More illegal immigrants from India crossing border

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

More illegal immigrants from India crossing border
By CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN, Associated Press – 4 hours ago

LOS FRESNOS, Texas (AP) — Police wearing berets and bulletproof vests broke down the door of a Guatemala City apartment in February hunting for illegal drugs. Instead, they found a different kind of illicit shipment: 27 immigrants from India packed into two locked rooms.

The Indians, whose hiding space was furnished only with soiled mattresses, claimed to be on vacation. But authorities quickly concluded they were waiting to be smuggled into the United States via an 11,000-mile pipeline of human cargo — the same network that has transported thousands of illegal immigrants from India, through Central America and Mexico and over the sandy banks of the Rio Grande during the past two years.

Indians have arrived in droves even as the overall number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has dropped dramatically, in large part because of the sluggish American economy. And with fewer Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border, smugglers are eager for more "high-value cargo" like Indians, some of whom are willing to pay more than $20,000 for the journey.

"Being the businessmen they are, they need to start looking for ways to supplement that work," said Rosendo Hinojosa, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, at the southernmost tip of Texas, which is the most active nationwide for apprehending Indian nationals.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0GNeboVrzPCa4jOGuhaDAMhKuJQ?docId=82cd94b3101a4f3c88e7213eb9162854

[Springer9]

1. Why is it that the media has to refer to them as illegal immigrants from India?

Human beings are not illegal. They are migrant workers only looking to improve their lives, but because they're brown people they're denigrated as illegal.

Imagine a world without borders, it's easy if you try.

[juajen]

2. Sure thing, and I can't even go to Canada to live; but easily could

go to Mexico. I don't care that they're brown. I only care that they are taking s and services that belong to Americans, who have paid in tears and money for the right to live in this country. If you want to come here to live, come legally, just as we have to do if we want to move to France, of Canada, etc.

[humblebum]

18. You can't say that. It's too logical.

(SARCASM) I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that shipping jobs out of the country and bringing more workers in is just crazy.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. Have you actually tried?

It is remarkably easy for an American to obtain a work permit in either Canada or France.

[snooper2]

31. you won't be able to buy any land in Mexico

[ManiacJoe]

3. Because it is an accurate reference.

They are from India, and they are immigrating using illegal methods.
:shrug:

[No Elephants]

11. We don't even call murderers illegals. Undocumented immigrant is accurate, too.

[ManiacJoe]

12. That is because there is no such thing as

a "legal murderer".

Immigrants come in two versions, legal and illegal. "Undocumented" would be one subclass of illegal immigrants. Over-staying a visa would be another subclass.

[pennylane100]

4. These human beings were trying to enter the country illegally.

that would make them immigrants who, had they made it here, would be here illegally. They sound like illegal immigrants to me. Had they arrived, they would have immediately started looking for work in a country were millions of citizens are unemployed.

We also owe our own citizens the right to improve their lives and this is never going to happen while there is a vast labor pool of illegal immigrants willing to work for minimum wages. When they get sick, because very few minimum wage jobs provide health insurance, they will be forced to use the overburdened emergency rooms. The taxpayer will pay for that. This,in turn, forces hard working tax payers to subsidize profitable businesses, by paying their workers health costs.

I really don't care what color their skin is, I do not want them taking American jobs and I don't want my taxes to pay for expenses that should be paid by the employers or the illegal persons themselves.

[LanternWaste]

32. I passed a butt load of illegals on my drive in to work this morning...

I passed a butt load of illegals on my drive in to work this morning... speeders and texters in school-zones mainly.

Though many people do seem quite puzzled when I apply that wholly valid approbation to American citizens for some odd reason. :shrug:

[Proletariatprincess]

6. There is no immigration problem in the USA.

There is a Labor Law problem....as in lack of fair and reasonable working conditions at fair wages. When employers are forced to treat all workers fairly and the USA has universal health care like that in Europe, we can throw open the borders to all comers.
It is always the bosses that pit workers against each other.

[catabryna]

10. +1

:loveya:

[WatsonT]

15. European nations have stricter labor laws than we do

and universal healthcare.

*AND* they have stricter immigration laws than we do.

Your assessment is incorrect.

[pampango]

20. Europe does have better labor laws and universal health care and more liberal immigration laws

than we do. European countries have open immigration (no border controls) with each other. (We have open immigration with no other country.) And they have a higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the US has.

Conservative reaction to their liberal immigration laws is what has gotten the right wing populist (European tea) parties in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, Switzerland and others, seats in national legislatures for the first time.

If by 'stricter' you mean better enforced with fewer illegal immigrants, you are right. They have very liberal immigration laws which are very strictly enforced. Though you can ask any right winger in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, etc. and they will tell you that Muslim immigration, from outside the EU, is out of control.

[WatsonT]

28. They have open borders with other european states

not with the world.

Europe admits far fewer immigrants than we do and has even fewer illegals.

So their laws are actually much stricter.

[pampango]

34. Precisely. They have open borders with many other countries on their continent. We do not.

If France or Germany have open immigration with 25 other countries and we have open immigration with 0 countries, that's one pretty big indication of which has more liberal immigration laws.

Add to that the fact that European countries have far more immigrants than we do, it's hard to argue that they have restrictive immigration laws.

They do have fewer illegal immigrants than we do. One reason is that having open borders with all your neighbors means that you can't have any "illegal" immigrants from them, because the immigrants all are "legal". (There are no "illegal" immigrants from Poland in Germany as there undoubtedly would be if they had a closed border like we have with Canada and Mexico. They are all "legal".) That cuts way down on the number of illegal immigrants.

But conservatives still play on people's fear of 'others' even though the number of illegal immigrants is relatively small. The right wing populist parties there has used fear of immigrants to play the "we want our country back" card and win seats in national parliaments.

So their immigration laws are actually much more liberal than ours, but they do enforce those laws very strictly.

[WatsonT]

35. We have a more or less open border with Canada

there is no comparing France/Germanys border to the US/Mexico.

Even the poorer states of Europe are still first world. They have nothing like the first/third world meshup we do with Mexico.

Also traveling between nations freely is not the same as immigration. A french citizen can go to germany easily, but working and voting there requires a bit more effort.

[pampango]

36. We don't have a "more or less" open border with Canada.

There's a border control checkpoint you have to go through. You need to show a passport or similar document. It's true you don't need a visa, but that's all and that doesn't make it 'open'. A European doesn't need any of that and there aren't any border control checkpoints to show your passport at even if you carry it with you.

Mexico's GDP per capita (PPP) is $14,265. Poland is $18,705. A $4,500 difference but not the difference between first world and third world. And yet Germany and Poland seem to get along just fine with an open border between them. (And they avoid there being any "illegal" Polish workers in Germany. They are all covered by the same labor laws that German workers are covered by. No one has to hide or sneak around.)

The newest members of the EU (joining in 2007) are Romania and Bulgaria. The PPP of Romania is $11,755 and that of Bulgaria is $13,448.

So there are European countries that are poorer than Mexico. (I wouldn't call them "Third World" but then I didn't call Mexico that either.) So Europe does have something "like the first/third world meshup we do with Mexico" and yet they make it work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bulgaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico

You're right. "(T)raveling between nations freely is not the same as immigration." Of course we can't even agree with Canada and Mexico to travel freely between our nations, much less allow immigration, so Europe already has us beat there.

A French person has a legal right to work in Germany, and vice versa of course. That's one of the reasons that the EU was formed. It does not take "a bit more effort". And as far as voting - that takes a whole lot more "work" since the French citizen would have to change his citizenship in order to vote in German elections.. So you overestimate the amount of effort required in one case and underestimate it in the other.

[aquart]

7. They are distinguishing them from Mexicans and South Americans.

Which should, I would think, be obvious. Because the nationality of the illegal worker signals a serious change.

If our jobs are going to India, why are Indians coming here?

Something is massively wrong which you would notice if you didn't get all tangled up in irrelevant semantics.

As for the ridiculously hippy-dippy Beatles quote, good grief. Get a grip on reality.

[smiley]

9. wrong

I believe that "hippy-dippy" quote is from the song IMAGINE, written by former Beatle, John Lennon. Not the Beatles.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[DesertFlower]

8. i agree. nt

[AverageJoe90]

13. Kudos. =)

[WatsonT]

14. Why don't they just call them naturalized citizens instead?

Because of course they are not.

They are illegally immigrating to another country.

Making them illegal immigrants?

/why does the racist media refer to people convicted of crimes as "criminals"? People aren't illegal!

[AlphaCentauri]

16. Running a red light doesn't make you a criminal

immigrants are not criminals

[Upton]

19. If immigrants enter the country illegally...

That makes them, by definition, criminals..

[AlphaCentauri]

23. OK so anyone running a red light is a criminal?

crossing the street on red is illegal, I guess everybody is illegal, criminals, so any misdemeanor makes you illegal or criminal.

[ChromeFoundry]

26. Yes. Because....

If you run a traffic light and don't have a drivers license... or present falsified documentation stating that you are someone that you are not, that is a felony.

Therefore, if you cross the border illegally and are caught immediately, it is a misdemeanor on first offense. Second time you try, it is a felony.

Oh, and BTW.. your analogy of comparing illegal entry to a country to a traffic violation is pathetic. Why not choose something a little more comparable, like - breaking and entering? B&E is only a misdemeanor as well... unless you actually intended to steal something or commit another felony, like work illegally.

In your case, the alleged illegal immigrant would only be committing a misdemeanor if they illegally entered the country to vacation here and spend the money that they earned elsewhere - and I'm sure that was their intent! :sarcasm:

[LanternWaste]

33. It appears you qualify the term "illegal" to better suit your own needs

It appears you qualify the term "illegal" to better suit your own needs rather than allowing it the wholly valid censure on American drivers driving illegally (hence, allowing them too the name tag of "illegal")... :shrug:

[ChromeFoundry]

37. The term was "Criminal" not "Illegal"

try to keep up with the rest of us.

Not sure where you are going with this, other than to argue a point that is not being argued.

[AlphaCentauri]

39. I see your point, 99% of Americans are Criminals n/t

[ChromeFoundry]

43. Your problem isn't illiteracy...

It is that you cannot see the words having your head buried so deeply.

[WatsonT]

29. Well actually yes it does

breaking the law means you are in fact breaking the law.

Simply repeating over and over again that they aren't breaking the law doesn't make it so.

[AlphaCentauri]

40. where are all those pesky criminals Jaywalkers? n/t

[WatsonT]

42. If caught they get the fine

they don't get to scream "no human being is illegal!" and then fight for their rights to illegally cross the street.

Nope, if caught they pay the penalty and that's it.

Seems fair doesn't it?

[Igel]

21. Slogans kill brain cells.

We have to figure out what phrases mean. Sometimes we listen to people who insist on a simple-minded parsing of an expression, usually saying that it *must* follow a specific analogy when, in fact, there are many. It takes a bit of tolerance and understanding to sort out what the people mean; if we're intolerant of others and don't care to understand it makes the mistake easier.

"An illegal immigrant" could mean, as widely cited, "an illegal person who immigrates or has immigrated". Or it could mean "a person who illegal immigrates or has illegally immigrated." You can't tell. We don't modify nouns with adverbs: "an illegally immigrant" isn't well-formed. It's ungrammatical.

The claim is that "an illegal immigrant" must mean "an illegal person who immigrates/has immigrated"--after all, it's an adjective, right?

Take a few phrases that aren't all that controversial.

"A poor musician."

"A talented chef."

"A former employee."

Let's apply the one and only way of understanding such constructions--we have adjectives, they must modify "person." "A poor person who engages in music." "A talented person who prepares food." "A former person who is an employee."

Notice that "poor person" doesn't describe *how* the person plays music. The person's poor. Perhaps he sucks at being a person; perhaps he's destitute.

The chef may or may not be good at cooking. All we've done is said that the person is talented. At what we leave unclear. He could just as well be a very good juggler, a lyric tenor, or a very good painter. "He's a talented chef--his food sucks, but he can paint a room in nothing flat" sounds like a contradiction in terms--or ironic, dependent on context for it to make sense).

"The former person" who is an employee is a bit of an enigma. A former person? He's now worm food? Or perhaps he's a werewolf in his wolfish state.

No. A poor musician is a person who plays music poorly. That's an adverb there, forced to masquerade as an adjective to confuse the simple and satisfy the surface rules of English grammar. A talented chef is a person who cooks in a talented manner. "Talented" describes his chefly activity, not him. A former employee is a person who formerly was an employee. "Former" says something about the time frame of the activity, not the time frame of personhood.

Sometimes you can peel the adjective away from the noun. Sometimes you can't: "The musician is poor" works only when "poor" must refer to his musical ability. Penurious musicians being a commonplace, it has a more common interpretation. "The chef is talented" works to mean "talented at food preparation," but the whole thing sounds redundant: "The chef is talented at food preparation" sounds forced. Too much repetition of the same info. "The employee is former" is harder because temporal adverbs don't like being predicate adjectives. "The current employee" doesn't yield "the employee is current"--that usually means "up to date", not "currently employed". You *can* coerce the right meaning by context: "Is Mr. Smith a current or former employee." "He's former," but that's more having the word refer back to a word describing the actual state than to the actual state itself.

So an "illegal immigrant" per some must be "an illegal person who immigrates." The different between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant isn't the kind of immigration but the kind of person--a legal person versus an illegal person. After all, adjectives + some word denoting a person must always modify the "person" part of the word's meaning, right? Except this doesn't fit the usage: The difference alleged between Jose with his green card and Miguel with his fake ID isn't *them* but their immigration status, the kind of immigration they engaged in.

An "illegal person" is presumably a state that would have to be changed. To go from illegal immigrant to legal immigrant must involve becoming a different kind of person. "He went from being an illegal immigrant to a legal immigrant by leaving the country and returning in a legal manner." Versus, "He went from being an illegal immigrant to a legal immigrant by becoming a legal person." The first is something that has meaning; the second, which is what some less coherent illegal-immigrant advocates want, is pretty much meaningless.

[lib2DaBone]

5. Tea Bagger Job Creation...

[TexDevilDog]

17. they are only trying to do the work

that lazy doctors and engineers won't do.

[AlphaCentauri]

24. They are supplanting or filling the holes the education system is living behind

Indian engineers pay 300 for their education, students in the US have to pay 100 000 if they can afford it.

[OhioChick]

25. +1000 n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

27. Yes, all those Indian doctors and engineers here are illegal immigrants.

:eyes:

[SpartanDem]

38. As usual the illegal immigrant defending crowd shows up

why should citizens and legal immigrants have to compete for jobs with these people? They are not undocumented and this is NOT like just running a red light or whatever lame excuse people want to come with to say what these isn't a big deal.

[Xicano]

41. n/t