10 People Killed in SUV Rollover Near Tucson

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

Ten illegal immigrants "stacked like wood" in the back of a sports utility vehicle crammed with at least 27 people were killed when the driver lost control and rolled over on a remote southern Arizona highway, authorities said Sunday.

The Ford Excursion had no rear seat and most of the men and women were ejected when the SUV crashed just before midnight Saturday near Sonoita, about 40 miles southeast of Tucson. Authorities said all the victims are believed to be illegal immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Equador and perhaps Mexico.

Arizona Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Joy Craig told The Associated Press that the remote area where the crash happened is a route commonly used by those smuggling illegal immigrants into the U.S.

"We see the people stacked like wood frequently," she said. "If they had had the right number of people in there and they all had their seat belts on, they would have lived."



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7778812

[marmar]

1. And read some of the oh-so-compassionate comments below the story.....

Hey ABC you actually called illegals illegal. OMG.................I am so shocked that you took your first tiny steps into reporting the news instead of pushing your lib agenda and coverup for certain people (illegals amung them.) So proud of you guys.

NorthTexasJersey 9:33 PMI am just glad that this time, the illegals didn't kill we others off with their stupidity and illegal act to defraud the taxpayers out of social service money.

NorthTexasJersey 9:31 PMThese people were comitting an illegal act when they were killed. I feel bad for them and their familys but they were comitting a crime. Who pays for the medical bills and the highway patrol expences?I live in Arizona also, and in our newspaper yesterday, it stated that if you were having a party or gathering at your home and there was a complaint about the noise. YOU HAD TO PAY FOR THE POLICE CALL!So who pays for these expenses?

[liberalmuse]

4. I sort of hope there is reincarnation...

and these people come back as, 'illegals'. God I hate that word, and the comments are so utterly vile they make me want to...

[RufusH]

29. I do believe in reincarnation, and I am certain that these people will come back

much less fortunate than they are today. They obviously need the enlightenment of suffering.

[Kali]

39. plenty of that attitude here on DU

hell, right in this thread

[dipsydoodle]

23. When such tragedies occur

I'm appalled it that anyone should make such bad form remarks. Maybe its a USA thing not to show compassion under circumstances such as these ? I have no recollection of bad taste remarks here in the UK when similar tragedies have occured regarding the cost to public services borne by the rest of us - we take such things for granted.....help for those who need it.

Can you imagine for example the cost of this exercise : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3464203.s... I have never heard anything other than sypmathetic remarks with regard to that.

Off topic but the same applies to our NHS - its there for everyone including American tourists who fall into the trap of looking left , instead of right , first before crossing the road.

[AlphaCentauri]

43. either the person who made those comments oppose socialize medicine and education

or he/she is on a welfare check

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

2. The desperation is scary. 27 people? So sad. nt

[undeterred]

49. 27 people sneaking into a country with 10-15% unemployment

How bad is it where they come from?

[LeftyMom]

3. Sadly, if they're here for farm work, it doesn't get much better once they're here.

At least in California, it's legal to transport migrant farmworkers in totally unsafe conditions- the farm labor contractors get full sized vans, pull the seats out and put in wooden benches. Naturally, the casualties are massive in even what would normally be minor accidents. No other workers are allowed to be transported in that way, but apparently migrant farm workers don't deserve minimum safety standards. It's really, really, really fucked up.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. Didn't know contractors could transport people like this. Thanks for the info

[Downwinder]

9. It was good enough for the Okies, why change it?

[Brgotn]

10. They can't

In this case they were being transported by their coyote which if he lives will probably face murder charges.

[NYC_SKP]

7. A Feinstein/Snowe to address this problem in 2006 went nowhere.

S. 3702:
109th Congress


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Farm and Forestry Worker Transportation Safety Act'.

SEC. 2. SEATS AND SEAT BELTS FOR MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

(a) SEATS- Except as provided in subsection (d), in promulgating vehicle safety standards under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) for the transportation of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers by farm labor contractors, agricultural employers or agricultural associations, the Secretary of Labor shall ensure that each occupant or rider in, or on, any vehicle subject to such standards is provided with a seat that is a designated seating position (as such term is defined for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code).

(b) SEAT BELTS- Each seating position required under subsection (a) shall be equipped with an operational seat belt, except that this subsection shall not apply with respect to seating positions in buses that would otherwise not be required to have seat belts under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

(c) PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall issue minimum performance requirements for the strength of seats and the attachment of seats and seat belts in vehicles that are converted, after being sold for purposes other than resale, for the purpose of transporting migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. The requirements shall provide a level of safety that is as close as practicable to the level of safety provided for in a vehicle that is manufactured or altered for the purpose of transporting such workers before being sold for purposes other than resale.

(2) EXPIRATION- Effective on the date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any vehicle that is or has been converted for the purpose of transporting migrant or seasonal agricultural workers shall provide the same level of safety as a vehicle that is manufactured or altered for such purpose prior to being sold for purposes other than resale.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or modify the regulations contained in section 500.103, or the provision pertaining to transportation that is primarily on private roads in section 500.104(l), of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(e) DEFINITIONS- The definitions contained in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1802) shall apply to this section.

(f) COMPLIANCE DATE- Not later than 1 year after such date of enactment, and except as provided in subsection (c)(2), all vehicles subject to this Act shall be in compliance with the requirements of this Act.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3702

[Igel]

90. The legislation wasn't intended to cover

the illegal smuggling of people.

Nowhere do I read that ICE shall be responsible for verifying that smuggler's vehicles conform to interntional safety standards for illegally transporting people across borders to safe houses.

Apples, oranges.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Our lack of action on imigration killed these people.

Regardless of one's position, be it a libertarian "open the borders", or a conservative "enforce immigration laws", our government has failed to create, articulate, and implement any kind of meaningful policy.

IMO, members on both sides of the issue just love how the cheap labor keeps the economy moving, not sustainably, but moving.

Well, one way or another, our lack of a cohesive policy made this happen.

These people were in the position they were in because we have allowed it to happen continuously for decades.



But, oh, we did arrest people for littering because they put gallons of water along the border to keep these folks from dying of dehydration.

Tell me that's not crazy.

[babylonsister]

8. Did you see this? I did, but everytime I

post anything about Reid or immigrants, I get flayed, so I didn't post it.

Reid Declares Immigration a Priority for Senate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[NYC_SKP]

12. A lot of sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered to get it done.

Not unlike healthcare, there are so many things that need to see the light of day before the public can take part in a reasonable discussion, that progress seems unlikely.

Meeting humane safety conditions and fair pay are not going to be popular to the powerful and well-moneyed, and their congresscritters.

Establishing sustainable numbers of legal immigrants and enforcement are going to go over like a flat Fresca with many others.

I just can't imagine how a significant number of them will be able to agree on anything until the unpleasant realities of it are fully exposed, and nobody wants that.

But I'm glad Reid is going to try.

[Zavulon]

11. Their lack of respect for our existing law didn't help.

When a robber is killed by a store owner, do you blame our economic policies, too?

BTW, I'd have arrested not only the litterers, but the people who aided and abetted violations of immigration law by putting up water stations. I'm simply not one of those who believes that anyone who wants to come here should be able to ignore our laws just because they're inconvenient.

However, although we're obviously not really of like mind on this subject, I do agree with your "IMO, members on both sides of the issue just love how the cheap labor keeps the economy moving, not sustainably, but moving."

[roody]

13. The lives they are coming from must be desperate to risk so much.

You sound very un compassionate. Have you ever seen poverty in any of those countries?

[Zavulon]

14. Yes, I have.

I do not, however, believe that their poverty gives them the right to break any law of ours that they deem inconvenient.

The same argument you make can be made for someone who is very poor that robs a bank or breaks into your house. I'm not willing to excuse them, either.

So, if your definition of "un compassionate" is someone who doesn't believe that poverty gives people the right to ignore whatever laws they want to, then color me "un compassionate."

[emilyg]

15. Good post. Thank you.

[Zavulon]

16. Glad to know I'm not alone.

[proteus_lives]

17. I agree.

"So, if your definition of "un compassionate" is someone who doesn't believe that poverty gives people the right to ignore whatever laws they want to, then color me "un compassionate."

I've said virtually the same thing in debates about immigration with friends.

[Zavulon]

20. Thanks.

I always appreciate posts like these because I know I'm in the minority here. It really is good to know that I'm not alone.

The last time I posted anything about immigration like the line you quoted from me, I was told by some asshole who is now on ignore that I belonged on freerepublic.com. Yeah, THAT's a logical reaction. I think this (and guns) are the only two things those psychos would agree with me on.

[AlphaCentauri]

50. I would like to know how many people in vietnam knows about US immigration laws

assuming that anybody around the world has to know our immigration laws is just funny.

[noiretextatique]

109. it's a way to lack compassion

while pretending you are compassionate.

[pampango]

41. Is the problem that they are "illegal" or that they are here?

Would you support immigration law changes so that similar numbers are able to immigrate here legally? I agree with you that poverty does not give "them the right to break any law of ours that they deem inconvenient".

Many who post in opposition to illegal immigration (perhaps not you) also seem to oppose legal immigration. There was a thread here last week regarding a proposed bill to allow the entry of spouses and children of green card holders (legal permanent residents). The arguments here against this bill centered on the effect of these immigrants on jobs and wages - the same arguments as used in discussing illegal immigration.

It frustrates me when posters oppose illegal immigration because it is "illegal", but oppose legal immigration, too, because of their perception of its affects on Americans. It makes one think that they would oppose "legal" immigration subsequent to any immigration reform legislation. It appears that the focus on "illegality" is a smokescreen for opposition to immigration legal or illegal.

[Zavulon]

74. If they're here legally, then the more, the merrier.

If they're not, I have no sympathy for them at all. I want their lives to be as miserable as possible until they go home, get in line and try it the right way.

I'm not opposed to legal immigration at all.

[roody]

85. Their lives are miserable at home. That is why they immigrate.

[Zavulon]

87. You should never open e-mail from strangers which has attachments.

Okay, round two: now it's your turn to state something patently obvious.

I have heard your point repeatedly - repeatedly even in this thread alone - and again, I don't consider their poverty or their misery to be an acceptable excuse for ignoring our laws. Just because that's why they do it doesn't mean I have to excuse it. I don't.

[JANdad]

93. Hey Einstein...

Please tell me you do know that Mexicans and most Central Americans CANNOT apply for a entry Visa as per the US immigration laws. In other words they can't: "get in line and try it the right way."

Because if you did not know this (which I am sure that you do) you really sound like oh I don't know...Bill O., Glenn B., Sean H. and a few other blowhards...

[AlphaCentauri]

45. Actually poor people in other countries won't qualify to get a visa

when people walk in to the US embassy they have to show they at least are part of the middle class in the country they reside.
Unfortunately there is no way for some people around the world to choose to be poor or rich but we selectively segregate the poor with working or special skills to give preference to those who have an account in the bank.

[primavera]

47. And you've never jaywalked, I suppose?

Never let your dog run off leash? Never run a red light? Never parked illegally? Never driven over the speed limit? If you truly haven't ever broken a law, you should be embarrassed for being such a mindless robot. Not every law in every context deserves to be obeyed. Many are badly written, many are unfair, many contradict other laws, many are illegal, many are willingly set aside even by courts on a case by case basis as inconsistent with a just and equitable resolution to a conflict, many are just plain stupid. Law is a relative, not an absolute. I don't dispute that illegal border crossers are knowingly violating US law, nor do I condone that. But the relative degree of culpability in that violation of law is a thing which needs to be viewed within the existing context. And that context includes the fact that US immigration law is deeply flawed. It also includes the fact that US companies actively recruit - and in some instances even pay the smugglers' fees for - undocumented labor. It also includes the fact that they're impoverished and desperate, with families who depend upon them. Put any one of us in their shoes and ask yourself how much weight "respecting US law" would hold when your family is hungry and there's an American company just on the other side of the border with a truck waiting to pick you up and drive you to a job which pays more in a week than you can earn in a year. If you would let your family go hungry before accepting the US' invitation to violate its own law, then you're either a lier or an idiot.

[Kali]

51. well put

much better than my attempts

[JonQ]

65. If you jaywalk and are issued a ticket for breaking the law

should you be able to claim that waiting for the crosswalk was too tedious, and so the law shouldn't apply to you?

[primavera]

71. Under certain circumstances, yes

You always have a right to a hearing to explain extenuating and/or mitigating circumstances, because such things do matter.

[JonQ]

103. And if a judge decides your reasons are inadequate?

Do you then organize millions of people to claim it is a basic human right?

[primavera]

108. That is one form of recourse available in a democracy, yes

If you believe that a law, or its application to your specific circumstances, is unjust, then absolutely, you are free to organize with others who share your concern and advocate for legislative relief.

With respect, I think you and many others seriously overestimate the sanctity of law. It is not some dead, carved in granite, immutable entity. The vast majority of crimes that are committed are never even prosecuted because the district attorney exercises his/her discretionary authority to determine that, yeah, a law may have been broken, but, all things considered, it was really pretty small potatoes and not worth making a fuss over. Of those that are prosecuted, many of those will be dismissed by courts because the judges feel that, yeah, while a law may have been broken, in light of the circumstances, it just isn't worth getting our panties in a bunch over. Laws are just written guidelines to help direct the judiciary in its effort to achieve just and equitable solutions to problems. They aren't completely inviolate; they were never intended to be. No law, no matter how carefully written by mere mortals, ever could be so flawlessly drafted as to provide the perfect remedy for every configuration of circumstances conceivable by human beings in their vast diversity. This is what all of the lawyers and judges in the world do for a living - they try to assess comparative degrees of fault and/or culpability in complex situations and determine what laws or combination of laws should be applied to achieve a just outcome. If the mere word of the law was all that mattered, there would be no need for judges or lawyers or juries, you could simply have a computer dispense sentences to people for their technical violations of law, irrespective of any extenuating or mitigating cicumstances. Happily, that isn't how our judiciary works, a fact for which we should all be grateful. But that also means that it works - as it must - that way for everyone, all the time, not just when it happens to serve our personal preferences.

[JonQ]

111. And enforcing a border is an unjust law?

Unlike every other country on earth the US is not allowed to have a border? I disagree. That would be national suicide.

[primavera]

113. No, we're just no different than every other country on earth

Which can and do elect to admit certain people, despite their having initially entered the country illegally, for any one of a wide variety of reasons. Other nations of the world employ some flexibility in the application of their immigration laws, why is that so difficult for you to fathom? Once again, law is not a black or white thing, it embraces about a billion shades of grey which produce about a billion different results, each depending upon the specific circumstances. You guys really need to break free of this mindset that a thing is either strictly legal, or it's illegal, and if it's illegal, it's totally wrong and never unforgivable. That's just not the way the legal system works and again, that is a fact of which we should all be extremely grateful - mindless enforcement without careful consideration is not a good thing.

[JonQ]

114. I think you'll find that the US is far more lenient

both in who we allow in legally and our tolerance of those here illegally than most other nations. I can't think of any other country on earth that tolerates 10-20 million illegals on a perpetual basis. The immigration rules in much of europe, for instance, are far stricter and enforced better than our own.

Try immigrating illegally in to mexico and you'll find that our treatment is incredibly generous by comparison.

[primavera]

116. Different circumstances warrant different treatment

Although the US has, by last reliable count, about 11 million undocumented aliens within its borders, as a percentage overall of its population of 300 million, that seemingly very large number of illegal aliens doesn't really amount to that much. Few other countries, as you say, have as many undocumented aliens, but in many of those countries, undocumented aliens constitute a higher percentage of those smaller overall populations, so the impact is proportionately greater on a per capita basis. Although we have 11 million undocumented aliens here, some of whom work in and contribute to the so called "grey market" economy, the percentage of the overall US economy occupied in the grey market is fairly small, about 5% last time I checked. In many other countries, including some of the European countries, the grey market makes up as much as 20-25% of economic activity. So, even if those countries have fewer illegal aliens numerically, if they proportionately impact the economy to a greater extent, then a different policy might very well be in order.

For what it's worth, JonQ, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that stricter border enforcement may be appropriate. Whether or not immigration, in its current proportions, is beneficial for our economy or not is a fantastically complex question, inextricably intertwined with our policies on outsourcing jobs, importing foreign goods, labor and environmental protection laws, differing rates of corporate taxation, the extent of secondary economic activity generated by immigrants,foreign trade balances, oh, and about a billion other things. But it's a sufficiently complicated question that, even though I've spent much of my life studying this issue, I don't feel comfortable saying for sure that immigration helps or hinders our economic health as it presently stands. My point is therefore not that it's inappropriate to engage in intelligent discussion on the subject of setting immigration levels, but simply that I think you, and some others, place too great an importance on the fact that illegal border crossers broke the law, and that one fact alone settles all other questions regarding their status and the role they should play in our economy and the correct policy response to their presence. It's just not that simple.

One of the key motivations behind legalization proposals is the purely practical goal of getting undocumented aliens already in the US to emerge from the underground economy. If the only carrot we can offer those working in exploited sweat shop environments is a swift deportation - or, as some here would apparently advocate for, a slow, lingering death - you'd be astonished how few illegal aliens will take us up on that seemingly attractive invitation. From a certain point of view, adopting stringent enforcement measures may serve only to drive illegals further into hiding, deeper into the grey market economy where they may be exploited freely and where their labors generate no tax revenues and their working conditions cannot be monitored. Somehow, you have to get these grey market ghosts to come out of hiding and many would argue, and credibly, that the only way to do that is to offer them some incentive to do so voluntarily.

But, for that to be meaningful, you also need to do something about the borders and about the American companies that recruit and ship illegal immigrants into the country to work for them. The immigrants in this respect are only part of the problem. If they were not being offered jobs here, there would be no illegal immigration; conversely, as long as they are being offered jobs which are, at least relative to what they can get at home, highly remunerative, no amount of border enforcement (save maybe a true Berlin Wall, with all of the expense and human rights problems that that would entail) is going to eliminate illegal immigration.

In sum, you can't just address this piecemeal and expect to resolve anything. You can rage all you want about it being illegal, but, ultimately, do you want to fix the problem or do you just want to bitch about it? If the latter, that's cool, I can sympathize; it's a free country and everyone is entitled to bitch. But I am quite certain that just bitching about it isn't going to fix the problem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Thank you

The ignorance from those who hate these immigrants is repulsive, especially here on DU.

[Zavulon]

76. Blah, blah, blah...

the difference is that every second of their existence on this side of the border is a law violation, which they are committing just because they found our laws inconvenient. I don't jaywalk 24/7, I don't own a dog, I do spend time out of my car.

As for your last line, your stupid "liar or idiot" thing, if I were idiotic enough to start a family I couldn't feed, of course I'd break the law to feed them. The difference is that I wouldn't expect the sympathy of those in the host country or march up and down the streets of their equivalent of Los Angeles talking about all of my supposed "rights." I wouldn't even expect the Internet posts of pompous, condescending blowhards who will trumpet until their dying breath that my poverty gives me the right to ignore whatever fucking law I want to.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

66. A ray of sanity

on this thread.

[ProudDad]

92. We've long been aware

of your peculiar brand of "compassion"...

It's sad to see you haven't changed at all over the years...

[Kali]

18. its a god damn civil offense to be here with out papers!

but "breaking our laws" sounds so much more like armed robbery or other real crimes doesn't it? And they don't commit that civil violation because it is "inconvenient" most do it because they are desperate.

[Zavulon]

21. Right, I'M the one spinning this.

There is no right to be here without approval, and it IS a real crime. Many people here illegally work under the table, and that's a real crime as well. Both of those are "breaking our laws," no matter how you try to spin this.

Most bank robbers don't rob banks because the withdrawal process and getting a job are "inconvenient," many do it because they're desperate - and I'm not willing to excuse them, either. Same with people who hold up stores, sell drugs and so on. Just because those particular crimes might be more "real" to you than immigration laws doesn't mean it's okay to break immigration laws.

In my view, which you obviously think very little of, desperation is simply not a mitigating circumstance when it comes to breaking immigration laws.

If someone broke into your house and stole a bunch of stuff, I wouldn't excuse that for anything. Still, I have no doubt that there would be plenty of people who share your mindset that think desperation is an acceptable excuse. Sorry, no sale here.

[Fumesucker]

24. They are here basically because of employers who break the law..

If they couldn't get work in the US, they wouldn't be here.

It is wealthy American citizens who cause this problem by hiring those who enter the country illegally.

It's revealing that you didn't even mention the real root of the problem while railing at those who are doing a lot of the suffering.

[Zavulon]

84. I've stated elsewhere

that I want draconian penalties for both illegals AND their employers.

Still, employers can't hire someone whose presence is illegal unless the illegal crosses the border in the first place. Also, the article wasn't about a bunch of employers who died in an SUV.

[Fumesucker]

89. I actually have known quite a few "illegals".

I worked in construction for many years and if you are sympathetic and can speak a little Spanish it's surprising what people will tell you.

The stories a lot of these folks tell are heartbreaking.

I also know quite a few of those who employ the "illegals".

Their stories are far more sordid.

Dry up the demand and the supply will drop to almost nothing remarkably quickly.

We can't afford "draconian punishments" for millions of illegals but we can afford them for a few tens of thousands of employers.

[Zavulon]

91. I've known a few myself.

The ones I've known wouldn't evoke sympathy from anyone I've ever chatted with on DU. Still, I wouldn't base my overall opinion on either a few good ones or a few bad ones.

I'd certainly be willing to start with draconian punishments for employers, as you correctly point out that it is more feasible. I'm not sure you'd approve of my idea for punishment (a year in jail for each illegal hired, complete confiscation of all assets), but I dont' argue that your approach, as stated, would be an improvement over both parties turning their heads to the problem.

I would not, however, let illegals skate.

[Kali]

25. so you can't differentiate between degrees of offense?

do you see no difference between someone smoking a joint and one mugging an old lady?

The desperation that I speak of, in terms of the massive migration across US Mexican border is not an isolated case of individuals, it is a massive socio-political-economic and ecological mess created primarily by OUR shitty policies, driven by OUR large corporate interests. I take that into account when my heart bleeds for these people. The have been driven off the land by actions initiated here, they are hired by companies here, they have very little choice in the matter, unlike the local drug addict or bank robber.

And by the way I say this despite being affected by the migration almost daily. I am on a ranch 60 miles from the border. I have dealt with lost walkers, abandoned vehicles, cut fences, trash like you probably cannot conceive, federal police invading my work, following me around etc. I am not talking out of my unaffected ass.

edit to add: perhaps you would like us to be more like this:

"North Korea found two U.S. journalists it has held since March guilty of illegal entry and sentenced them to 12 years hard labor, its official KCNA news agency said on Monday.

The journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, of U.S. media outlet Current TV, were arrested while working on a story near the border between North Korea and China. Their trial opened on Thursday.

"The trial confirmed the grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing as they had already been indicted and sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor," KCNA said in a brief dispatch."

(highlighting mine - Kali)
I just read over at Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com /

[Zavulon]

72. I don't care.

You differentiate all you want between smoking a joint and mugging old ladies, or blame America all you want
(after all, the countries they come from have just the super-duper bestest policies, it's OURS that are evil and inhumane ). I don't care. It won't motivate me to excuse people for ignoring and breaking our laws. I really don't see how I can make that any clearer.

As for your edit, I'd prefer us to be more like that than to just turn a blind eye to illegal "immigration." I would want to see removed every possible incentive to be here illegally. I want citizenship by birth removed, I want an illegal's rights limited to those we'd have in his or her country if we were there illegally (for example, in Mexico that wiould mean no free legal representation, no medical care), I want draconian penalties for both illegals and those who hire them, period.

Now, care to write another post about how your heart bleeds and how America sucks, in yet another futile attempt to change my mind, or do you have an idea where I stand now?

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. Do you not understand the difference between a civil and a criminal offense?

Guess not.

[Zavulon]

81. A question which would actually be apt is

whether I care. In the case of millions and millions of people whose illegal presence damages our economy and costs jobs to those here legally, I fucking don't. As such, take your snide question / answer and consult your local proctologist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. Wow.

You are sadly uninformed. And repulsively uncompassionate.

[Zavulon]

83. Oh, no.

You don't think I'm compassionate, and you claim I'm uninformed? How will I get any sleep tonight?

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Actually I am more concerned about people sleeping in the desert

without water.

I'm sure your sleep will be peaceful.

[WePurrsevere]

115. 6/9 - from maquisard (Latest Breaking News)

And another one I think needs to go.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Forum: Latest Breaking News
Subject: A question which would actually be apt is
Author: Zavulon


whether I care. In the case of millions and millions of people whose illegal presence damages our economy and costs jobs to those here legally, I fucking don't. As such, take your snide question / answer and consult your local proctologist.


Reason:
------

[ProudDad]

94. Truth! From Zavulon!

"I'M the one spinning this"

Anything to trash undocumented human beings....

[Downwinder]

22. To what papers do you allude? n/t

[Kali]

27. visas, green cards etc

often they don't even have the proper Mexican (or other country) documents to apply,much less qualify for what is needed to work here.

[WriteDown]

30. So what fantastic country does not require proof of

citizenship?

[Kali]

31. I'm not sure what you are talking about,

but if you have ever dealt with bureaucracy in THIS country you need to understand the exponentially worse system for getting those kinds of things done in Mexico.

When you are dirt poor, just traveling to do the paperwork is a hardship - then not having the facilities to stay and track the process etc etc - and then be told no anyway....meanwhile your kids are hungry and you have no prospects whatsoever...you go, you walk 50 miles across the desert, you work your ASS off for low wages and you dream of going HOME to your country and your family.

[WriteDown]

32. Uh...

Mexico's laws concerning immigration are FAR more strict than the US's. For one, you can't even buy property if you emigrate there and that is AFTER you are granted citizenship. Also, you are barred from ever politically protesting there. You are also REQUIRED to speak the native language. Another, Mexico does not allow any unskilled labor to emigrate.

Please try again.

[Kali]

34. I think you are illustrating my point.

The bureaucracy is worse there. But are you trying to say Americans can't buy property there? If so you are incorrect. I have no evidence that new citizens are barred from political protest - what is yours? Oh my god you are "required" to speak Spanish. So what? It's not that difficult. English is a hell of lot harder and an awful lot of people in this country would like to see English only requirements. Whatever - kind of a non-issue to me.

[WriteDown]

If you emigrate to Mexico...

You can only buy property if it is through a trust under a native Mexican citizen. You can never own property.

Also, you may want to do some travelling and head down to the southern border of Mexico. Many Guatemalans would love to go North into Mexico. Of course if they try, they are mowed down by machine guns. Odd that this only happens on the southern border.

You may also want to check out the Mexican constitution

Article 33: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." (See also Article 35 listing the prerogatives of Mexican citizens.)

Article 27: "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."

[Kali]

38. so bottom line is yeah you can buy property and if a citizen you can participate in polit

you can't go crying to the US government if they decide to take it away. You can even buy in exclusion zones (coastal) through trusts. You can buy ejido lands but it requires agreement with the ejido and that can be messy, but still doable. I know lots of American owners of Mexican properties. I know a couple "new" citizens that own property.

Do you think foreigners in this country are allowed to go crying to their governments if the US govt. confiscates their property?

I have fed and watered Guatamalans and Salvadorans and they are a significant portion of the immigrants that get picked up by the Border Patrol around here - not all are mowed down with machine guns. I guess you could say the same here as a few have been shot by the Border Patrol. Exaggerate much?

Anyway not sure what this has to do with how WE view and treat these people??? If some other country behaves in some fashion that is inhumane does that mean we should too?

[ProudDad]

95. Some alleged "natives" here struggle with the English language

You say that one cannot buy land in Mexico even if you become a Mexican Citizen...

"You can never own property..."

and then you post Article 27: ""Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization ... have the right to acquire ownership of lands"

You do realize that:

naturalization is the "Legal process by which a citizen of one country becomes a citizen of another."


See how hard ees the Ainglish...señor...

[WriteDown]

36. If you emigrate to Mexico...

You can only buy property if it is through a trust under a native Mexican citizen. You can never own property.

Also, you may want to do some travelling and head down to the southern border of Mexico. Many Guatemalans would love to go North into Mexico. Of course if they try, they are mowed down by machine guns. Odd that this only happens on the southern border.

You may also want to check out the Mexican constitution

Article 33: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." (See also Article 35 listing the prerogatives of Mexican citizens.)

Article 27: "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."

[AlphaCentauri]

54. Cause and effect, much history has to be read to know why

San Agustin de Laredo, a colonial city of New Spain founded in 1755, was named for a town in Santander, situated on the north coast of Spain. Nuevo Santander, one of the last northern provinces of New Spain, was established by the Spaniard José de Escandón as part of the efforts to colonize northern Mexico. Appointed governor, Escandón was responsible for colonization along the Rio Grande, and a chain of six settlements were established, with Camargo being the earliest in 1749. The other outposts included Reynosa (1749), Dolores (1750), Revilla (1750), and Mier (1752). Since no missions or presidios were associated with its founding, Laredo is considered the oldest independent settlement in Texas and is the only remaining Spanish colonial settlement on the north bank of the lower Rio Grande (Laredo Convention and Visitor's Bureau).

Nuevo Laredo was born as a result of the treaty "Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo" entered into by México and United States in February 1848 - ending the war between the two nations. Yet, in reality, the formal foundation of the city was on May 15th, 1755.

On May 30th, 1848, México and the United States established a new international boundary. The new border divided in two the "Villa de San Agustín de Laredo" and what is now known as Nuevo Laredo. This treaty divided Tamaulipas territory - which lost all territory north of "Río Bravo de la Villa de Laredo". The then Governor Vital Fernández declared that, south of the river, the name of the new city would be called "Villa de Nuevo Laredo". Older accounts relate that habitants from San Agustin De Laredo, after realizing they were going to wind up on the U.S. side and lose their Mexican citizenship, moved back to the Mexican side with all their belonging - including their buried loved ones.
http://nuevolaredo.usconsulate.gov/nuevolaredo/nuevo_la...

[ProudDad]

96. Some alleged "natives" in the USAmerikan Empire struggle with the English language

You say that one cannot buy land in Mexico even if you become a Mexican Citizen...

"You can never own property..."

and then you post Article 27: ""Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization ... have the right to acquire ownership of lands"

You do realize that:

naturalization is the "Legal process by which a citizen of one country becomes a citizen of another."


See how hard ees the Ainglish...señor...

[WriteDown]

102. I encourage you to read the entire Mexican Constitution..

Also do a little research on buying land in Mexico.

[ProudDad]

120. Irrelevant...

I was just pointing out an inability to understand English implicit in your post #36...

[michreject]

33. I see your logic

Let the illegal put an American out of work so his kids can go hungry.

Way to go.

[Kali]

35. no, you clearly see the logic your overlords want you to see

the assholes hiring "illegals" and not paying decent wages are the ones who are putting Americans out of work. You ignorantly blaming Mexicans and other poor people is EXACTLY the way they like it. So much easier for everybody if those "illegals" are at fault and nobody looks at the REAL reasons.

[michreject]

40. They may not be 100% at fault

But they contribute to the problem. Don't say they don't.

[pampango]

42. Do you just blame illegal immigrants or all immigrants? n/t

[michreject]

44. The one's that decided they were superior

to the one's who follow channels.

[Kali]

48. "The one's that decided they were superior..."

[michreject]

53. Those that think

Why should I have to follow procedures? I'm better than the others and my needs come first. I'll just cut in front of the line. No wait. I'll ignore the line all together.

[Kali]

59. last response

your kids are hungry, there are no thoughts about lines or who is first or who the fuck is better than anybody else. They know where their place is in the hierarchy. The very god damn bottom. Your understanding and compassion for other human beings is severely impaired.

[michreject]

63. Last response

Rules are there for a reason. Don't play by em, expect the worst possible outcome.

[Kali]

46. they are symptom

they also contribute in positive ways, don't say they don't.

[michreject]

52. Yeah they are

They do all the jobs that Americans won't do.

[AlphaCentauri]

55. I want to see my kids as gardeners, nannies and strawberry pickers

anybody else share the same dream?

[michreject]

56. Unlike some. If I needed a job

I would become a gardener, nanny and strawberry picker.

Or course I don't have a smug view of myself thinking I DESERVE the best.

[AlphaCentauri]

57. 1 in millions won't make a difference

when the jobs are available everybody wants to make 50 dollars per hours, good excuse to not get a job, and many prefer to have the mentally ill, the homeless or any minority to do those jobs.

Texas farm that employed mentally disabled faces more scrutiny after Iowa facility's shutdown

The young men, fresh from Texas state institutions for the mentally disabled, began arriving at Thurman Johnson's ranch in the rolling hills west of town in the late 1960s.

Johnson taught them how to raise turkeys and cows and perform other farm chores, then put them to work. Later, he and his partner, Kenneth Henry, hired out the men as laborers at turkey processing plants in Iowa and other states.

Over four decades, Johnson and Henry cared for hundreds of mentally disabled Texans and profited from their labor – with the knowledge of state and federal authorities. The arrangement ended in February, when Iowa authorities shut down a shabby bunkhouse where the last 21 men lived while working long hours in a nearby turkey processing plant.

FBI agents and other federal and state investigators in Texas and Iowa have interviewed witnesses and are poring over thousands of pages of records to determine whether the business broke laws, including underpaying workers or violating their civil rights. Iowa authorities recently notified Henry that the business could face $900,000 in fines for improper payroll deductions and other alleged violations.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texass...

[michreject]

64. And the C/P proves what?

Nothing.

[ProudDad]

97. No...you don't have a smug view of yourself...or do you?

You seem to lack compassion for fellow human beings and an abysmal lack of knowledge of history.

You seem to have no sense of what the USAmerikan Capitalist Empire did that rendered those poor folks desperate enough for the most resourceful of them to brave the dangers of crossing from what is their country to what WAS their country in order to survive.

Or do you not care as long as you've got yours!

But then most USAmericans think they DESERVE to gobble up 25% of the Earth's resources for a scant 4% of the Earth's inhabitants.

And pay through the freakin' nose with over half of their treasure for a huge war machine to make sure they can grab that 25% in perpetuity.

[michreject]

101. What a croc of shit. nt

[ProudDad]

117. What an erudite response..

hit a nerve, eh?

[Romulox]

60. I'm disturbed by your attacks on working class people.

What the fuck is wrong with being a gardener, or a nannie? And, moreover, I thought you over-brimmed with "compassion" for the people who do these jobs (presumably illegal immigrants.)

You need to seriously reassess the way you value the efforts of working people--janitors, slaughter-house workers and day laborers are born as human beings not convenient servants for you.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. More disturbing is to portrait immigrants like if they were not part of the working class

something must be wrong with that picture, I'm for a 50 dollars minimum wage are you?

[Romulox]

106. The only one denigrating "gardeners, nannies and strawberry pickers" here is YOU.

I'm not sure if you're a cheap labor shill, or merely confused. But denigrating working people is NOT going to help you achieve your goals.

[AlphaCentauri]

107. Not me, I'm not playing hypocrisy and xenophobia n/t

[JonQ]

67. So there are certain jobs that are unacceptable for real americans

and should be relegated to a lower, untouchable class because we are too good for it?

I've done manual labor for right around minimum wage because I needed the money, I didn't consider myself "above" such work, that I was entitled to a nice job inside simply because I was an american. You take the best job you can get, if that's working in a field then so be it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. And hotel maids and roofers and restaurant workers.

Those are my dreams for my kids.

[Romulox]

105. LOL. The Democratic Party USED to be the party of roofers, maids... Now they are contemptible???

[DatManFromNawlins]

110. Chalk another one up for ivory tower asshats

[create.peace]

99. two of my children are nannies, one is married, they are 23 and 32, thank you

[Gormy Cuss]

112. That tired old canard isn't helpful.

There are many of us who count laborers like that among our family members. They're actually happy to have their children follow in those professions if there's money and job security.

The presence of an enormous supply of workers in nearby countries who are willing to risk everything to come here without documentation, combined with the lax enforcement and poorly defined quota systems of ICE, means that employers have the upper hand and can get away with lower wages, benefits, and poorer workplace conditions than if all of the potential workers enjoyed the same protections as legally resident workers.

Citizens and documented VISA holders are asked to compete with a workforce that will settle for less just in order to get or keep a job. That's the main reason that illegal immigration is such a hot button for many legal residents in working class occupations.

[Downwinder]

68. Do you cary "papers" in your pocket sufficient to prove citizenship

at all times, and is there a legal requirement to do so?

[JonLP24]

37. Oh wow

Illegal or not people are crossing the border and perhaps they don't want them to die. Helping people from dying such as dehydration is aiding and abetting? Actual transport is one thing but providing water to help prevent deaths? Water is a neccesity and if providing water for lawbreakers prevents deaths then I'm all for it, I can't believe you equated death prevention with actual housing and transporting of illegal immigrants.

[Zavulon]

73. Believe it. We couldn't be more opposed on this issue.

If there were no water stations out there, less people would try it. If a few lawbreakers dropping dead disuade others from doing it, I'm all for that. If not, and they drop dead during the attempt without us making it easier for them, I have no problem with that, either. Further, I have no sympathy for those in the SUV, while we're at it.

I have zero - ZERO - sympathy for illegal aliens, and I would LOVE to see people who put up water stations charged with aiding and abetting.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Aiding and abetting violating a civil offense??

Should we lock up passengers in cars who encourage drivers to go faster because they are running late?

[Zavulon]

80. That would depend.

Would the passengers' actions aid in / assist in / abet the drivers doing things along the lines of demanding non-existent "rights," sneaking across borders to give birth and then whining about their family being split up when the law is actually enforced, depressing wages, working under the table without paying taxes, straining our hospitals and our school systems, etc.? If so, sure, lock them up.

[ProudDad]

98. A Truly disgusting Post

You're a very dangerous and scary individual...

[NutmegYankee]

70. Really? And I just thought it was not wearing seat belts... n/t

[CreekDog]

19. The driver and or others responsible for the substandard transportation should be criminally charged

I don't see this as an illegal immigration problem, I see this as a criminally negligent business operation that flaunts many laws and kills innocent victims in the process. they should be shut down and pursued criminally.

[BoneDaddy]

26. Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding

What a damn shame.

[snooper2]

28. illegal or not you can't fix stupid...

Good thing they are going to charge the driver...

[Romulox]

58. LOL at the posters above who have "compassion" for the practice of smuggling people!

into a serf-like underclass, no less.

[Kali]

61. uh the compassion is for the people being smuggled

not the smugglers (even though they too are just a symptom of bad policy as well) or the practice of smuggling itself - can't you understand that?

[Romulox]

62. And yet these self-same posters argue vociferously to keep the smuggling lanes open...

Hmmmm....

[ProudDad]

100. Some people don't understand compassion...

And they sure don't understand the southern border. They have no appreciation of the rich culture we're benefiting from; given to us here by Native Peoples and by the Mexican People.

They have no sense of history and the fact that this WAS Mexico until USAmerica stole it with a "pre-emptive" strike, a trumped up war of conquest.

Let us just be compassionate and leave the un-compassionate to their squalid little lives filled with hate and fear of "THEM" and "The Other" and hope that someday they learn to live in harmony with their fellow creatures -- no matter where they migrate from.

[Romulox]

104. Defending the status quo in which workers are exploited, killed = / = "compassion"

Btw. Michigan was never part of Mexico.

[ProudDad]

118. I know

my family all came from Michigan (including the ones who immigrated "illegally" from Canada!)...

Michiganders as a group are about as incurious and provincial as the late, not so lamented pResident.