"Don't Sneak Into My House and Demand Your Rights!" -->

This was the sign of a counterprotester at yesterday's immigration protests. This one slogan, "Don't sneak into my house and demand your rights," encapsulates the angst many Americans feel towards illegals for a variety of reasons.

I have IMPLORED the protesters to make themselves more credible in order to get Americans to side with their cause, but unfortunately, to no avail. Yesterday I heard numerous references to the "jobs Americans won't do." This is SO DIVISIVE I can't even tell you! And yet they are STILL saying it?

Lou Dobbs on ABC's Good Morning America this morning called it, "A clear-cut attack on the American worker." Why? Because it's PATENTLY FALSE.

Illegals, hired by lawbreaking American companies, have TAKEN the jobs Americans WILL do and DO do on a daily basis. This includes restaurant work, janitorial work, construction, welding, factory work, agricultural work - all these jobs have been done by Americans since the inception of our country and continue to be done by Americans to this day!

So they're telling ME that folks in the inner city who WANT to work won't take that work? You're telling ME that the victims of Katrina who really needed to get back to work but couldn't (contractors hired illegals for the cleanup) were simply LAZY? You're telling ME that college students who will do ANYTHING to pay off their debts don't want to do the work? Bologna. Don't buy it. Because it doesn't have an ounce of truth.

Americans are hard-working to the core. It's amazing to me what some Americans do for a living - even risking their lives! Backbreaking work, hard labor, days under the hot sun and nights in bone-chilling cold weather. This willingness to do this kind of work is what made our country great! And Americans continue to do this kind of work to this very day.

The simple fact of the matter is that illegals have not only usurped the jobs Americans WILL do and DO do, but they have also put downward pressure on wages across the board, lowering take-home pay for millions of middle-class Americans. Now Americans are being passed over in favor of illegal workers - not because illegals work harder and "do the jobs Americans won't do," but because nobody can compete with a lower-paid workforce. The question is not whether Americans will stand for this, it's for how long. It is truly the "WalMartization" of the American workforce, and it simply will not sustain itself.

But what most troubles Americans is the confrontational attitude of the illegals. "We're here to STAY!" they say. "We work hard, we do jobs Americans won't do. Tomorrow we vote!" They make it sound like Americans are just stupid and lazy, and THEY are the only ones working hard. They wave the Mexican flag in our faces, in essence spitting on the very country that took them in in the first place and gave them a hope and a future. Rather than integrating, they are being divisive and confrontational. They are flouting the laws of our land (they are here illegally and they know it), and they don't even WANT to consider doing anything that might unify their cause with the American people.

And now they are demanding their "rights."

But what rights? What rights do those who are in our country ILLEGALLY have? For that matter, what right do American companies have to hire these people in the first place? I believe the answer to both is simple. None.

I am sorely disappointed in yesterday's protests. Rather than doing the things that could get the American people behind them, they have only further alienated Americans from their cause. They are becoming increasingly divisive rather than going the other direction. This is a very bad omen, and I can only hope they consider what they are doing.

"Don't sneak into my house and demand your rights."

What do you think?

in 1848 and demand your rights! After all that was a long time ago and neither of us was alive then. Tough luck for you, good for me.

The land is not stolen. The land is ours by might. Agree or not, The Mexican Government will have to take it back by force, otherwise they need to understand, that just like Dixie, who thinks they can rise again, that THEY LOST!

Territory is not stolen, or given, but TAKEN by naked force. Always has been.

and seems to have yeast to spare these days

They can try to turn back the clock. The GOP can seem unstoppable, legislative battles can be won for what seems like an eternity, and the SBC seems like a monolith. The SBC will fall into petrification just like the Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Calvinists, Puritans, and all other dominant religious sects that they replaced. It's only a matter of when. One thing that truly is constant, is the LIBERALISM always wins in the end. It may take a very long time, but it will win.

pay for illegal immigrants use of our hospitals/schools/prisons/alcohol/drug abuse effects etc.etc.

If only the illegal immigrants would aim their demands at their own President, Vincente Fox, and change their own gov't for jobs w/fair wage and safe working conditions--it would benefit both of our countries tremendously.

Bear Stearns also says their are more like 20 million illegal gate crashers here-not 15 million....

he just has a dixie fixation

stolen! From the Apache, the Cherokee, the Cheynne, the Sioux, etc.

Jenn

and before that nobody was there, hmmm

Spaniards. Some more, some less of each.

little more rights than the American-born natives during tose times, since both natives were subjucated to the will of Spanish/British empires.

I am not a legal scholar & do not know where the rights of one "nation" begin and where other's end, but we have to deal with the hand we are dealt.

..and I think the best way is to 1)Enforce the penalites against the employers, not employees, and 2)Put forth a living wage that would lessen the impact of "cheap-labor" on the lower-midle class' wages.

who did those folks steal it from?

Since a great many anthropological and archaeological authorities agree that the Native Americans migrated from Asia as much as 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, I would think that the amount of time they were here prior to the European invaders trumps the claims of people who have been here for, at the most, 500+ years.

of each migration trumps the time frame issue.

Since the policy in place during those times was one best defined as "might makes right;" we (Americans) win.

Those old rules, of course, have since been changed.

nt.

Our ancestors DID steal their land.

Did you know the US govt has taken $6 billion of gold from the Black HIlls in SD since 1880, when we stole that land from the Sioux?

Manifest Destiny is something we've never reconciled, and to be sure the Mexican/American War was a part of that, but I'm not arguing that. We have taken by force (which is different than stealing) land from natives, but we fought a war, right or wrong, for the land against another soverign nation who likewise declared war on us. We won that war, and the land is, by right of might, and subsequent development, US land. We can debate the morality of that, but the land itself is not stolen from Mexico.

robbery, which is usually more serious than sneak thiefing, not less. We won the war, yes, and Mexico signed a treaty under the duress of having its capitol occupied by U.S. troops. But as any good lawyer will tell you, a contract made under duress is no contract at all. As for the development, if I force you to sign over your house to me at the point of a gun and then put a new roof and an addition on it I still don't legally own your house.

They play by different laws, or no laws, than you or I do.

I wasn't debating the morality of what happened, just the definitions of the spoils of war.

the native americans never really stood a chance- the land was conquered, not stolen.

They "stole" it from the Cheyenne and Kiowa ....
BTW, "Sioux" is a derogatory name for the Lakhota--means "treacherous snakes".

http://www.lakhota.com/stories/story.history.htm

The Wikipedia articles are actually pretty good summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalg...

One of their more interesting observations was the discussion of how it created a nationalistic feelings for the first time in Mexico and lead to the settling of otherwise empty territory. Both were key in Mexico's evolution and even survival.

Much of the noise being made is Mexican nationalism. However, like any nationlism, it is not particularly rationale nor does it understand history. Add in machismo and you have a real mess, just look at the Argentina and the Falklands. They are not unique in that problem, its rearing its ugly head in the EU today as well.

Curiously those complain that it was theft by conquest or bring up Native American claims do not seem to protest the lack of tribal lands in Mexico or that Mexico really is a creation of Spain and France. They also conveniently forget that Mexico has stood by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and has continuously endorsed the current borders.

Everybody needs to take a step back, take a few deep breaths to clear their heads, stop the racist hate speech on both sides, and see what is the best way forward here and now.

You mean the Spanish, French, Aztec, or Mayas?

Or maybe just the Siberian Aborigines that came accross from the Bering Strait. But then that would piss off the migrants from Oceania, who arrived by sailing across the Pacific Ocean.

Oh, forget it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_...

it. It is easy for us to sit here in the 21st century and say "What is done is done and THEY stole the land anyway." But the facts are otherwise. I don't know what the solution is but it is not honest to maintain that the U.S. does not owe anything to the Mexican people. We did steal most of the Southwest and a large part of California from them and that is a fact.

http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/NATIVE%20AM...

A Million years ago we were all native Ethiopians.

6000 years ago, we were all Edenians.

600,000-6,000
I think some things just got lost or added at the editors desk of The Bible.

I always thought it was on the southern section of eventual Babylon.

and several thousand past lives ago. You expect me to remember an exact street address? We lived in the 2nd cave on the left past the sabretooth tiger colony. 123456 Cro Magnon Way I think it was.

I lived in the Eucolyptus tree around the corner from the big rock! Of course that was before we knew how to spell eucolyptus. Were you the one who invented the Swiss Army rock?

But being that there was no Switzerland yet it wasn't a big seller. The pet rock though. Made huge bank on those. Wait, what's a bank?

Let's just give Crawford Texas back and call it even.

... somehow had a more legitimate claim on the Americas than another goes back to the Papal Decrees that sliced up the Western Hemisphere into fiefdoms for the 'faithful' European monarchs - the Global Corporatists of the time! It's mind-numbingly stunning to hear this Disney-esque regurgitation of monarchical fictions on this board.

Poor Spain! Gee, if they'd not had to deal with those vicious Moors and noxiously heretical European monarchs, then we'd all have the joy of speaking Spanish, huh? Even Brazil!

Maybe every human being in the Western Hemisphere should just deport themselves to their ancestral homelands in Asia, Europe, and Africa and leave these continents to a human-free nature!

F*cking idiocy!

good look at them sometime. Straight black hair, dark eyes, and brown skin, for the most part. Yes some are more Spanish looking than others, but the majority are mestizo and a significant minority are native American.

Are we talking about aboriginal people? the "first nations"? Just descendants of immigrants from Asia.

made MY point.

That's just stupid.

I'm not an immigrant. I'm a 'native.' I was born here. My grandfather was an immigrant. That does not make me an immigrant.

Just as there's a difference between a 'drunk driver' and a 'driver' there's a differnece between an 'illegal immigrant' and an 'immigrant.' Just as there's a difference between a 'guest' and a 'trespasser,' there's a difference between a 'legal immigrant' and an 'illegal immigrant.' Just as there's a difference between a 'legal immigrant' and an 'illegal immigrant' there's a difference between a 'native' and an 'immigrant.'

If people are going to be intellectually dishonest in their use of language itself, then their claims of some moral highground or ethical righteousness are total bullshit!

to admit it and try to make amends. We are Americans because our ancestors were immigrants, some legal, some not. Regardless, we benefit. Nearly every immigrant group, legal or not, was resented by the immigrants turned natives that were already here. Is it too much to ask that in the 21st Century we find a way to recognize the real contributions of immigrants who just want the opportunity to work and feed their families? This attitude of "I'm here, I've got mine, now let's lock the gate, but oh, if you want to work we will allow you to as long as you go back home when we no longer need you-but if you are really rich or are Cuban you can stay..." is everything America is not. Love it or not, we are a nation of immigrants. The fact that my family has been here since the early 1700s does not make me a native American. Yes I am a natural born citizen. It is not the same thing.

The California Aqaduct, Hoover Dam, Cultivation of San Juaqin Valley, Silicone Valley, Hollywood, dredging San Diego Bay, Southern Pacific Railroad, Oil discovery & refining in Beaumont, building Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albequerque, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, etc. The rebuilding of San Francisco in 1906-08, the list goes on.

Mexican nationals had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any of these land value increasing activities, benefits to society. These were done by citizens of the United States. These places are no longer the barren deserts of the mexican's forbears. You want to give it back now that it's worth something?

Reminds me of the US government leasing the land they put Ft. Lewis on from the Tacomas. After a couple of decades, and after the Gov put in all the infrastructure, sewers, electric lines, water pipes, buildings, roads, and wells....the Tacomas demanded the land back. Wonder why?

Want to give the Southwest back to the Mexicans? Fine. Lets destroy every city, dam, highway, rail line, and infrastructure that we put on it, and give it back in the pristine, natural condition that we fought and won a war against them to have, the way it was. We'll just charge them a few billion dollars for taking care of their missions all these years.

Who do you think has been doing the agricultural work all these years that turned California into the number one producer of fruits and vegetables in the U.S.? Who do you think did the work that turned the San Joaquin Valley into the nation's salad bowl? Who has been harvesting the crops in Texas? Who cleans the hotels and works in the restaurants in Los Angelos, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio? You really don't know what you are talking about.

The illegal immigration problem was not much of a problem. People moved here from Mexico, but they waited in line like everybody else. Caesar Chavez was against illegal immigration. Union membership made sure companies didn't circumvent the hiring practices and livable wages by hiring, and terrorizing illegals with threats of deportation.

Then Reagan came in, fired the Air traffic controllers, gave amnesty to millions of illegals, relaxed the enforcement of hiring laws, looked the other way while employers broke immigration hiring laws, and broke the union's backs.

There are some blemishes, like deporting the chinese after the railroads were finished, but the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate Bridge were New Deal WPA projects, and were MOST CERTAINLY NOT employing illegal aliens.

It seems that it is YOU who don't know what he's talking about, Mr. "I refuse to say which elite North Eastern City I reside in".

makes the West what it is. I am not saying immigrants did it all. But your distinction between illegal and legal Mexican immigrants is a phony one. The point is that a large part of the economy of southern California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona was built on the backs of Mexicans. Some of them were legal, some not. Many started out as illegals or guest workers and later became citizens. It is disingenuous to suggest that the west was built without major input by Mexicans. And it didn't start in the 80's as you suggest. It started as early as 1850 with fruit production in California. Back then there really was no distinction between "illegal" and "legal" Mexican immigrants. There wasn't even a Border Patrol until 1924. Mexicans freely flowed across the border pretty much unhindered until the Depression. In WWII they were again welcomed, but now as "guest workers". Those Chinese you mentioned didn't just build railroads, they worked in agriculture as well and were replaced by Mexicans when we decided we didn't want Chinese around anymore. But don't take my word on it. There was a PBS special on it a while back. Here is the transcript.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.h...

...and it was all on the backs of those poor deprived of rights Mexicans who didn't bother to break up their oligarchy like we did, which means California through Texas and north through Colorado all theirs, and their oligarchy will take over and become even more rich and controling, and those Baja Native Americans will be in the same economic malaise that they are in now.

So let's give it all back the way it is and I can move into your house with you. I can't wait until Hollywood replaces CSI:Miami with yet one more fake-blond bimbo variety show.

Do you understand the process by which people from all around the world came to the U.S. West and became "Americans?"

Sounds like uncrediting tests to me.

Whatever floats your boat. Where did I say Americans did NOTHING to develop the west? The fact that there may not be a good way to undo a historical injustice does not mean the injustice did not occur. But if you need to maintain that fiction to avoid feeling personal guilt over what Americans have done to Mexicans, be my guest. Just don't expect me to applaud.

I was robbed a couple of times in my life. I was the victim of a hit and run accident. I will never see that tape deck, camera or totalled car again. I will never see the monetary value of those stolen things again. I want my estranged father back, so that I can go to his funeral without having my brother and sister deny my existence and have a funeral without my knowledge. I want my foreskin back that some perverted butcher ripped off of me when I was an infant.

Newsflash for me, I can't have any of it back! I might as well get over them.

Times change. Events throughout history make the old arguments moot. Time passes and land is occupied by different parties and different generations. France and Germany, long warring parties, are trading partners. The borders of the Alsace region are settled. Mexico and the USA are trading partners, whose boders are settled and detente are met. Everybody else, except for you, has let time allow them to get over it. Find me my tape deck and foreskin and I'll side with you.

people in Mexico, Central America, and South America, and ask them if they are "over it" yet. I have and I can assure you they aren't. And the Columbians are still not "over" the fact that we stole the Canal Zone from them yet either, in spite of the fact that Panama has the canal back and the former province of Columbia is an independent country (created for the specific purpose of making it possible for us to build the canal - neat trick, huh?). History is not this nice package that you want it to be. I was in Mongolia several years ago. Guess what, the Mongolians still think that Lake Baikal in Siberia still belongs to them, even though it hasn't been part of Mongolia since the 1300s. The also think Inner Mongolia in China belongs to them as well, though that hasn't been part of Mongolia since the Manchurians conquered Mongolia in 1691. And some Chinese, for their part, think that all of present day Mongolia belongs to THEM, based on that same conquest - after all, they ruled Mongolia for about 220 years, longer than we have had control of Texas and southern California. I am sure they built a few things while they were there, but as far as I know, no one except some Chinese think their claim has any merit. So think what you need to think, but history is a little more complex than losses in your personal life.

, and the Irish are not over British expansion, the indians are not over british expansion, the palestinians are not over israeli occupation, the israelis are not over palestinian occupation, the Zulus are not over Dutch occupation, the Dutch are not over the British for re-naming the city on Manhattan island from New Amsterdam, The Iraqis are not over the American, british, ottoman, persian, sumarianoccupation and Ghengis Kahn genocide and occupation....and so on.

History is made up of little personal looses in life, magnified by billions of little personal losses. Six and a half dozen the other.

So what do you propose? We give back this western territory to the people we took it from? What then? Do you think the Mexican oligarchs are going to let them have it? No. It will be the same exploitive of poor labor and people place it is, just under new management.... the Mexican Oligarchs, not the children of the natives your salary is being systematically devalued over.

and believe me, that is really saying a helluva lot.

Care to explain why, Miss Clairvoyant?

And...IN Bush's America, I believe nobody, not even 800 number psychics with bad commercials...and...you really didn't say anything, much less "a lot".

My nick is a play on the word Clio, the muse of history. Admittedly, it is rather cryptic, but it amuses me, for several reasons.

I teach U.S. history.

And you don't know jackshit about it.

and chooses not to. A teacher who revels in the dismissive vulgarities of those she teaches. I'm glad to see you're worth your pay.

I will be more than happy to put together a reading list for you.

How much are you going to pay me for that, again?

I don't do extortion. I asked you twice before. I think just found a more ignorant post than mine. Thanks for playing.

Unless you live in my state.

Duh.

into education budgets.

That one is more ignorant than the last.

my teaching has been at a private institution.

And anyway, if I was paid for that work, why should you expect me to work for you now, for nothing?

Sounds like exploitation to me!

If someone wants to know why "this is one of the most ignorant posts I've seen on DU", and that person is the target of such a pejorative, then said person has a right to his redress of grievences, and know WHY it is the most ignorant post you've seen (haven't seen much, have you?), and that Jack's shit is something he also doesn't know.

If you say no to my request as a fellow human who has an interest in the knowledge wellbeing of her fellow citizens, and there's no way for me to force you to tell me, you have no cause to claim exploitation. You just have a nasty knack of using ridiculous hyperbole.

somehow your post just struck that last nerve, and I do apologize.

If you're really interested in learning more about the history of the West, I could recommend some books.

I grew up in and took California History, but I'm 40 and admittedly a bit rusty on the subject. What I do remember is the many conquistadors, such as DeGammo, and Sir Francis Drake of England, but of the current argument and idea (which has been my point) that I live on land that should be the property of the Mexican Government, because of a history of labor exploitation, then I must be ignorant.

because it's not really a key to this dispute, except insofar as the historical and cultural realities of the Southwest and economic and labor history must be included in the discussion. But I will try to put together a brief but good list and PM you later.

This is UNITED STATES history, as I hope some of you may finally learn, one day. And if just one person reads just one of these books, then this won’t be a complete waste of time and bandwidth.


David J. Weber, The Spanish Frontier in North America

David J. Weber, Foreigners in Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican Americans

Thomas E. Sheridan, A History of the Southwest: The Land and its People

Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West

Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America

Juan Gomez-Quiñones, Mexican American Labor, 1790-1990

Zaragosa Vargas, Proletarians of the North: Mexican Industrial Workers in Detroit and the Midwest, 1917-1933

Barbara A. Driscoll, The Tracks North: The Railroad Bracero Program of World War II

Vicki Ruiz, Cannery Women, Cannery Lives: Mexican Women, Unionization, and the California Food Processing Industry 1930-1950

Arnoldo De Leon, They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes Toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821-1900

Sarah Deutsch, No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic Frontier in the American Southwest, 1880-1940.

George J. Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945

Richard A. García, Rise of the Mexican American Middle Class, San Antonio, 1919-1941

Some Mexicans are as white as most American whites. Some Mexicans are purely Native American. Many are some where in between.
Mexico has a large number of mixed people because the Spanish did not bring women initially and started breeding, sometimes forcibly, with the local population early on. The Aztecs and other groups in Mexico were just as susptible to disease as the groups living in the United States. More children of the first mixed generation survived than the children of pure Native blood.
There is somewhat of a race continum with the white Mexicans generally being more well off than people of mixed blood who are more well off than Native Americans. The legal temporary workers that I worked with in my first job were mostly light skinned mestizos, some light enough to be mistaken on sight for a white American, and some families had lighter and darker skinned members.

People who support Mexico over the US should perhaps go live in the country they clearly adore.

people who want to hire Indians should move to India; people who want to hire Chinese should move to China; people who want to hire Mexicans should move to Mexico; people who want to hire Canadians should move to Canada.

Me? I want to hire Tahitians.

Suppose hiring Chinese here makes more jobs for Americans on the higher end?

If we are going to have a capitalist system, we should just let it flow. Otherwise Americans could be losing jobs because of the people we don't let in.

Amazing how people think the job market is so simple and so static. Jobs are created and destroyed every day by advances in technolgy companies going in or out of business.

It's both immoral and (technically) illegal. I'm against an "ownership society."

something original.

to a group of increasingly confrontational illegals. As I stated, the way to get Americans behind their cause is to lose the "jobs Americans won't do" and other such inflammatory lingo, and rather frame their issue as a humanitarian crisis whereby they are simply looking for the basic priveliges and worker protections Americans enjoy. Rather than being confrontational, they need to be humble. Rather than demand, they need to ask.

Even Ghandi, who used non-violence, did not just ask the British to leave India. He confronted them and yes, he got a little rude sometimes. No one has ever secured their rights by politely asking.

And by the way, if you live in Dallas, then you know damned good and well that a large proportion of those who are protesting are AMERICAN CITIZENS who are concerned about the impact of Sensenbrenner's immigration law on their FAMILIES.

I very much doubt that any territory gained from expansionist war is ground for legal claims to that territory.

http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html
The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
The Mexican-American War grew out of an US expansionist policy known as Manifest Destiny and Mexico's refusal to recognize Texas as a legitimate state after the 1836 Texas Revolution.

They believed the war was an illegal and immoral land grab.

Mexico really is a wonderful country, but it's a bad place to be poor.

It exists and the people in it are either citizens, guests or here illegally.

If we want to win elections, the first group are the ones we need to concern ourselves with.

oppose oppression even if it doesn't win elections.

... because the alternative is to lose elections to the worst oppressors.

side" wins that justice will be done unless we keep working for justice. The goal isn't to win elections. The goal is to see that justice is done. If we compromise our principles to win elections we deserve to lose.

If we lose, we have to continue to live with Republican principles.

Given that "perfect" is not attainable, I'll settle for "better".

public sees the Democratic Party standing on principle, and one of those principles is respect for the human rights of immigrants, that "we" will win. As old HST so wisely stated, "The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time."

The Republicans are representing the interests of corporations in their search for cheap labor while simultaneously pandering to the dual influences of racism and economic interest.

Americans will honor the basic principles of human rights - right up to the point that it requires giving them their job. Cross that line and we don't get the opportunity to establish our collective principles.

the Republicans every time. We play right into their hands. Yes, allowing the corporations to have a cheap and disposable labor force by setting up"guest worker" programs will hurt American working people. So stand against that loud and clear. But the way to stand against that is not to punish the immigrants. The way is to hold the corporations accountable. If they want to bring immigrants in to work they need to pay a prevailing wage and benefits. The workers must be allowed permanent residency status leading to citizenship so that they have a political stake in this country to match their economic stake. The workers and their families will spend their hard earned wages here rather than in Mexico - thus their wages will be multiplied to the benefit of our economy - producing more jobs for our citizens. Their strong work ethic and family ties means they will be a minimal burden on society in terms of policing needs, etc. The new immigrants will need houses, refrigerators, furniture, etc. Give the immigrant children good educations so they in turn become productive citizens. That is the way an economy and society benefits from immigrant labor. The alternative is to try to close the borders and step up enforcement. It won't work and it will perpetuate the current situation of second class undocumented workers that will continue to be exploited by the corporations. Mark my words, if the Democrats come off as anti-immigrant we will continue to lose elections. We have an anti-immigrant party in the U.S. It is the Republicans. Give the people the choice between a Democrat acting like a Republican and a real Republican and they will choose the real Republican every time.

Coming off as anti-worker won't cause us to lose elections? Last I looked, working americans vote. Non-citizens don't.

plays out, it could go either way. But I can guarantee one thing, trying to out xenophobe the Republicans will not win for the Democrats, at least over the long term. By 2025, the voting population of Texas will likely be majority Hispanic. How will an anti-immigrant stance look then for Democrats? Some of those "illegals" who are now Mexican kids in Texas could well be voting as citizens by 2025. Do you think they will remember who waved the bloody anti-immigrant shirt in 2006? I think they will.

the question here that many are asking is, "What right do a group of people who are in our country illegally have to stand up and DEMAND their rights, including the right to vote?"

I believe all peoples should be treated with respect and dignity, but when people who are in this country illegally rise up and start making these kinds of outrageous demands, you have to realize it's gonna stir the waters a bit.

when our (white) ancestors came to these shores and started making demands. What goes around comes around.

the point of view of native Americans. But please don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of my xenophobia.

That was the year when the U.S. slammed shut the door on immigrants froms southern and eastern Europe. They didn't want "those people" anymore, either -- Italians, Greeks, Russian Jews, Poles. It was the end of the great era of immigration in our history, when around the turn of the 20th century, one-third of those living in this nation were immigrants or the children of immigrants. Ironically, however, agribusinesses in the SW demanded exemptions for their dirt-cheap agricultural labor from Mexico.

criminals, debtors and religious fanatics.

While self-determination is a 'right,' voting is an entitlement - the enfranchisement of self-determination in a democracy that's established under law and enforced by the state under a democratic form of government. It's an entitlement. In monarchies, only titled aristocrats 'voted.'

Blame the companies that hire them.

and you'll see in my OP that I have done so. Prosecuting companies that hire illegals is an excellent first step, but the business-friendly Bush admin is loathe to do so.

"Don't sneak into my house and demand your rights."

This sounds a lot like you're bashing the worker, not the company.