an "independent" (editor) but not by choice. In her view, it sucks, especially the "no benefits" part. If you live in a nation with universal health care or you're young and healthy that might not bother you too much, but if you're 50+ or you have children that's a different story.

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 14, 2006 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My sister works as an "independent" (editor) but not by choice. In her view, it sucks, especially the "no benefits" part.

Different strokes, etc.. It definitely has its drawbacks.

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, July 14, 2006 9:18 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. Since the only group that people seem to have a problem with are non-white, I will only address non-white immigration.

Hey Soupcatcher,
I like your post, especially the part about opinions, you beat me to the punch.

There is no European immigrant problem because of the Atlantic Ocean.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

RUE

Friday, July 14, 2006 10:14 PM

Soupcatcher,

I suspect the reason why 'immigration' has become such a hot topic is b/c Bush wants it prominently on the agenda. After all, who trumpeted the issue in the first place? It makes for better speeches than Afghanistan (that is soooooooo over) and the embarrassment that is Iraq.

My observation is that angst happens whenever the neighborhood changes. I don't think it's dictated by ethnicity, citizenship, or skin color. The new group just has to be, well, new - and different in some way. When blacks (who were not immigrants) moved into certain neighborhoods in Buffalo, the (immigrant) Polish people moved out. When Polish, Italian and Irish immigrants moved in in the early 1900's, the previous 'other' white people moved out. And so on. (BTW it's humiliating to me that a group with which I could be identified (Polish) could be so closed-minded.)

Angst aside, I think there's the practical upside and the downside to the US from immigration. An added consideration is there may be an assumed duty from past, present and future US meddling which have helped create unlivable conditions elsewhere. And hence have created the drive for immigration.

But the US is not the only 'immigrant' country on the planet. There is Canada, New Zealand and Australia. And the US is not the only country to have created horrific conditions around the globe and then received the results. Western and wealthy Commonwealth countries tend to have a large number of immigrants from other Commonwealth countries - former British colonies.

I think the US has the right to control its borders, just like any other country. I think the US SHOULD control its borders. The only benefit to the US from sloppy border control is to businesses who hire illegals.

If the US has a moral debt to the people of other countries (and I believe it does), it should make it up by action directed at the other countries - reversing the original harmful action directed at the other countries. (Not there is a prayer of that happening. It's just that I don't see the equity of 'allowing' illegal immigrants to be slightly less victimized in the US - oh, and victimizing US workers in the process - as a way of atoning for the victimization in their own country.)

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, July 14, 2006 11:12 PM

BigDamnNobody,

Thanks. I would feel a lot more sanguine about our ability to implement an effective immigration policy, with respect to overseas immigrants, if we were actually investing in upgrading our port security.

Rue,

I agree that the main reason why the immigration debate is taking place now is a Republican desire to use this for GOTV. But there's resonance there. In their cynical manipulating they have tapped into something. It's the something they tapped into that I'm interested in.

And I also agree that we need to have an equitable and enforceable immigration policy that does a lot more than just allow an unvoting working class into the country who can be exploited by big business. The one we have now clearly doesn't work. However, I don't think open borders will work either. A serious debate on our immigration policy is necessary, IMHO. But, and this is a big but, I don't think many of the people complaining about illegal immigration are interested in a serious debate.

If they were serious they would educate themselves (or maybe I'm being naive). Far too often I read arguments from people that show a lack of understanding of our historical immigration policy. Or a lack of understanding of the statistics on illegal immigration. Or a lack of understanding on the statistics of language acquisition of illegal immigrants.

All of these things are areas that I am still learning a lot about. But it doesn't take much learning to see that many of the people arguing for closed borders are repeating unfounded stereotypes. In other words, they are ranting. And the substance of the rants leads me to believe that their real problem is with the immigrants themselves.

I'm still trying to decide how much of a factor the color of an immigrant's skin is in the angst. One of the reasons I focussed in on that is because I'm reading, Sundown Towns by James Loewen. Well, I'm reading a few pages, getting really pissed and putting the book down, and then reading a few pages the next day. And it is eye-opening to me how many communities went all-white starting in the 1890s. And stayed all-white until only recently. Whole swaths of the midwest (and many areas in the rest of the country - with the exception of the south) expelled their black American populations and kept them out, pushing them from the rural areas into the major cities. And then bands of all-white suburbs sprang up that, in effect, penned them in those cities.

One of the things I've learned in my life is that it is easy to fear and hate a group with which you have no contact. And we have had communities across the country where generations have grown up who had little or no contact with people who did not look like them. Or, it was in the context of, at sundown they better get the hell out of town. And these were communities that were born, in this particular incarnation, through explicit racist actions (whether it was through burning out, or lynching, or just the threat of violence, or because no one would rent or sell to you, or because the sheriff escorted you to the border of the town, or any of a number of ways). That's decades and decades of festering racism learned on your parent's knee.

Now the huge agribusiness that owns all the neighboring farmland is using illegal immigrant labor and there is an influx of people who aren't white and speak English with an accent (or don't even trust their English enough to speak at all in that language). And the lid comes off.

I'm just speculating. But it seems reasonable that a lot of the angst is coming from forced contact in areas of the country where contact had been previously avoided.

I'm not sure how good an example this is, but let me try it on. I grew up in a neighborhood of Los Angeles called Glassell Park that is on the northeast side of the 2/5 interchange (which might not mean much). Close enough to downtown to get there in less than ten minutes on surface streets but buffered from downtown by geography (hills and the river) and f

RUE

Friday, July 14, 2006 11:44 PM

Soupcatcher,

I appreciate your rambling. Please ramble on.

ONETOOMANY

Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
ALSO if you don't live in the US you don't get to have a DAMN opinion about how we should respond to our immigration problem. Deal with your own by letting in as many people as you want & see what the results are.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
It's one thing to state that you give no credence to the opinion of someone who doesn't live in the US on this particular topic. I could see the logic of that. It's another to state that people can't have an opinion on a topic. That's just silly.

sure I see your point, but if you don't live here or are not directly affected by a situation then your opinion carries no wieght. Stop waisting time

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
By the way I challenge anyone to find an industrialized country with a stable economy that has a working open border policy like the one suggested for the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
That's exactly the policy that the US had for more than half of our existence. We seemed to do alright.

I suppose, but what is the difference in population between now and 100 years ago. You still didn't answer my question. I'm talking about
more recent times.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
To satisfy my own curiousity, would you mind answering some questions?

What is the size of the community that you live in? (rural, town, etc - or just ballpark it by order of magnitude: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc.).

What region of the US do you live in?

Do you live in a suburb that was established after 1900?

What are the demographics of your community?

Did the demographics of your community substantially change after 1890 and then remain consistently homogenized (wrt skin color) until only recently?

The reason why I'm asking these questions is because I'm curious about the whole, "why now," with respect to the immigration debate on a national level.

Ok, I'll answer a few of your questions. Right now I live in the NW US, but grew up in AZ, CA, & TX. I lived in mostly mid to lower class areas of large cities. The immigration debate is nothing new to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* edited to add: Just to expand on the last sentence. I grew up in Los Angeles - where the illegal immigration debate has been ongoing from well before I was born. So it's a surprise to me that, all of a sudden, the entire country is having it. Where were you all decades ago? One possible explanation I've read is that communities that previously had not had an immigrant population now do. That a number of predominantly white communities, and communities that became all-white by design in the 1890s (sundown cities) or suburbs that were created all-white by design after 1900 (sundown suburbs), were becoming less all-white. So I'm curious if you come from a sundown city or sundown suburb.

* 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. Since the only group that people seem to have a problem with are non-white, I will only address non-white immigration. And also you will note that I have not asked what your skin color is because I feel the environment a person grows up in is more relevant to this discussion, especially if that environment is one which has historically embraced racism.

This is kind of interesting because not once did I mention anything about race or what countries I was talking about.(I listed Canada & Mexcio as Exapmles of what our bordering countries require) You have managed to turn the whole thing into a matter of racism.

If yo're even going to broach the subject of race in immigration you have to include everyone that means "white" immigrants (w

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
Ok, I'll answer a few of your questions. Right now I live in the NW US, but grew up in AZ, CA, & TX. I lived in mostly mid to lower class areas of large cities. The immigration debate is nothing new to me.

...

This is kind of interesting because not once did I mention anything about race or what countries I was talking about.(I listed Canada & Mexcio as Exapmles of what our bordering countries require) You have managed to turn the whole thing into a matter of racism.

If yo're even going to broach the subject of race in immigration you have to include everyone that means "white" immigrants (which in the NW a good deal of the immigrants are "white"), but when I say immigrant I'm talking about anybody. I don't care who you are, where your from, what your doing, what your race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, or name is.

All I care about is that if you come here you do it legally or if you do immigrate illegally that you take steps te get legal citizenship as soon as possible, not several years later. Which is only the same thing most every other country requires. I'm not saying close the borders, but everybody has to jump through hoops to immigrate anywhere in the world. Why should it be any different to immigrate here?

I'm just tired of people stating open border policy opinions when they don't live here or don't have any experience with the situation. That's it.. That's all.. Nothing about race or ethnicity what so ever.

So I'm sorry If I offended anyone, but soupcatcher it's pretty fk'd for you to make me out as a racist.
----------------------------------------------

Fair enough. My assumptions were wrong.

* edited to add: I should say, my assumptions probably do not apply to you.

And, guess what, race relations in the US are pretty fk'd up.

* edited one more time: As to me calling you a racist. I don't think I did that.

What I did was to ask about the environment you grew up in. Then I went on to speculate that attitudes about illegal immigration are shaped by the environment that people grow up in and described specific racist enviroments (sundown towns or suburbs) and that I would expect racist attitudes about immigrants to come from people who grew up in those racist environments.

By your responses, it appears that you probably did not grow up in a sundown town or suburb. So why would you think that I was directing the remainder of what I wrote as labelling you as racist? It wouldn't apply. You may or may not be a racist. I have no clue.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:21 AM

Hey Soup I appreciate the rambling too.

I come from a family of immigrants. My parent's generation lived in a little community with it's own foreign-language newspaper, radio, church and store that sold traditional food. All of our holidays had a cultural twist. Some of my relatives never learned English well. I had a relationship with an Indian (from Mumbai) and a crush on a Costa Rican. I married an immigrant. I've known, worked with, studied with, and hired people who travel across the Mexican border and who have families and property on both sides. I've enjoyed the company of people from all over the world: India, China, Japan, Ethiopia, Myanmar, the Phillipines, Guatemala, the aforementioned Mexico, and elsewhere.

And yet I come down against illegal immigration in a very visceral way. I've tried puzzling this out. I don't think it's racist because I've just been too close to too many people of all skin colors. It's certainly not for lack of knowledge about "hispanics".

I think it's mainly a matter of the immigrants' class, which predicts other factors like education and economic role. We have a lot of immigrants here from all over the world- Taiwan and mainland China, Vietnam, Korea, and Mexico, and the Phillipines as well as a significant black population. The reaction to one group or another can be predicted by the wealth of that group: Taiwanese who immigrated voluntarily came from middle or upper-class families, while Vietnamese who came here catastrophically and with nothing are looked on less favorably. So maybe I'm not a racist so much as I am a... snob?

To solve the problem of racism, simply rubbing elbows with "the help" or with "kids at school" is not going to break stereotypes or promote understanding. The only thing that REALLY rattles people's brains is being confronted with "the other" when that person is in a position of POWER- your black male teacher, your Spanish-speaking surgeon, the female cop who's writing your ticket- because you are forced to acknowledge their authority and deal with it.

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

ONETOOMANY

Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Fair enough. My assumptions were wrong.

* edited to add: I should say, my assumptions probably do not apply to you.

And, guess what, race relations in the US are pretty fk'd up.

Your BlSht assumptions about me deffinitly don't apply.

And, guess what, I never said they weren't.
---------------------------------------------

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Fair enough. My assumptions were wrong.

* edited to add: I should say, my assumptions probably do not apply to you.

And, guess what, race relations in the US are pretty fk'd up.

Your BlSht assumptions about me deffinitly don't apply.

And, guess what, I never said they weren't.
---------------------------------------------

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

I'll repost what I added to the earlier post since we're cross posting.

As to me calling you a racist. I don't think I did that.

What I did was to ask about the environment you grew up in. Then I went on to speculate that attitudes about illegal immigration are shaped by the environment that people grow up in and described specific racist enviroments (sundown towns or suburbs) and that I would expect racist attitudes about immigrants to come from people who grew up in those racist environments.

By your responses, it appears that you probably did not grow up in a sundown town or suburb. So why would you think that I was directing the remainder of what I wrote as labelling you as racist? It wouldn't apply. You may or may not be a racist. I have no clue.

ONETOOMANY

Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Fair enough. My assumptions were wrong.

* edited to add: I should say, my assumptions probably do not apply to you.

And, guess what, race relations in the US are pretty fk'd up.

Your BlSht assumptions about me deffinitly don't apply.

And, guess what, I never said they weren't.
---------------------------------------------

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

I'll repost what I added to the earlier post since we're cross posting.

As to me calling you a racist. I don't think I did that.

What I did was to ask about the environment you grew up in. Then I went on to speculate that attitudes about illegal immigration are shaped by the environment that people grow up in and described specific racist enviroments (sundown towns or suburbs) and that I would expect racist attitudes about immigrants to come from people who grew up in those racist environments.

By your responses, it appears that you probably did not grow up in a sundown town or suburb. So why would you think that I was directing the remainder of what I wrote as labelling you as racist? It wouldn't apply. You may or may not be a racist. I have no clue.

It's not so much that you directly label me a racist it's that you went on to "speculate" about the environment of my upbringing. By your line of questioning you infer form the begining that my choice in opinion might be racially motivated. Why would you automatically assume that because someone is against illegal immigration that race is a factor in thier discision.

I still stand by my original post. Which had nothing to do with race at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
I'm curious as to what country everybody here is from or what age. I see alot of comments that show some of the people here don't have enough direct experience (such as worked in the manufacturing, construction,or service fields) or haven't done proper research on what our (the U.S) neighboring countries require for people to move to them. I suggest these links:

MEXICO IMMIGRATION:

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm#ImmPolicy

CANADA IMMIGRATION:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.html

Look at these sites & see just what other countries require for immigration before stating how WE should just let peolpe in. ALSO if you don't live in the US you don't get to have a DAMN opinion about how we should respond to our immigration problem. Deal with your own by letting in as many people as you want & see what the results are. By the way I challenge anyone to find an industrialized country with a stable economy that has a working open border policy like the one suggested for the US.

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

Notice anythig particular 'bout our luck these past few days, any kind'a pattern'. You depend on luck you end up on the drift no fuel, no prospects, beggin for alliance make work getiin' towed off to the scrap out THAT AIN'T US NOT EVER

RUE

Saturday, July 15, 2006 2:05 AM

SignyM and Soupcatcher,

This has to do with what the both of you have posted.

SignyM - I don't think you are a snob and this is the reason why: Suppose you are in your familiar neighborhood and a Japanese family moves in next door. They are well-educated, somewhat better off than you, but keep to themselves. To me that seems OK.

Now suppose rather than 1 family moving in, it is 20 families. They are all well-educated, better off than you, and keep to themselves speaking Japanese together but rarely addressing you in English. No so OK. The uncomfortable feeling I get isn't about their economic status or mine - or yours, I suspect.

Now suppose the large group of new-comers aren't Japanese, they are British. They are all well-educated, somewhat better off than you, and speak to you in English, when they do speak to you at all. They dress a little differently, have somewhat different social values and expectations etc. Not so uncomfortable as the large-scale Japanese influx, but not OK either.

Suppose you go to Japan - you are surrounded by Japanese. You immerse yourself in the experience with delight. So the issue with the Japanese 'invasion' of your neighborhood isn't specifically about being a cultural minority either.

When I was going to university the neighborhood was alive with people from everywhere around the globe, and I thought it was great !

So what is the difference between good and bad experiences with 'those others'?

Soupcatcher,

Perhaps some of what I'm imagining has to do with the influx of people who are 'different' into previously all-white neighborhoods. It may not necessarily be racist, but might be expressed as racists comments. (Snobby Japs. Snooty Brits.)

I wish HK would show up. He's really good at puzzling this out.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 15, 2006 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ONETOOMANY:
It's not so much that you directly label me a racist it's that you went on to "speculate" about the environment of my upbringing. By your line of questioning you infer form the begining that my choice in opinion might be racially motivated. Why would you automatically assume that because someone is against illegal immigration that race is a factor in thier discision.

I still stand by my original post. Which had nothing to do with race at all.

I can see how you would get that impression from my comments.

To address the question you raise (and sort of touch on Signym's post): Why would I automatically assume that because someone is against illegal immigration that race is a factor in their decision? I'm not sure I completely buy your premise but I'll attempt to answer. It is one of the first thoughts that crosses my mind when the topic comes up, that's true. Automatic, no. But, and this is the important part, if the rhetoric that is used sounds anything like the rhetoric used by the Minutemen and their supporters then it causes my antenna to twitch. If it is a well laid out argument against illegal immigration that makes substantive points (like Signym's or other's posts) then I don't make the assumption.

My reasoning is pretty simple. Would this thread even exist if it hadn't been for the Minutemen doing their border patrol publicity stunt? Would we be having this discussion now? I believe the answer is no. The Minutemen are a bunch of different groups with ties to white supremacist organizations. They use much of the same language that white supremacists use when talking about illegal immigrants. They were given a substantial nationwide media platform and received an outpouring of support. This led to a nationwide discussion about illegal immigration, of which this thread is a small part. I think it's a worthwhile debate to have but I want to make damn certain that we don't use their racist framing or perpetuate their inaccuracies.

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, July 15, 2006 2:30 AM

If you give a damn about uSA, then speak in public to your City Council and propose this same ordinance.

Quote:

Small Pa. City Passes Law Against Illegals

By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 13, 2006; 9:50 PM

HAZLETON, Pa. -- The City Council approved a law Thursday night designed to make this small city in northeastern Pennsylvania among the most hostile places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants to live or work.

The 4-to-1 vote came after nearly two hours of passionate debate. Opponents argued it was divisive and possibly illegal, but supporters said illegal immigrants' growing numbers have damaged the quality of life here.

"We must draw the line, and we are doing it tonight," Mayor Lou Barletta told a packed council chambers.

Barletta proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act last month as a response to what he said were Hazleton's problems with violent crime, crowded schools, hospital costs and the demand for services.

The ordinance would deny licenses to businesses that employ illegal immigrants, fine landlords $1,000 for each illegal immigrant discovered renting their properties, and require city documents to be in English only.

"The illegal citizens, I would recommend they leave," Barletta said after the meeting.

"What you see here tonight, really, is a city that wants to take back what America has given it," said the mayor, who said he wore a bulletproof vest to the meeting.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR20060713015
47.html

Great idea.

Here in Tennessee, our gangsters in govt profited by selling 250,000 driver licenses to illegal aliens. Tennessee copsters, prosecutors and judges refuse to arrest and deport illegal aliens arrested perping other crimes, since there's more profit. Traffic tickets profit copsters $500 for each illegal alien. Tennessee Driver License Handbooks are printed in Mexican language, and the test is given in Mexican by Tennessee Highway Patrol. When I go to a restaurant with my 70-year-old friend, he is carded for ID when buying a beer, but that same restaurant refuses to card illegal aliens, who sit next to us speaking only Mexican.

Jr Bush's GOP amnesty program will legalize 40-million criminals and invite another 200-million criminals to uSA in the next 10 years, according to Heritage Foundation. And the sheeple love it. Baaaaaa.

Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count.
—Robert A. Heinlein

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 15, 2006 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey Soup I appreciate the rambling too.

I come from a family of immigrants. My parent's generation lived in a little community with it's own foreign-language newspaper, radio, church and store that sold traditional food. All of our holidays had a cultural twist. Some of my relatives never learned English well. I had a relationship with an Indian (from Mumbai) and a crush on a Costa Rican. I married an immigrant. I've known, worked with, studied with, and hired people who travel across the Mexican border and who have families and property on both sides. I've enjoyed the company of people from all over the world: India, China, Japan, Ethiopia, Myanmar, the Phillipines, Guatemala, the aforementioned Mexico, and elsewhere.

And yet I come down against illegal immigration in a very visceral way. I've tried puzzling this out. I don't think it's racist because I've just been too close to too many people of all skin colors. It's certainly not for lack of knowledge about "hispanics".

I think it's mainly a matter of the immigrants' class, which predicts other factors like education and economic role. We have a lot of immigrants here from all over the world- Taiwan and mainland China, Vietnam, Korea, and Mexico, and the Phillipines as well as a significant black population. The reaction to one group or another can be predicted by the wealth of that group: Taiwanese who immigrated voluntarily came from middle or upper-class families, while Vietnamese who came here catastrophically and with nothing are looked on less favorably. So maybe I'm not a racist so much as I am a... snob?

To solve the problem of racism, simply rubbing elbows with "the help" or with "kids at school" is not going to break stereotypes or promote understanding. The only thing that REALLY rattles people's brains is being confronted with "the other" when that person is in a position of POWER- your black male teacher, your Spanish-speaking surgeon, the female cop who's writing your ticket- because you are forced to acknowledge their authority and deal with it.

Hey SignyM (just realized I'd been forgetting to capitalize the last M),

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you use the word visceral. For me it happens with language. Not written language. I could care less if the driving test or voting information is printed in a zillion languages (I'm actually happy people are taking the test and/or voting) and I think it's cool to see neon signs, store signs and billboards in languages other than English. It's the spoken language. I guess you could say that I have to work at not being a language snob. And I wonder how much of that is because I am fluent in only one language.

It's not like I've ever been unable to do what I wanted to because I couldn't communicate. There's nothing rational about it. And I don't interact with anyone on a regular basis who doesn't speak English at least well enough to communicate. I do find myself getting irritated when I'm in a group that all speak a language other than English and the conversation is primarily carried out in that language.

But I've never felt the need to learn a second language (Both my girlfriend and me are Mexican-American but were raised in English speaking households. My girlfriend learned Spanish in undergrad. I never got around to it). I have no idea how hard it would be to become fluent in a second language. So I try to cut a lot of slack. I have yet to meet an immigrant under the age of sixty who wasn't trying to learn or improve their English.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:35 PM

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.

I think the reaction is visceral for nearly everyone and it comes from that fundamental dividing line between "us" and "them"... who you identify with. When my hispanic colleagues and I talk about the topic, they feel far more sympathy to illegals than I do because they feel part of that community. My spouse, who was a poor immigrant, identifies with poor immigrants... but not with wealthy ones. And almost everything you hear after that reaction is rationalization and window-dressing. Changing who you fundamentally identify with is not impossible, but it takes either years of insight or some life-changing event (like in Crash)... and that just is not going to happen to the vast majority of... the whole world. It's not just a USA problem.

I've learned to distrust my viscera so I try to keep it out of this equation. I'm willing to look at everything surrounding the question of illegal immigration, starting with "Do nations serve a legitimate purpose, or are they an artificial construct that divides more than unifies?"

Now I'm at the end of MY rambling.

Thanks for listening.

RUE

Saturday, July 15, 2006 5:42 PM

I've read that there are two groups of psychologically 'normal' people who become paranoid at more than the ususal rate: those with facial deformities and the hearing impaired.

I think being visibly excluded from conversations by any means is similar to being hearing impaired, and it triggers the same discomfort. Having people converse in a different language in your presence is uncomfortable. Having people whisper in your presence or stop talking when you come up is also uncomfortable - even if they are speaking a language you understand. I don't think it's snobbery.

Both my parents, and all my aunts and uncles and grandparents spoke Polish but didn't teach it to my generation (my siblings and all 'the cousins'). So I have gotten used to Polish specifically being spoken around me, and it's a pleasant kind of thing. But I've noticed that doesn't extend to other languages.

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:08 AM

I'm reminded of numerous family parties over the years where the language a person spoke at the party depended on the generation they were a part of. My brother dated and then eventually married a Visayan woman. This increased the size of our family tremendously. The youngest generation on her side of the family, the generation of my sister-in-law and her sisters and cousins, had either all been born in the US or were very young children when their parents emigrated. Their first language was English. Depending on the parents, the children's fluency in Visayan and Tagalog ranged from barely being able to understand to conversational. The parents had all learned English as a second language and were fluent albeit with varying thicknesses of accent. The grandparents had varying degrees of English fluency but, for the most part, did not speak the language at all.

So there were always two languages being spoken at the parties. The kids hung out together and communicated in English. The parents and grandparents hung out and spoke Visayan. Every so often the uncles would get bored and drag one of us away to drink with them. But I've found that it doesn't matter what language is being spoken as long as the booze is flowing. I can laugh and nod with the best of them, having no clue what is being talked about.

When one of my sister-in-law's sisters started dating a Hmung man I noticed the same thing at parties with his family.

I never felt irritated at those parties.

Contrast that with a time in undergrad when I was dating a woman from American Samoa. I learned very quickly that part of the package was that I would often be the only person at a party who didn't speak Samoan and that, for the vast majority of time, the only language being spoken at the party was Samoan. Pretty much all of our friends at those parties had grown up in American Samoa and left to come to college. So, while they were fluent in English, the language they were most comfortable with was their first language.

I sometimes got irritated and had to remind myself that I chose to be there. And there was always soemthing to do that didn't necessitate communication. I often put my lessons with the uncles to good effect.

Based on these experiences, it was no surprise to me to learn of the study on English language learning among immigrants. Basically, by the third generation (the grandchildren of those who emigrated, I think) all spoke English as a first language. All. Didn't matter what ethnic group. So when people complain about immigrants not speaking English I just shake my head and wonder how long it took the complainer to learn and be fluent in a second language.

RUE

Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:33 PM

That's interesting.

My mother was first generation living in a Polish community. Polish was her fist language, she learned English in school. My father was from Poland, arriving in the US at the age of 40. (Does that makes me 1.5th generation?)

I think I've noticed a pattern of first and second generations, in that they tend to marry immigrants or first generation people, even if they are from other cultures. Perhaps the commonality is the experience of straddling cultures in the US. My one cousin married a Mexican from Mexico, another married a first generation Italian, one married a German from Germany (who came over in their teens) etc. I found the University experience of being in a mix of cultures to be awesome. And Toronto being so cosmopolitan is one of the reaons why it is my favorite city of all (as well as being clean, humane and non-violent). If I went to Vancouver I'd probably feel the same way.

I relate to that thing about smiling and looking attentive. My grandmother (a wonderful grandmother to all her grandchildren) was convinced I knew enough Polish to follow along.

edited to add:
Where I work the main non-Enligh languages are Mandarin and Tagalog. I can understand why people would want to speak in their first language with each other - they know it better, can express themselves more completely, and it's just easier. But the workplace culture has evolved over the last 15 years or so that it's considered rude to speak 'your' language in front of English speakers (though it is still done sometimes).

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?

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:48 AM

There is the European paradigm and the "cheap labor" paradigm. I read an article recently in the LA Times about how Germany "needs" to change its ways and squeeze more out of its workers. The funny thing is, the article said in the very beginning that Germany is not only the largest economy in Europe it's also the fastest growing. So why would the writer push for a solution to a "problem" that doesn't even exist?

Effing stupid capitalist suck-ups! Apparently they can't connect the dots ... heck, they can't even see the dots... even when they personally write them down because it crosses some deep ideological barrier.

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

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:01 AM

Rue,

I don't know where the endpoint of that system would be. Not sure I want to find out. You also have to add in forced obsolescence and that companies purposefully design their products to wear out quicker than they used to.

SignyM,

When we started doing joint projects with German colleagues it was amazing to me how much vacation time they got. Color me green with envy.

RUE

Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:19 AM

Hi Soupcatcher,

Thanks for the reply.

I just want to ramble a bit - I hate, hate - shopping. I find cruising the malls depressing. There are stores and stores and stores of crap. How many shoes can you buy? How many phones? Plastic dishes? Trinkets?

And yet the US economy is based on regularly unloading crap out of the stores (mostly around x-mas - remember patriotic shopping the x-mas season after 911 ? - but at other times of the year, too).

Consumer spending is, roughly 80% of the US economy. But as empty as it seems, there is a substantial segment of the population whose main motivation in life is to repeatedly throw out old crap and buy new crap. The one who dies with the most toys wins ... and all that.

I sometimes wonder what would happen to the economy if people just stopped reflexive shopping.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:48 AM

Rue,

I'm right there with you on the hating shopping. I don't browse in stores. Going to the mall feels so high school. If I'm planning on buying something, I'll research on the internet until I find the exact model I want and a store that carries it and then I'll go buy it. The only shopping I do on a regular basis is at the supermarket and even that is pretty targetted.

And, from watching television, I'm apparently not in the target demographic. Pretty much nothing I see advertised appeals to me.

So if they're depending on people like us to keep the economy going, good luck.

KANEMAN

Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:24 AM

Earlier posts...We should all be proud that we come from "imigrants"...The key word is Legal...say it all together now "LEGAL"...As Savage says....A nation without a common language, a national culture,and a soverin boarder will fail. Pick up a history book...be one be all ...let's not be France.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:45 PM

Let's assume that we throw open our borders to immigrants so that our LEGAL immigrant population is high. I still wonder how much diversity a nation can tolerate and still maintain a functional identity. 10%? 20%?

I know that a very small group- less than 5%- who behave in a criminal manner can swing an entire society's spending. A slightly larger group of people- 15%- can maintain an organized insurgency by simply sheltering insurgents. A larger group of people- 20%-can be a huge pain in the *ss by simply refusing to assimilate. Quebec, for example, is about 20% of Canads's population (7.5 million out of 33 million).

My guess is that if people are eager to assimilate and there is no barrier (ie prejudice) to their eventual inclusion, the number might be something like 10%. At that point, services like language classes become choked.

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

RUE

Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:42 PM

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/3/229?query=TOC

Language Barriers to Health Care in the United States

Some 22.3 million (8.4 percent) have limited English proficiency, speaking English less than "very well".

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Americans ... with limited English proficiency grew by 7.3 million (a 53 percent increase). The numbers are particularly high in some places: in 2000, 20 percent of Californians and 47 percent of Miami residents had limited English proficiency

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:06 PM

Rue,

Thanks for the highly informative link. It raises an important point about language proficiency: that there are situations when the inability to communicate can have life or death implications.

More to come, but I wanted to let you know that the article has sparked some revised thinking on my part.

RUE

Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:18 PM

Hi Soupcatcher,

I'm glad you found the article useful.

The whole topic sparked some thinking on my part as well.

My mother's parents were immigrants and spoke Polish exclusively in the home. I mentioned my mother's first language was Polish, and that she was taught English in school (by bilingual nuns). The family lived in a small but functional Polish community. The nuns all spoke fluent Polish and some English, as did the priest, the doctor, the baker, store keepers, factory owner, neighbors etc.

So my grandparents were lucky enough to live in a highly functional Polish-speaking community. They spoke basic English. And on the off chance they needed to go beyond basic English (for medical care, complicated financial transactions etc) they had loving, responsible, helpful children who were well spoken in both languages who lived nearby.

The neighborhood was less than a mile from where my parents bought a home, and our family went to the same church my mother went to when she was growing up. We children also went to the same parochial school my mother went to. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents in that neighborhood.

For me that was normal, comfortable and happy. It seemed to work pretty well. So I hope you can see I don't start out with the idea that all "those" foreign people should learn English - or else.

But the old paradigm doesn't seem to work now, not even in that neighborhood where it used to work so well. I think the difference is that direct contact with the larger world is vital, whereas before it wasn't as important. And for its part, the larger world has more need to communicate well with the various immigrant communities.

It pains me to think of those unique immigrant communities homogenized, sterilized and standardized into bland uniformity. But speaking English is now a necessity for immigrants and for the country.

Sincerely,
Rue

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:32 PM

I've actually come at the question of immigration from several different angles over the course of my life. One of them is from the perspective of the "desti-nation". The other is from the perspective of the immigrant.

Let's assume that the destination wants to do everything reasonable for new arrivals. (That's assuming compassion the USA doesn't show even for its citizens, but this is is a thought experiment... not bounded by reality.)

That would mean not only a background check but a physical to make sure they aren't bringing in communicable diseases, intensive language instruction, driving instructions, and significant education on the laws of the land... rights as workers, consumers, individuals, borrowers. Classes about the banking system. Personal counseling for people who may been persecuted, tortured or otherwise victimized Some level of followup to make sure people aren't disadvantaged in their everyday dealings in modern American society.

I realize that many things are a function of money, btu I don't see us doing ANY of this.

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

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.

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, January 29, 2023 10:15 PM

Drug Gangs, Human Smuggling and more Jihadist 'Migrants' Captured at Mexico Border?

Biden’s border policies facilitate shocking modern slavery

https://nypost.com/2023/01/10/bidens-border-policies-facilitate-shocki
ng-modern-slavery/

Nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants are known to have slipped past overwhelmed Border Patrol agents since the beginning of fiscal 2023, which began in October, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources tell Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nearly-300000-illegal-immigrants-slip
ped-past-border-agents-less-four-months-sources

Is an ‘open border’ to blame for America’s fentanyl crisis?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fentanyl-crisis-bord
er-biden-mexico-b2259727.html

Border Patrol chief fumed at Biden admin’s handling of whipping controversy, emails show

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-patrol-chiefs-fumed-biden-admi
ns-handling-whipping-controversy-emails-show

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

Watching the Native American culture go extinct and a people replaced then looking at jihads freak out over a bunch of funny cartoons might have finally taught a lesson

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
How about we let them in legally? Then they wouldn't be illegal.

How about Open Borders for Saudi and Israel?

Should Ruskies be allowed to arrive by the millions and take over San Franciso, New York and Austin Texas....no wait a sec...that might actually improve SanFranshitsco or San Fransicko

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

My mother was first generation living in a Polish community. Polish was her fist language, she learned English in school. My father was from Poland, arriving in the US at the age of 40.

I wonder if Commiefornia would have new taxes for reparations

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 29, 2023 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Should Ruskies be allowed to arrive by the millions and take over San Franciso, New York and Austin Texas....no wait a sec...that might actually improve SanFranshitsco or San Fransicko

Nope. They don't want any more whites. They certainly do not want any more Christians.

Even Chinese ones...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/01/29/as_refugees_floo
d_into_us_chinese_christians_told_to_wait_148785.html

But we'll keep fuckin' bringing everyone else in and ruining this country.

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

Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:58 PM

Are these from the Mainland which would have Billions?

or part of the over seas diaspora in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines which also number in the tens of Millions?

https://twitter.com/VenturaReport/status/1637973466992222208

I've been covering the border the last couple of years and have never seen this amount of Chinese nationals crossing illegally into the US , this sector is experiencing over a 900% percent spike in Chinese nationals apprehensions compared to last year

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, May 11, 2023 4:19 PM

‘Scared’ Rockland County residents blast Adams plan to bus migrants upstate after state of emergency declared

https://nypost.com/2023/05/08/rockland-county-residents-blast-nyc-mayo
r-eric-adams-plan-to-bus-migrants-upstate/

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, May 12, 2023 2:24 PM

House GOP Pass Immigration Bill, Biden Vows to Veto

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2023/05/11/house-gop-pass-
immigration-bill-biden-vows-veto/11850323002/