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

[Dr. Jones]

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?

[yellowcanine]

1. Don't sneak into MY house that my ancestors stole from YOUR ancestors

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.

[Touchdown]

12. The US won that war.

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.

[0007]

105. Exactly!

Carl Sandburg

"The People, Yes"

"Get off this estate."
"What for?"
"Because it's mine."
"Where did you get it?"
"From my father."
"Where did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it."

[SoCalDem]

122. Um... Dixie DID rise..

and seems to have yeast to spare these days :scared:

[Touchdown]

134. Temporary hubris.

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. :hi:

[KAT119]

270. Lou Dobbs today said Bear Stearns estimates $50-200 billion we US citizens

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....

[liberaliraqvet26]

217. shrub is from connecticut....

he just has a dixie fixation

[SoCalDem]

226. Cool name for a band or cocktail...Dixie Fixation

:)

[laylah]

136. The land most assuredly IS

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

Jenn

[Touchdown]

145. That's another topic.

:)

[U4ikLefty]

221. ...b-b-b-but I thought it beloned to the Mexicans

and before that nobody was there, hmmm

[yellowcanine]

224. Mexicans are mestizos. They are a mixture of native Americans and

Spaniards. Some more, some less of each.

[U4ikLefty]

236. I shouldda put my "sarcasm" icon in there, but the Mexicans have

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.

[Walt Disney]

261. And when they migrated across the Aleutian land bridge,

who did those folks steal it from?

[Homer Wells]

279. It's a matter of time on the land

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.:eyes:

[Walt Disney]

302. Actually, I think the rules that were in effect at the time

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. :)

[dysfunctional press]

277. no- we won all those wars too.

nt.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

307. Who were stealing it from each other before we came n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

141. You are forgetting the Native Americans

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?

[Touchdown]

149. Yes, and that's another topic.

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.

[yellowcanine]

171. Stealing at the point of a gun is still stealing. Except it is now armed

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.

[Touchdown]

191. Neither one of us are Nations.

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

267. Do you understand WHO started that war and WHY?

[Touchdown]

294. Yes...and what's that got to do with my point.

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

[dysfunctional press]

280. no- we won that/those wars too.

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

[eowyn_of_rohan]

306. And how did the "Sioux" acquire the Black Hills?

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

[Solo_in_MD]

283. There was also some cash exchanged and some assumption of debt

The Wikipedia articles are actually pretty good summaries:

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

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.

[joefree1]

18. Which Ancestors stole from who?

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. :crazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#The_Pre-Siberian_Aborigines_Theory

[yellowcanine]

25. Mexicans ARE native Americans, they are mestizos. So no, I won't forget

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%20AMERICAN/TheMestizo-Mexicano-Indi.html

[shadowknows69]

118. Guess what

A Million years ago we were all native Ethiopians.

[Touchdown]

135. Blasphemer!

6000 years ago, we were all Edenians.:crazy:

[shadowknows69]

166. Eden, Ethiopia

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

[Touchdown]

207. Really? Ethiopia? I must've read from the rough cuts

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

[shadowknows69]

230. Look it was a long time

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.

[Touchdown]

237. Hey! I was a neighbor.

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?

[shadowknows69]

282. I was

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?

[Splatter Phoenix]

147. Here's an idea.

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

[TahitiNut]

27. Indeed! The brain-damaged notion that one European monarchy ...

... 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! :grr:

[yellowcanine]

Except that Mexicans are more native American than Spanish. Take a

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.

[TahitiNut]

47. I'm a 'native' American - I was born here.

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

[yellowcanine]

65. So we are all immigrants if one goes back far enough. I think you just

made MY point.

[TahitiNut]

72. So, if your father was a thief, then you're a thief, too?

That's just stupid. :eyes:

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!

[yellowcanine]

88. No but if I benefit from my father's thievery I ought to be honest enough

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.

[Touchdown]

117. What happened to the west since then also matters.

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?:eyes:

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.

[yellowcanine]

126. Mexican nationals had NOTHING to do with building the west?

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.

[Touchdown]

132. Up to the 80, Americans did.

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".

[yellowcanine]

159. The Hoover Dam and The Golden Gate Bridge are only part of what

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.html

[Touchdown]

170. OK. You win. Americans did NOTHING to develop the west.

...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.

[Ms. Clio]

172. What is your definition of "American?"

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

[Touchdown]

179. Am I going to get a grade for answering?

Sounds like uncrediting tests to me.;)

[yellowcanine]

178. If your argument has petered out you might as well try sarcasm. O.K.

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.

[Touchdown]

185. Maybe I should try a different tack.

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.

[yellowcanine]

216. Your personal setbacks hardly compare. Why don't you talk to some

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.

[Touchdown]

238. And the Dixies are not over the Civil War...

, 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.

[Ms. Clio]

128. This is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen at DU

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

[Touchdown]

137. Really?

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".

[Ms. Clio]

146. That's another indication of how ignorant your post is

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.

[Touchdown]

153. A teacher who has an opportunity to teach,

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.:eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

155. Then if you are really seeking an opportunity to learn

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?

[Touchdown]

157. The taxes I already paid.

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

[Ms. Clio]

163. You haven't paid any taxes for my salary

Unless you live in my state.

Duh.

[Touchdown]

165. OH that's right! Federal funds NEVER find their way

into education budgets.:dunce:

That one is more ignorant than the last.

[Ms. Clio]

168. In my case, I have not been the recipient of any federal largesse

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!

[Touchdown]

177. No. It was a request.

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.

[Ms. Clio]

182. Actually, I have really tried to rein in the nasty 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.

[Touchdown]

187. Thank you. Yes.

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.

[Ms. Clio]

190. The books I would recommend don't really speak to that point

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.

[Ms. Clio]

303. you're welcome

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

[Nikia]

140. Mexicans vary in how much Native American they are

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.

[kestrel91316]

21. We won that war. The land legally belongs to the USA.

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

[TahitiNut]

28. As I've said before ...

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. :evilgrin:

[Blue_Tires]

162. i want to hire Brazilians!

[treestar]

213. You're looking at it from the top down only

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.

[TahitiNut]

290. That's the commoditization of human labor.

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

[yellowcanine]

29. "Love it or leave it" is such a pathetic argument. At least come up with

something original.

[Dr. Jones]

35. But you see, it's reactionary

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.

[yellowcanine]

42. No one gets their rights by just "asking". When has that EVER happened?

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.

[Ms. Clio]

61. Yeah, that's how the whole civil rights movement worked -- humble requests

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.

[rman]

66. Looks like it was a war of agression - which is the prime war-crime

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.

[Ms. Clio]

67. Lincoln and many other Whigs of the time said just that

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

[mike_c]

241. LOL-- in fact, I plan to do precisely that....

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Arguing whether the US is legitimate is pointless

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.

[yellowcanine]

101. It is about more than winning elections. We must speak the truth and

oppose oppression even if it doesn't win elections.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. With all due respect, it's only about winning elections...

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

[yellowcanine]

109. No disrespect taken. No it is not. We have no guarantee that if "our

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.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. Oh, there are guarantees...

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

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

[yellowcanine]

119. That is "playing not to lose". We will lose anyway. It is only when the

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."

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. There's nothing phony about a democrat who stands up for working americans

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.

[yellowcanine]

144. Dividing "working Americans" from other "working Americans" will win for

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.

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. Gaa! I'd divide "working americans" from "working NOT-americans"

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

[yellowcanine]

227. Once again my criteria is not what "wins" elections. Depending on how it

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.

[Hissyspit]

2. All humans have rights. They're called human rights. n/t

[Dr. Jones]

4. Yes, all humans have basic rights, however -

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.

[japple]

15. Native Americans probably asked these questions centuries ago

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

[yellowcanine]

32. Yep - the vast majority of our ancestors were "illegal", at least from

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

[Ms. Clio]

59. There was no Border Patrol at all until 1924

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.

[japple]

83. And a lot of us are descended from Scots-Irish-English common

criminals, debtors and religious fanatics.

[TahitiNut]

31. They have the 'right' to vote ... enfranchised in Mexico.

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.'

[mac56]

3. Don't blame the workers.

Blame the companies that hire them.

[Dr. Jones]

5. Agreed -

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.

[mac56]

8. yeah, but

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

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

[Dr. Jones]

11. Go back and read my OP.

Lou Dobbs on Good Morning America this morning, in addition to calling this a "clear-cut assault on the American worker," also stated that we should go after the companies that hire illegals.

There's no doubt, that's what needs to be done. These companies are breaking U.S. law by hiring illegals, and they apparently have been given the green light to do so by this administration. I think that's a travesty.

[Ms. Clio]

81. And I keep asking you questions that you refuse to answer

But let me try again: why do you focus on "illegal immigrants?" Why don't you care about H-1B visas? This is a huge labor problem that is much bigger than "illegal" or "legal."

[bennywhale]

10. Its always been thus in America

America has developed along this line since its inception. Waves and waves of immigrants from different parts of the world coming to the US. It is a fluid nation, constantly developing, and the sons and daughters of those protesting on the streets yesterday will probably be voicing similar concerns about the next wave.

[Jim Warren]

16. Ya think?

Where does it go? I mean this as an honest question, not being a smart-ass here. Over population and environmental degradation continue. The next wave? Seems sobering to me to think the US pop.@ 300M (more or less counted, not including those not counted)and Canada, with a shitload of land area @ 30M.

[bennywhale]

20. I agree that

overpopulation and unsustainable growth is THE problem of the 21st Century. Although, to reduce population growth, even make it decline = economic recession. No government will do it. It will require a fundamental shift in economic ideology thatisn't going to happen. So in light of this impending doom, i say let the poor souls come and join in. The government is purposefully letting them stay because it makes economic sense. The moment it doesn't they won't.

[Hoping4Change]

188. But its not just a matter of prosecuting companies. It would also mean

prosecuting people who hire illegals as gardeners and nannies.

[kestrel91316]

22. Companies that profit illegally from use of illegal labor are a large

part of the problem, but the illegal workers share in the blame. That said, I am ALL IN FAVOR OF SEVERE SANCTIONS against companies that hire illegals. To the point of forfeiture of corporate assets and jailing of officers and management if they repeatedly offend. AND I favor an enforceable guest worker program for some of the immigrants who in all honesty don't want to become citizens, but want to make money to send home and then EVENTUALLY RETURN HOME.

If they want to eventually become citizens, they need to stand in line and wait just like everybody else. NO BUTTING IN LINE. And especially no butting in line and then demanding special treatment.

[TahitiNut]

89. In large part, I agree. But I'm very wary about 'guest worker' programs.

Indeed, I'm against having a labor force that's commoditized, cannot vote, and cannot as freely and confidently "blow the whistle" on illegal labor practices. Workers are intimidated enough these days by a fear of losing the opportunity to earn a living, we just don't need people in the workforce with the additional fear of deportation. This is why I'm against all manner of 'guest worker' programs, incuding H1B visas and their kin.

Furthermore, I'm against the power of corporations to annoint who is and who is not a 'legal resident' of this nation, and who is and who is not able to obtain health care. When corporations become something outside of the aggregate will of the people who comprise them as workers, they become a cancers in our body politic. They're presently cancers.

[kestrel91316]

284. I STRONGLY support some sort of measures to ensure that

"guest workers" could report illegal actions by employers.

I DON'T support giving citizenship to people who have set foot in my country illegally, regardless of whatever other virtues they ostensibly possess.

[TahitiNut]

289. How about REQUIRING 'guest workers' belong to a labor union and ...

... can only work in union shops? It's an idea I've been tossing around in my head to see if there's some way to ameliorate the problem with a democracy having a labor force largely unable to vote for the political interests that ensure fair labor practices and equity.

The problem with attempting to "ensure that 'guest workers' could report illegal actions by employers" is even greater than the problem faced by citizen whistle-blowers. They (we) get black-balled and have neither the wealth nor legal resources to pursue a prosecution. In an 'employment-at-will' context, it's quite simple to get rid of whistle-blowers and, through failure to provide favorable recommendations ("eligible for rehire") and the 'grapevine,' damned well guarantee they never get work again in their career field. It'd be even simpler to do that with 'guest workers' and far easier to intimidate them.

[kestrel91316]

298. That's an interesting idea - I am VERY pro-union. It would help to

strengthen the unions AND protect the rights of the guest workers.

[ghostsofgiants]

288. And the corporations who exploit cheap labour and lax labour laws...

In the global south. And the governments and agreements that allow them to do so.

[El Fuego]

6. Apparently they have the right to free assembly, LOL

And the right to bear arms.

And the right to work, since they do.

And the right to live freely here without being apprehended and deported.

The right to educate their children in our schools.

The right to use U.S. government services, like police and fire personnel.

How much more can we give them?? What do they want????

[Usrename]

291. How much more can we give them?

By we, I assume you are pretending to be God and you have a mouse in your pocket.

Our rights are not given, nor can they be taken away. They are a birthright. We are all born with them.

We are endowed by our Creator.

You have no power over that.

That is the America I live in.

[El Fuego]

296. Are we talking basic human rights, or Constitutional rights?

There's a difference.

The America you live in is a spiritual la-la land having a mystical aura of milk and honey, the United States of America I live in is a promulgate of the U.S. Constitution and its laws. As the quote goes, "this is a nation of laws, not of men."

Everyone has basic human rights, but only U.S. citizens have the rights of U.S. citizens in the U.S., only Japanese citizens have the rights of Japanese citizens in Japan, only Israeli citizens have the rights of Israeli citizens in Israel, etc etc.

Did you know United States of Mexico has its own constitution which established a gov't similar to our own? Can I go to Mexico and demand the rights of a Mexican citizen? No.

The laws of each country dictate who is a citizen in that country. It's codified in black and white, and it is NOT a religious concept.

[pnwmom]

7. In terms of Democratic politics, this will prove to be just as divisive

as it is for Republicans, with no way to predict the ultimate fallout. I agree, there is a strong anti-immigrant feeling in the country -- and for some good reasons. People who are willing to work jobs for less than the going rate exert a downward pressure on wages. Most of us understand that it is NOT true that illegal immigrants take jobs that no one else is willing to take -- but that no one else is willing to take AT THAT PRICE or under those (unhealthy) conditions.

In essence, the illegals are like scab labor, crossing the border (instead of picket lines) to take jobs from which the unionists (i.e., citizens) are striking.

The part of the current legislation that I think was most appalling was turning illegals and people who tried to help them into felons.

But I'd like to know what you think they could have done to get the American people behind them. And then, would you please run for office?
If you can solve the immigration conundrum, hats off to you!

[Dr. Jones]

24. HERE'S HOW THEY CAN GET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEHIND THEM -->

"We know we're undocumented and we thank the United States of America for taking us in and bettering our lives. We were destitude and now we can feed our families, and for that we are grateful to this great nation. But you see, we are being mistreated by the companies that hired us. We work hard every day, just as hard as any American, and yet we are not provided with even the most basic worker protections that Americans enjoy.

We want fair pay for the work we do. We want to have the benefits that go along with that hard work - benefits that are available to most Americans - benefits that would help us to feed our families and provide healthcare for the ones we love. We want to be treated with dignity, fairness, and honesty. We want better working conditions for our people, and stricter OSHA enforcement. And we ask for the American people to get behind our humanitarian cause."

[yellowcanine]

79. Wow. What is wrong with THEM that THEY didn't think of that? Funny, but

that is pretty much word for word what I hear them saying. Imagine that. But I don't see Americans getting behind them. I see Americans harassing them at 7-11s where they are simply waiting for a chance to work today. I see other Americans telling them there is something wrong with them for wanting to sing the national anthem in Spanish. I see other Americans begrudging them the opportunity for their children to go to school even though they pay their taxes like everybody else and society as a whole benefits if thier children get a good education. There is much more but you get the point. We call ourselves a Christian nation but we ignore the words of Christ about how to treat the stranger in our land.

Matthew 25:31-46
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.” 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

[Dr. Jones]

114. Wrong...

my suggestion is one of humility, not arrogance and confrontation. My suggestion is one of framing the cause not in inflammatory "jobs Americans won't do," it's asking the American people to get behind them in their struggle to attain the same worker protections Americans enjoy. It's not proclaiming Americans are lazy and that the illegals are the ones doing all the hard work, it's putting themselves on an equal playing field and thanking America for taking them in. It's not demanding the RIGHT to vote as illegals, it's simply putting it out there that they desire the same respect and dignity as everyone else.

It's all the divisive rhetoric, particularly "jobs Americans won't do" that is causing so much of the tensions.

[Splatter Phoenix]

156. I hope to God we don't call ourselves a Christian nation.

Religion interfering with politics gets people burned at the stake, and is a no-no. Thanks. Take the preaching elsewhere, please.

[yellowcanine]

186. Following Matthew 25 doesn't cause people to indulge in burning people

at the stake. Anyway this is a discussion board. I am not making a political speech or making any laws you have to follow. If you don't like "the preaching", don't read my posts.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. Its not anti immigrant, its anti illegal alien

A non subtle distinction. I don't know anyone who is against legal immigrants who come here to do better and follow the law to get here. They bring with them an energy an vigor that we all appreciate.

[yellowcanine]

71. The illegal ones have just as much "energy and vigor" as the legal ones.

In many cases, the difference between "legal immigrant" and "illegal alien" is nothing more than an accident of birth. Check out the difference between Haitan "boat people" and Cuba "boat people" who manage to land on a Florida beach.

[Ms. Clio]

74. Do you really appreciate all those people who come here on H-1B visas?

The ones who have driven down wages for all programmers?

[proud2BlibKansan]

160. Do you realize how divisive that word 'alien' is??

And as for legal immigrants, it is nearly impossible to come here legally from Central America today. Hence, they come ILlegally.

[Solo_in_MD]

192. Do you understand that is the correct term to descibe

some one who is in this country illegally?


It took a collegue about 6 months to get his central american wife in, shortly after 9/11, her family followed within a a year to 18 months.

[proud2BlibKansan]

266. So if you had a family to feed and were desperate,

would you not do ANYTHING including breaking the law to provide for your family? I know I would. I wouldn't wait 6 months.

[Solo_in_MD]

269. And you would be an illegal alien if you came here then

Bear in mind that I was responding to a post which stated
there is a strong anti-immigrant feeling in the country -- and for some good reasons.
My repsonse was that IMO the sentiment is against illegal aliens, not immigrants.

Yes it takes a long time to get permission to migrate here if you do not have family or a sponsor, but there is no human right to live in a nation illegally. And yes, one does what one has to when hungry.

[proud2BlibKansan]

272. Coming here illegally is often their best alternative

I know that because I have studied this issue closely and I also know from my Hispanic friends that 'alien' is a very offensive term to them. I have chosen to try to understand why so many are willing to break the law and I also prefer not using offensive terms.

[Solo_in_MD]

276. It may well be

Can't help that some find the term offensive, it is the plu perfect term. My daughter who volunteers as an ESL teacher two nights a week has never said that her students found it offensive either. When I was in Japan I did not whine about the term gajin or haole in Hawaii. I'll leave the euphemisms to the White House and call things what they are.

What I do find offensive is the basic lack of reciprocity from Mexico. They effectively want to dictate US domestic policies on immigration, but get their machismo out of joint when anyone brings up how they treat illegal aliens in their country. All the protest we saw in the US yesterday would not have been allowed in Mexico. They have a very long way to go to get their house in order and they are not attending to it.

Clearly there should be a way for illegal aliens to get legal. Lots of potential options out there that would need to be enacted. There have been both amnesties and guest worker programs in the past which were partially successful. Barricading the borders and sending anyone without papers packing is clearly not it either. Need to find a way that works, but not sure what it should be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

285. It is a complicated issue

Part of the solution needs to involve the companies that hire undocumented workers. We should not demonize workers but ignore the employers who bring them here.

[PsN2Wind]

9. Put me in the column "They have no cause"

They came here illegally and committed a felony by using a false Social Security number to secure employment.
The idea that if you can get enough criminals into the streets, their past crimes should be forgiven seems to be working for them though. The people that we've sent to Washington that campaigned on the promise that they would "go to Washington and represent you, the citizens of my state or district" are instead trying to devise a way to declare an amnesty without calling it that.
Importing the labor to do the jobs that can't be exported does nothing but further the decline of the American middle class.
The "one and only amnesty" of 1986 that was going to solve the problem of illegal immigration has done nothing but exacerbate the problem, as will this one. We can expect that in twenty years there will have to be another amnesty to accommodate the next millions that "are just trying to feed their families".

[Squeech]

13. Once upon a time

there was a tramp in England, camping out on the landed estate of some upper class twit baron. And the baron was riding his horse around the estate, and discovered the tramp. He said, "Get off my property!"

The tramp said, "What makes it your property?"

The baron got all blustery and said, "My ancestors fought for this land, hundreds of years ago!"

The tramp considered this, then took off his coat and said, "Fair enough, I'll fight you for it now!"

[slaveplanet]

116. ahh yes

and the Baron doensn't have much of a chance seeing as the Duke has ordered both hands tied behind his back and the tramp was able to get in his face because his gatekeepers have all left their posts.

[zbdent]

14. "jobs Americans won't do." should be

"jobs American companies won't pay citizens to do" . . .

[Xithras]

70. Yep, my dad crawls through sewer pipes all day.

He's a chemist and does environmental testing of "effluent". Sounds like a cush job, but it frequently means putting on the waders and walking through thigh deep, unprocessed people crap. It's one of the most vile jobs you can imagine, and yet every single person who works with him is an American citizen. Why do "American citizens" demean themselves with this kind of nasty work? Because it pays $22 an hour, has a full benefits package, and a great retirement option.

It's not "Jobs Americans Won't Do", it's "Wages Americans Wont Take". Rather than letting the free market run its course and adjust the economy to support realistic wages, the corporatists would rather import cheap foreign labor and pay them wages that no American in their right mind would think about taking!

Does that mean a $5 head of lettuce? Yes. But that $5 head of lettuce is going to support a worker who is going to invest that living wage back into the American economy (rather than sending much of it out of the US, which is currently happening with the illegals). The worker picking that $5 lettuce, making a reasonable $15-18 an hour with benefits, is going to spend that money on goods and products sold by American companies. Those new sales are going to infuse cash into those companies, generating additional jobs and permitting higher wages for their employees.

There was a time, not all that long ago, that paying $1.50 for a loaf of bread seemed outrageous. My sewer crawling dad, who is only in his 50's, will happily tell you about the 20 cent bread loaves, the 25 cent gallons of milk, and the 40 cent gas he used to buy. We don't blink at $1.50 a loaf today because our wages have risen to the point where $1.50 has the same economic impact as 25 cents did so many decades ago. $5 lettuce will be the same.

[treestar]

211. that they won't pay minimum wage for, and all the added costs

like FICA, tax withholding, child support orders, confirming legal residence, etc.

[Triana]

17. Americans WILL do those jobs...

...for decent pay and working conditions as per the law. HOWEVER, the slave owners who hire the illegals don't want to abide by those laws - that's why they hire illegals, who will put up with bad pay and bad conditions out of desperation just to work and make more money than they can in Mexico or wherever.

Then, the slave owners proclaim "Weeelll, Americans won't do these jobs!!!" Excuse Moi? Americans USED TO DO THOSE JOBS before they became slave wage jobs.
The slave owners: Disingenuous, snivelling, lawbreaking, lying, greedy bastards. And of COURSE GWB is fully supportive of them (the slave owners).

Somehow, slave owners think it's malice and greedy of "Americans' to expect a decent wage for a day's work. So, they just hire illegal slaves and pay them a pittance and treat them like dirt - 'cause they can't get away with that with "Americans" as easily - but the illegals are desperate and so they exploit them. Parasites feeding off of parasites. It's a nasty maggot infestation and it's rotting this country and its workers to the core.

But NOBODY wants to DO ANYTHING about it or acknowledge the REAL problem because those "in charge" are PART OF THE PROBLEM. THEY are the ones profiting from it - at the expense of everyone else.

[mitchtv]

123. BULLSHIT

These employers around here PAY A LEGAL WAGE, not a good one; and do not , as a rule "mistreat" immigrant labor. I am talking agriculture, of course. Now if they paid $18= per hr maybe you could find Americans to pick grapes in 118 degree heat, I doubt it , but if you say so,

[mmonk]

19. Whatever your position,

don't pretend to speak for them or what they mean by the protests unless you walk a mile in their shoes and know.

[treestar]

23. Reread the Declaration of Independence

We are not supposed to be a specialized nobility that happens to have been born in a certain place, and are therefore the only ones with human rights.

What made us successful, what made us a superpower, is that we have no nobility.

Now we think we are one. Recipe for our downfall.

It is not "our house." America is an idea. We don't exclude, we include. That's how we got to be on top.

We are losing sight of that with this anal retentive idea that it matters where a person is born and who they are born to. Exactly what the founders wanted to get away from.

No immigrant hurts us.

[Dr. Jones]

30. America has physical and legal borders.

Furthermore, illegal immigration does cause tremendous strains on our schools, state and local governments, hospitals, and our healthcare system.

I only wish more people would see the realities of illegal immigration rather than this pie in the sky idealistic "let's just invite all of Mexico over here" approach.

[treestar]

33. All of Mexico (or the rest of the world) does not come and there

is no strain on our systems any more than there would be had they all been citizens.

We have legal borders but we worry about them too much. Who cares, really? It is the era of the international economy. If we want to have access to foreign markets, we need to be less pissy about ourselves.

And this is the nation of immigrants anyway.

If anyone who could land a job here could be legal, they would pay into the system (taxes, etc.) anyway. The employers would be stuck with complying with all those rules that make Americans so expensive to employ, driving up wages, too.

Though they would still outsource, since we still think we have this right to compete for the bottom level jobs at an advantage.

But most Americans are educated enough to do higher level jobs than the ones the illegals are allegedly "stealing" from them. (As if there were an entitlement to any particular employer hiring us).

[Dr. Jones]

38. Are you falling into Bush's FTAA trap?

Do a search on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). It is a policy of Bush and Fox whereby they are constructing an open, borderless U.S./Canada/Mexico trading bloc ala the EU. Eventually it will encompass Central and South America.

Be careful what you wish for - you are basically citing Bush FTAA policy.

[pnwmom]

41. Actually, US citizens, as a group, do have an "entitlement" to US jobs.

As opposed to people who are here illegally, who are legally barred from working.

And many Americans still do not graduate from high school. They still need jobs.

[Dr. Jones]

45. All very good points...

I think that's why Bush pushes education so much, because he knows when it comes down to it he's not going to do a damn thing about securing our borders or changing immigration laws (or cracking down on companies who hire illegals).

A borderless Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) - THAT is Bush's stated goal.

[mondo joe]

75. Nothing in the declaration says we don't have borders or the

right to determine who enters them. And the Declaration isn't the basis of our law anyway - the Constitution is.

[Hoping4Change]

194. There are probably 2 billion people in the world who would like

to immigrate to the US. So where would you drawn the line? Do you think that your life wouldnt drastically change with that kind of influx?

[mike_c]

245. yep, that's why they're called "inalienable" rights....

Citizenship has no bearing on human rights. AMERICANS ought to know better than this-- we are a nation of immigrants-- this xenophobic "illegals" bashing is really ugly.

[Fridays Child]

26. How is outsourcing different than the hiring of illegal immigrants?

Setting aside, for the moment, the issues of health care and education, outsourcing is different only in one way: companies that outsource are lucky enough to have portable services or products which allow them to take American jobs to foreign workers instead of hiring foreign workers who come to America--legally or illegally. Whether companies hire foreign workers to do American jobs on their own soil or on ours, both tactics should be illegal.

And, when politicians recite the mantra that illegals do jobs Americans won't do, we all need to be aware that they're making that statement for a very important legal reason. The law requires employers to determine whether any citizens want and are qualified for the jobs they have available, before they can offer those jobs to foreigners. But if that requirement has been nullified in the popular conscience, the only other obstacle is the foreigners' status as residents of the United States.

Then, doing the bidding of their corporate contributors, the politicians only need to get the people to accept a "guest worker" program and--Presto!--the legal issues are resolved, paving the way for cheap labor in unsafe working conditions which will continue to undermine the Labor Movement, drive down wages, and, ultimately, destroy the Middle Class.

The solution is simple: Offer American jobs for American workers, first. And levy penalties in the form of damaging fines and significant prison time against employers who hire foreign workers, whether here or abroad, before they have proven that their jobs--along with decent compensation and safe working conditions--cannot be filled by Americans.

[Ms. Clio]

37. Insourcing is far more dangerous to the middle class

H-1B visas or "legal immigration" is completely ignored here, though. Odd.

[jbnow]

87. It really is a problem

and in the immigration bills being debated there are large automatic increases in the number permitted that is barely talked about. Well Lou did. In fact it was Dobbs show where I first heard of that issue. In a previous discussion here someone told the story of their daughters company who brought in many workers from overseas, had the workers train them thinking they'd be going back to work in the company in the country they came from. Instead hundreds were laid off and replaced by the new workers they had trained! This was a couple years ago and I have forgotten the details but not the story. But it sounded like the cases of abuse of this program Dobbs had talked about.
There were many stories about the abuses.

Hate to bring him up here since he offends so many on the immigration issue but I started watching him when he was having his outsourcing/H-1B.

But outsourcing is an increasing problem for the middle/upper middle class too. tax preparers and accounting, radiologists and so many more jobs can be outsourced so easily now with computers.

Employers want cheap labor. I love how to sat it is to lower their costs as though it is passed on to us. It isn't.

That isn't even to get into the strange tax breaks they get and the huge decrease of total taxes paid by corporations compared to past decades.

Not to say undocumented workers being hired isn't a problem too. So many in the construction trades and others have seen their wages fall dramatically. That's not the fault of the workers who come to do it, it's the fault of the employers who prefer people they don't have to pay as much for, not just wages but benefits, Workman's comp, unemployment.

God knows I don't see the way out of this.

[Ms. Clio]

92. Thanks for your post -- if Dobbs is talking about H-1B, good for him

although I generally disagree with him on many other things. I've read stories like that, too, and aren't they chilling?

I really think a lot of this "illegal immigrant" hysteria is being whipped up to divert attention from the fact that our corporate masters are not depriving Americans of jobs that immigrants have always performed throughout our history, but are are trying to force down labor costs in middle-class, white collar jobs, too. Here's an example:

H-1B workers earn less than American counterparts, report says
The visa holders are supposed to be paid prevailing wages

News Story by Patrick Thibodeau

JANUARY 03, 2006 (COMPUTERWORLD) - WASHINGTON -- H-1B visa IT workers earn on average $13,000 less than their American counterparts, according to a study of U.S. Department of Labor records released by the Center for Immigration Studies.

H-1B workers are paid less, even though the law requires that they receive prevailing wages, according to the study by John Miano, a former chairman of the Programmers Guild, a group that has been critical of the H-1B program.

The H-1B "has destroyed the entry level job market," Miano said in an interview, adding that he believes keeping the cap at its current 65,000 level will at least minimize the damage.

One result is lower wages for H-1B workers. For instance, the study found a mean 2003 wage for H-1B programmers of $49,258. Labor Department data pegged the mean 2003 wage salary for U.S. programmers at $65,000.



Thanks again for your input -- I don't know what all the answers are, either, but I do know it's a lot more complicated than grand sweeping pronouncements might indicate.

[jbnow]

113. You bring up a question

that troubles me. The issue of "illegal immigrants" does matter, but why now? What is the urgency? When it is dealt with it needs to be looked at with thoughtfulness, not political motivation. (If they ever look at anything that way)
It is a diversion but I am not sure who it is good for. I guess for hard ass republicans and their base who might not vote otherwise?

But the last thing we need right now is more division, more hysteria and that is just what is being created.

Corporate masters are trying to force down labor costs for every sort of job and illegal immigration really is one of the ways, but far from the only way. The truth is not all Americans can or should go to college or do white collar jobs. Their factory or other work is being outsourced or using undocumented workers for that (Mohawk and Tyson for instance. Tyson was even paying to have undocumented workers smuggled in, though the smugglers charged the workers too)

But if we made all the current workers legal there are some that would seek out those who were not legal. H-1B are legal workers and better protected than undocumented workers but used to the same result. They prefer those they can pay less or screw over to Americans who are willing or able.

On the immigration matter I think all we should do right now is enforce the fines on companies who hire those without documents. It is their fault and only theirs. We can't blame anyone for wanting to earn a living. THEY are the issues, not the workers. A wall along the border is one of the dumbest ideas ever to deal with it and stupid to consider with our budget.

On H-1B abuse issue that is part of the sick relationship between politicians and corporations.

This just came to mind and somehow fits. Dobbs again. He asks republicans to name one thing this administration or republican congress has done to help the middle class. The only answer they have ever given is tort reform! You should see him blast them for that.
But that is what we have come to...they don't even PRETEND they are for the common good anymore.

They aren't doing immigration for anyone's good either. It is so troubling that they are bringing up this divisive issue now.

[leftstreet]

143. Farmers were predicting labor shortfalls back in Nov/Dec 05

They were worried about the (then) upcoming crop season and lack of workers. It'd be interesting to know if border crossings have risen significantly since the first protests and rallies started this spring.

Someone from another thread posted a link to this article:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/08/news/top_stories/21_40_5012_7_05.txt

[Ms. Clio]

161. I really appreciate your thoughts on these matters

I don't understand why nobody else is talking about them.

Again, I think Dobbs is right on that matter -- the Repubs are not about helping the middle class. They are about helping BushCo.'s base -- the "haves and the have mores."

I'm not sure what the Sensenbrenner law is intended to achieve for them, other than appease the people who believe they comprise the base of the party. Doesn't Bush support a guest worker program? So they seem to be in conflict on this?

[jbnow]

200. Yes, bush wants

guest worker. A chance for republicans to show their Independence?

By the way sensenbrenner was on Dobbs who asked him why he wanted the illegal immigrants to be charged with a felony, Dobbs was against that. sensenbrenner said it was due to the Democrats in congress. He tried to change it and they wouldn't let him.
Yes, those big, bad, powerful Democrats, who can overcome them? Dobbs didn't call him on that.

[Hoping4Change]

222. I have found all your posts to be very interesting and well argued.

Cool heads need to prevail because this issue is not clear cut. On one hand illegals are definitely being exploited, but on the other hand they are driving down wages. It is naive for supporters to claim that their presence does not have a negative consequences. Furthermore illegals are operating from their own self interest and what is in their interest is not in the interest of the American worker.

Threatening to make illegals felons has catalyzed a movement that until this point has been unorganized. This whole thing reminds me of how Bush succeeded in solidifying support for Osama in the Muslim world after 911. Just another instance I suppose of bush being a uniter.

[Ms. Clio]

34. Do you have a photo of the sign? The one I saw said "sneek"

Held by ONE middle-aged white male counter-demonstrator in Dallas.

Hmmmm. You deliberately misrepresented the sign, which actually made the guy holding it look like a bigoted idiot.

I'm not into praising Freepers. YMMV.

[DanCa]

36. Racist don't have class.

Why are we surprised by this level of ignorance?

[BooScout]

40. I think I agree with you........

.......and I'm what many would consider a 'far lefty'..........but on immigration some seem to think that we (as in 'America') owe illegal imigrants something. We don't. NAFTA is not to blame because frankly illegal immigration has been going on for years. Long before NAFTA....Yes businesses that hire illegal immigrants should be prosecuted. We currently don't have the manpower to do it on the large scale basis and to do so may make prices rise in many markets (housing springs to mind).... Yes illegals need to be sent home...but the problem is.......when they are sent home they turn right back around and come back again. I don't think felonies are the way to go but a line has to be drawn somewhere with repeat offenders.

Yes quotas for immigration sucks. People need to accept the fact that sometimes life just sucks in general.....Yes, the Indians were here before we (as in European whites) got here. Yes, we took advantage of them and yes we are all hateful for our ancestors taking their land. BUT.........I doubt many here would be willing their little patch of the USA back to them now would they?

Face it. Not everyone who wants to live in America is free to do so. If we let everyone in who for some reason still wants to come in, the entire country would quickly sink under the weight of the humanity. Quotas are there for a reason. To stem the flow somewhat.....and if by some miracle we were able to stem the flood waters of illegal immigration, those quotas everyone bitches about just might be increased so more people could immigrate to America legally.

I have no answers to any of it.......but I do know that the entire issue that is before us today is not there for the right reasons. It's there simply because Bush and Rove were in need of yet another divisive issue to split Americans. Keep us busy concentrating on anything but what they are doing.....the raping of America.

[Dr. Jones]

50. Agreed...

If we let everyone in who for some reason still wants to come in, the entire country would quickly sink under the weight of the humanity. Quotas are there for a reason.

:toast:

[yellowcanine]

68. Ah but we want to let them in to do our dirty work and then send them home

when the work is done. The guest worker idea. Want to see how well it works out in the long run? Look at France. If we want them to clean our houses, work in our restaurants, repair out sidewalks and maintain our landscapes, pay into the SS trust fund, etc., we ought to be willing to offer them citizenship as well. Keep treating them like second class non-citizens and eventually we can look forward to violent protests, not peaceful ones like yesterday. Treat them like citizens and they will become productive citizens. We reap what we sow.

[Hoping4Change]

225. I don't see anyone one this thread advocating guest worker

status.

You have yet to address the issue that illegals are driving down wages. Illegals are operating from their own self interest however that self-interest is detrimental to American workers.

[ComerPerro]

43. Fine, deport them all, fuck it, I don't care anymore

Lets just see you pay for it.

And, by the way, congratulations on your tremendous accomplishment of being born a US Citizen.

[Dr. Jones]

48. Did I say "deport them?" No...

I'm simply asking, no, BEGGING - the protesters to reframe their position into a less confrontational, more humble stance whereby they are asking for the basic worker protections that Americans enjoy. Why they choose the path of confrontation over humility I simply don't understand, and it really discredits them.

[Catrina]

51. What's Mexico doing for its citizens? What is going on there that

the Mexican people will risk their lives to get out, and risk living in the shadows here to make a living? People don't leave a country in droves unless there is something really wrong going on there and why doesn't the US address these issues with Vincente Fox who seems more than willing to drive his own people out, by keeping them in such a state of poverty that they can't live there anymore?

I would think most people do not want to leave their native lands and families behind. I know the Bushes love Fox and each time there's a Bush in the WH, Fox seems to drive his poorest citizens across the border with the permission of these presidents.

Maybe if WE had a real government that worked for the people, pressure could be put on the Fox government to treat their citizens fairly and to work on getting them a living wage. Chavez has managed to do it to a large extent. Something if very fishy about this whole thing, and I think it has something to do with keeping workers (both Mexican and American) down while Corporations continue to profit.

[Bridget Burke]

175. Fox tried to work with Bush at their first meeting....

He had ideas to deal with immigration. Bush refused to even consider any of his ideas. Don't blame Fox for all of Mexico's problems. The US has great influence in Mexico & has always sided with the Rich Guys.

Mexico will elect a new president this summer. The front-runner is more to the left than Fox; the opposition has always put him in the same "category" of Chavez & Castro.

There are plenty of Mexicans left in Mexico & they take to the streets to express themselves. Perhaps WE should take to the streets to fix our own country before telling Mexico what to do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. It's not YOUR house. It's OUR house.

And, a lot of us welcome immigrants.

[Dr. Jones]

46. You see? A perfect example of the kind of rhetoric that totally turns

Americans off. No willingness to listen, no willingness to understand OUR position. Just F**K YOU, we're here to STAY, so you'd better shut up and sit down 'cause we demand our rights (even though we're in this country illegally)!

I welcome immigrants - LEGAL immigrants. If they come here LEGALLY, most Americans have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that. Legal immigrants have contribued to the fabric of our society in wonderful ways.

What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand??

[mac56]

49. Were your ancestors legal immigrants?

Do you know?

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Why does it matter?

His (or my) heritage do not affect my right as a citizen to help determine policy - including how much immigration to allow.

[mac56]

115. If your ancestors were illegal immigrants

than it's at least somewhat disingenuous, and more likely hypocritical, to complain about how others get to this country.

Pulling up the ladder. "Never mind how my people got here...screw the rest of you!"

Add: My ancestors were probably illegal immigrants, I'm sure. Doesn't bother me a bit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. No.

My ancestry does not affect in any material way my right to speak for or against any topic. I did not inherit any moral debts at birth.

If I were advocating for the elimination of a policy that allowed me to prosper, maybe, but that isn't the case.

[mac56]

273. Moral debts? We all have them.

Some choose to ignore theirs.

We all benefit from decisions our ancestors made, and actions they took. Some legal, some not. They wanted to work and feed their families, often in the face of considerable pushback from those who got here first in the previous wave.

Would you have pulled up the ladder back then? Demanded that great great grandfather Lumberjack Jeff be banished to wherever he was from? I think not.

What's different about things now?

Don't fall for the the divisive RW crap implicit in this whole topic. Like so many wedge issues, the BFEE doesn't ever intend to resolve this - they just want it to fester. Think of Nixon's Southern Strategy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. The same part of "illegal" that Rosa Parks understood.

[Dr. Jones]

78. Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks did not take the jobs Americans will do and DO do. Rosa Parks did not have the effects of lowering middle-class wages and putting a strain on our hospitals, schools, state and local governments, and healthcare system.

Our current immigration debate is far more complex than what you are alluding to, and in my opinion, you cannot make that comparison.

[Ms. Clio]

80. It is far more complex, but nobody would know that from your posts

[yellowcanine]

93. The point is tha Rosa Parks broke the law. Sometimes the law is wrong.

Laws are made by humans and sometimes humans make bad laws. Laws that say someone from Cuba is entitled to stay in this country but someone from Haiti cannot are capricious and wrong. Laws that say you may work here and contribute to our society but you have no legal protections while doing so, including protection from arbitrary deportation if your employer no longer needs your services and reports you to INS - even though he knew all along you were illegal and said nothing as long as he needed you - are wrong and need to be fixed.

[mondo joe]

103. And Rosa was arrested and challenged the law in court.

There's a big difference.

[yellowcanine]

106. But it was the Montgomery Bus Boycott that changed the law. I fail to

see the difference.

[mondo joe]

164. The Supreme Court decided segregation on transportation was

unconstitutional. That's how the law changed.

Rosa Parks participated in civil disobedience - which meant being arrested and going through the legal process. Not sneaking in, trying not to be found out and then demanding a new right.

[yellowcanine]

189. The boycott triggered the court cases that led to the SCOTUS ruling.

Anyway, I don't see how this challenges my original point that there are bad laws and the way they get changed is when people refuse to obey them. Therefore illegality in and of itself is not a proper criteria for determining if an action is just. After all it was illegal to hide Jews in Nazi Germany as well.

[mondo joe]

195. No, her arrest triggered the court case.

Boycotts aren't legal challenges - there is no path from boycott to Supreme Court.

The way laws are changed is when laws are changed - by legislation or by being overturned in the courts.

People breaking laws alone doesn't change them.

And when you say "illegality in and of itself is not a proper criteria for determining if an action is just" you might as well be speaking on behalf of George Bush and the hundreds of laws he believes he is justified to ignore.

[yellowcanine]

220. Whatever, my point is the same and still valid. And I have answered the

point about George Bush in another post.

[mondo joe]

244. "Whatever" is a poor substitute for a cogent argument.

I don't think you understand the process by which laws are overturned.

[yellowcanine]

249. It was not pertinent to the point I was making so I didn't press it.

Live with it.

[mondo joe]

254. Of course I'll live with it.

A. I have no choice buut to live with it.
B. It's not significant enough to impact me in the least.

But I think you might get further if you actually understood the process by which law is overturned.

[yellowcanine]

265. Ok I tried to drop it but since you insist - The law was overturned

because of a lawsuit filed by the leaders of the boycott.
Link here but I have copied the pertinent paragraphs.
There is more than one way to overturn a law.

http://home.att.net/~reniqua/what.html

However, leaders decided that they could no longer try to fight the county of Montgomery, so they filed a federal lawsuit against Montgomery's segregation laws. because it was not in accordance with the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment stated...They also spoke against the unnecessary harassment of blacks by Montgomery government and law officials.

On May 11, 1956 the case was heard before a three panel federal court. The judges ranged from extremely radical to totally liberal. The cities' lawyers tried to argue that if segregation would end then there would be rash amounts of bloodshed and violence throughout the city. After listening to these arguments, one judge asked, "Is it fair to command one man to surrender his constitutional rights, if they are his constitutional rights, in order to prevent one man from committing a crime?” On June 4, 1956, about three weeks later in a two to one decison, it was decided that the segregation laws were indeed unconstitutional. Yet the movement was not over yet since the Montgomery county lawyers immediately stated that they were going to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. While the boycotters were waiting for the Supreme Court to rule the protest continued.

During that time, incidences continued to try to end the movement. Reverend Robert Graetz a white minister, who served a predominately black church, had his house bombed. However, the family was out of town, and no injuries occurred. The Mayor denounced the incident as a publicity stunt by blacks and reiterated the fact that whites did not care if the boycott lasted forever. Soon the harassment by cops increased and insurance policies were canceled swifter. The law was making it virtually impossible for the carpool system to occur and eventually the city sued leaders of the movement citing that the car pool was a "public nuisance" and an illegal "private enterprise". On November 13, 1956 leaders prepared to face on of the darkest days of the movement. They knew that if the car pool system was no longer available for transportation that many people might be forced to ride the buses.

While in court awaiting the decison about the status of the carpools in Montgomery King received a message from the federal court. It simply stated that "the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed". This meant that the Supreme Court supported the decision that segregation on the buses was illegal. Even though the Montgomery jury ruled that carpooling was illegal, it was no longer necessary.

The next night the official boycott was called to an end; but citizens were asked to not ride the buses until the official mandate arrived. Reverend Graetz spoke the words of the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, reiterating the non-violent principles: "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing...Love suffereth long, and is kind..."

However, it was soon announced that the order would not reach Montgomery for about a month. Faced with the obstacle of not being able to participate in carpools, a "share a ride" system was worked out, and the buses remained empty for another month. Finally on December 20, 1956 the mandate came to Montgomery. The next day King, Abernathy, and Nixon were the first to integrate the buses. The boycott was finally over.

[Dr. Jones]

139. A report just came out that says Bush broke 700+ laws.

Based on your position, you would have no choice but to say Bush is justified in doing so, because "some laws made by humans are bad" and who are we to say Bush's interpretation of those laws is wrong.

So where is the line drawn? Seriously, this is an interesting question. Bush obviously broke over 700 laws and should be behind bars! And yet some of us here say immigration laws are inhumane and should be ignored?

[yellowcanine]

193. This is a terrible argument. Saying one law is a bad law does not justify

breaking other laws. The fact that the just thing to do in Nazi Germany was to hide a Jew from the SS even though that was illegal did not mean it would have been ok to kill your neighbor - something else that was illegal.

Your conscience is your guide to knowing where the line is drawn. And it might be necessary to pay some legal price for breaking the law, yes - that comes with the territory.

[mondo joe]

197. If your conscience is the guide, the * is justified in breaking any law

he feels entitled to by merit of his conscience.

You want to play pick and choose just like * does - you just want to choose different laws to ignore.

[yellowcanine]

219. No. I am willing to submit my decisions based on my conscience

to society's judgement. And George Bush has to as well. Maybe he will win, maybe not. There is no guarantee that justice will win out. That is the way history is. In the case of the last president who ignored the laws of the country on this scale (Nixon), justice won in the end. We have no guarentee that it will again. That does not mean that what Bush has done is just, however. It merely means he will have gotten away with it, just as the U.S. got away with the theft of Texas. On the other hand, Saddam did not get away with the theft of Kuwait. Our theft of Texas was still wrong, however, as was Saddam's theft of Kuwait.

[mondo joe]

246. Society's judgment is law.

If you want to break the law and submit yourself to the judicial process, by all means do so.

[yellowcanine]

251. If one believes in the principle strongly enough it is the only way to go.

And it is exactly what Rosa Parks, MLK and Ghandi did.

[mondo joe]

253. And what alll those anti-choicers do when they bomb abortion

clinics too.

Good company.

If you oppose a law and want to break it, be my guest. Have the decency to stand and be arrested for it at least, which puts you more squarely in the MLK crowd.

[yellowcanine]

262. No I reject the comparison. Being willing to put yourself in legal

jeopardy to take a principled stand on a moral issue does not put one in the same company as extremists willing to commit violent acts. That would be like saying MLK is in the "same company" as an abortion clinic bomber. I reject that kind of reductionist thinking. We can make moral distinctions. We don't have to adopt the extreme positions of violent people. That kind of "slippery slope" thinking is not useful and frankly, absurd.

[mondo joe]

287. "Legal jeopardy" is relative.

Rosa Parks and MLK stood up to be counted.

Abortion clinic bombers break the law and go into hiding. They're not the only ones.

[yellowcanine]

292. I am not defending abortion clinic bombers. You are arguing with

yourself. You brought up the topic and tried to equate civil disobedience associated with immigration with abortion clinic bombing. The two are not comparable.

[Hoping4Change]

228. Probably 4 billion people in the world want to immigrate to the US.

Are you advocating a total open door policy?

[Zorra]

52. Heck, I have a place in Mexico, and live there most of the time.

What do you think would happen if I organized all the gringo ex-pats that are guests in Mexico, and we boycotted Mexican businesses, waved American flags, and staged protests demanding the same rights as Mexican citizens?

I'm sure that the people of Mexico would just be so honored, and would throw flowers while chanting, "we love you, you pinchi gringos"!

Right before we were rounded up and deported en masse.

And IMO, rounding up the gringos would be a pretty natural and understandable reaction.

So, yeah, I think you're correct. These protests have totally pissed off a large segment of the US voting population that was formerly somewhat apathetic toward this issue before it was made so blatant.

[mike_c]

242. that's what they said about the civil rights movement....

"It's the UPPITY nigras what's makin' it so bad fer the rest of 'em! All that protestin' just makes folks mad!"

That is EXACTLY what southern white racists said would prevent the civil rights movement from succeeding!

[Joe Fields]

53. Let me get this straight, what you really mean to say is.......

don't be invited illegally by big corporations into my house and do work that big corporations want to pay little for, work hard, keep mouths shut, boost the economy, but then demand rights?

It is no coincidence that Tyson Foods had to shut down nine of it's fifteen food processing plants yesterday. And it is not the fault of illegals that many people are out of work and cannot find jobs. Outsourcing is a much larger problem than immigration. Truth be told, this administration is talking out of both sides of it's mouth at the same time, as well as fomenting more hatred and bigotry, purely to rile the republican base up enough to get off their asses and vote in November.

[Hoping4Change]

229. Hiring illegals is exactly the same as outsourcing.

No difference. In both instances companies want to get cheap labour.

[The Straight Story]

55. It's not the land they want really - it's the government

Ours is better than theirs and offers them more.

We could even toss back a big portion of the southwest to mexico - but it would not do any good because the people living there would then cross the border into the parts owned by the US.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[BooScout]

58. WTF was hateful about it?

I thought it was a valid opinion. Not every liberal thinks that illegal immigration should get a pass. Some people think that maybe LEGAL immigration is the way to go.

I cannot believe you reported this post.:eyes:

[El Fuego]

60. But yours is the post that is full of HATE.

Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with you on is not "decent" and must be silenced. And, I believe you are encouraging a mob attach on a DUer, which is probably not acceptable.

The OP is just encouraging intelligent debate on a complex issue. If that offends you, perhaps you should try the ignore feature.

[Solo_in_MD]

63. The doctrinaire continue to plague us

and are the bane of reasoned discourse.

[pnwmom]

94. I didn't read the post as being full of hate. When s/he was talking about

the "rape of America," s/he was talking about Bush's actions in every sphere.

[El Fuego]

293. Not referring to the original post, replying to post that has been deleted

[mondo joe]

76. Accusing others of hate is a poor substitute for a cogent argument,

IMO.

There's nothing hateful about responsibly managing borders and immigration.

[Hoping4Change]

231. Hatemongering? Hardly. That people don't share your opinion

in no way constitutes hatemongering. Get a grip.

[Virginian]

57. The solution to the problem is...

Annex Mexico. Make all Mexicans US Citizens. Citizens do not need papers or visas to go from state to state. Then deport all illegal aliens.

Would Mexico form one huge state or would it split into several?

Some enterprising Mexican should start a movement to move the whole country to the US instead of only the people.

[Solo_in_MD]

62. There are those who argue that North America is going to form

something like the European Union and get there eventually. A somewhat optimistic view IMO, but then I am not known for my optimism in political matters. Clearly the FTAA and such is a step in that direction. If it goes that way, hopefully we don't mess it up as badly as the EU did.

[El Fuego]

95. The Republic of Mexico has their own government power structure

They will not take kindly to being "annexed"! :rofl:

[Sapere aude]

64. Fine, give me a solution to the problem, not your rant.

Just what would you have us do? Be specific.

[Dr. Jones]

77. HERE'S HOW THEY CAN GET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEHIND THEM -->

"We know we're undocumented and we thank the United States of America for taking us in and bettering our lives. We were destitude and now we can feed our families, and for that we are grateful to this great nation. But you see, we are being mistreated by the companies that hired us. We work hard every day, just as hard as any American, and yet we are not provided with even the most basic worker protections that Americans enjoy.

We want fair pay for the work we do. We want to have the benefits that go along with that hard work - benefits that are available to most Americans - benefits that would help us to feed our families and provide healthcare for the ones we love. We want to be treated with dignity, fairness, and honesty. We want better working conditions for our people, and stricter OSHA enforcement. And we ask for the American people to get behind our humanitarian cause."

Now THIS is an approach that, at least in my opinion, many Americans WOULD get behind.

[bluedog]

82. better yet.....stop acting like the US citizens owe them something

and stop with the "we demand amnesty"

[mike_c]

243. ARE YOU KIDDING? U.S. citizens owe them a lot....

They make a huge economic contribution to America-- one that impacts us all directly-- and positively-- everytime we go to the grocery store.

[carlydenise]

84. They are protesting in the wrong country

They need to be protesting in Mexico....the economic conditions are bad, people are homeless and hungry, instead of coming here and protesting, why aren't they in Mexico protesting against the conditions there, spend their energy in making THEIR country a great place to live! They need to fix their problems in their country. There are millions and millions and millions of people in Mexico, it's time for them to take their country back.
Carly

[Ms. Clio]

86. MANY OF THE PROTESTERS ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS

jesus christ on a mother fucking crutch.

[bluedog]

98. how does anyone know?

they are not running out and saying ...oh some illegals are proud to get on tv and say they are illegals.......but the majority...won't.....so there was no count on who was legal and who was not........so get off your high horse......

[Ms. Clio]

102. I know because they say so -- because I live in Dallas

and I watch the news, and I read the newspapers.

Nobody needs to "count" to know that many of the people who are upset about the Sensenbrenner law are U.S. citizens.

[Dr. Jones]

100. But the MAJORITY of the protesters are ILLEGALS fighting for their

so-called "rights."

If the debate centered around LEGAL immigrants, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Ms. Clio]

104. They are not fighting for "their rights"

They are fighting for their families. And if you actually do live in Dallas, you know perfectly well that the students who were walking out and protesting were worried about their parents and grandparents.

[yellowcanine]

108. How do you know that? No one else knows that. How do you know that

most of the protesters weren't legals fighting for the rights of others? I am amazed at your ability to know the legal status of most the protestors one day later. Truly astonishing.

[Hoping4Change]

232. Then they should be boycotting Mexican goods to pressure

the Mexican government to get its house in order. I once knew a Mexican ophthalmologist who also had a MA in Economics and was a socialist. He didn't pay taxes because he said corruption is so rampant in Mexico his tax dollars would end up in someone's pocket. Rather than pay taxes he went into impoverished areas several times a month and offered his services free of charge.

[Radio_Guy]

85. Wow, what a war this has turned out to be

This is simple. This country is big enough for all of us. The hard-working immigrants that come here so their families can have a better life should not be thrown out of here as some suggest. This country's already failing economy will be plunged in a deep dark depression if immigrants are driven out. Every person who works in this country, who live in this country, and pay taxes in this country should be allowed every benefit the citizens get. The right to a driver's license. The right to emergency healthcare. The right to vote. What happened to no taxation without representation? They pay sales tax, gas tax, and in many cases income tax.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

It is about time we start remembering those words.

[leftstreet]

91. Yeah really

And it's just what all the organizers, corporations and politicians wanted. Prior to this most Americans were pretty apathetic and/or uniformed about the subject.

Election year war.
Hoo-rah

[Dr. Jones]

96. Wrong:

This country's already failing economy will be plunged in a deep dark depression if immigrants are driven out.

Wrong. IF deportation becomes a reality, Americans would finally get their jobs back, and the illegals will be shocked to find how dispensible they were all along. Not advocating a policy of deportation, just stating the obvious.

By the way, "Give me your tired, your poor" is based on the assumption that immigrants are coming here LEGALLY. Don't beleive me? Check out your history.

[pnwmom]

97. Working illegal aliens are essentially scab labor, which is why the

Democrats are so conflicted on this issue. Putting out the welcome mat to illegal aliens conflicts with being pro-labor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1081886&mesg_id=1081886

[Radio_Guy]

112. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Illegals can be unionized. Has anyone tried? They should. If illegals don't like their conditions, they can unionize just like anyone else can. They can organize and strike just like anyone else can. If they get fired for unionizing, then, if it is as many others said, there are plenty of unemployed Americans who can take their place.

[Hoping4Change]

233. 1) Cesar Charez was against illegal workers.

2) You think forming a union is easy? You got to be kidding. Ask Walmart workers how eay it is to form a union.

[OregonBlue]

90. Thank you. All we have to do is enforce the laws of our country.

The Administration supports illegals because it is bad for American workers and good for American Corporations!!

[mac56]

120. DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

Like so much of the krep from this administration, it's a wedge issue they have no desire to resolve.

[Triana]

212. Bingo! Those who benefit most are in charge and...

...are part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

And THAT is the crux of the problem.

[smoogatz]

99. What a crock of shit.

Americans WILL do any job, but not for the sub-sub-minimum slave wages employers routinely pay illegals--especially during a period of almost full employment for whites, and relatively (at least until the Bush economy kicked in) low unemployment for blacks. In fact, illegals DO work hard at back-breaking, low-paying jobs most Americans wouldn't do on a fucking bet, and IMO once you've done that for a few years you HAVE paid your dues in this country and ought to be invited to stick around and become a citizen. In the meantime, it's time to start enforcing existing labor laws as they apply to employers--and the place to start is with the big boys like Tyson and Smithfield, who hire and exploit undocumented workers with absolute impunity.

[Marie26]

111. Don't be invited in to clean my house,

mow my lawn, build my garage, take care of my children, and support my lifestyle - and then demand your rights! :banghead:

[Zookeeper]

121. WHO invited illegal workers?

Business interests and spoiled Americans in the border states. The rest of us still mow our own lawns, don't hire nannies (I raise my own children) and some of us actually hire professional union carpenters to build our garages (or do the work ourselves).

I'm certainly willing to pay more for produce and/or freeze local summer produce for winter use. Illegal workers don't "support my lifestyle" in any way that I can't live without.

[Marie26]

124. WE did.

If there were no jobs for undocumented workers, they wouldn't come. We, collectively, have invited immigrants in; and we collectively reap the benefits & costs. You may be willing to pay more for produce, but if you're buying it at the local groceries for under a dollar, you're benefitting from illegal labor. When the Social Security fund is kept solvent by the contributions of illegal laborers, you are reaping the benefit of those uncollected wages. When an undocumented worker buys food at your restaurant, you are reaping part of the economic benefit. Likewise, when an immigrant woman w/o health insurance goes to the emergency room, we collectively pay the costs. We're all interconnected here, to a larger extent than most people realize.

[smoogatz]

131. Bravo.

Well said. I would add that most people who own mutual funds benefit from illegal labor, because undocumented workers are everywhere, in every industry--they don't just pick tomatoes.

[mac56]

138. So true. Thank you.

nm

[Zookeeper]

198. I certainly understand those concepts...

I just happen to disagree that the benefit to most Americans outweighs the cost. I'm irritated by the "we build your houses, we take care of your kids, we pick your lettuce" talking point, since those jobs would be filled by American citizens if business would return to paying a livable wage.

The only ones truly profiting from illegal labor are the rich, big business and the illegal laborers themselves. Getting a good deal on lettuce or a new roof is not a good deal in the long run if it suppresses wages for American workers.

Edited for typo.

[Dr. Jones]

127. It used to be that AMERICAN teens did these things.

I recall growing up and WE were the ones mowing lawns, the gals babysitting, etc. It was the American teens and college kids doing these things. Some teens I grew up with even had their own little lawn mowing business of sorts, and some in the neighborhood "hired" them and paid them pretty decent money. Whatever happened to that?

I find it very hard to believe that American teens in their "laziness" have simply refused to do this work. Also high school grads and college students would be doing this work as well, had they not been undercut by illegals. It is this group who, in my opinion, would jump in to fill in the gap should the illegals leave the country.

What's so wrong with taking care of our own first?

[Marie26]

129. Those poor unemployed teens!

How will they get the money to buy a new X-Box now? :shrug: I was a teen not too long ago, and believe me, there's no shortage of crappy mimimum wage jobs for teenagers. It's not that teens in their laziness refuse to do the work, it's just that there's more of a demand for these workers then a supply. That's all. So college grads would be working at McDonald's, if those mean illegals weren't taking the jobs away from them? Really?

[Ms. Clio]

130. You are really becoming quite transparent

I'd rather all the H-1B visa holders left the country -- they are the ones actually competing with those college kids TODAY.

[yellowcanine]

183. Have you ever tried to harvest a field of tomatoes with a bunch of

American teenagers? I have. And they could have earned a lot more than working in a Mickey Ds and didn't have to deal with snotty customers all day. But guess what? It was outside, it got hot, and their hands turned black from the tomato vines. And these were country kids, not city kids. The field got harvested. But I doubt I would ever try that again. And I doubt that most of them would ever do it again. But with about half as many Mexicans that field would have been harvested in half the time or less. The cost to me would have been the same because it was piece work. But guess what, each of those Mexicans would have gone home with twice as much on average as that bunch of teenagers. I like American teenagers. I raised two of them. But if I want a field of tomatoes picked, or a lawn mowed, or sidewalks and curbs installed, get me some Mexicans. They will work for you if you treat them like human beings. It is not a matter of "taking care of our own." "Our own" doesn't want to do this work. End of story.

[mondo joe]

260. Or: pay a fair price for the labor.

I don't believe in some sort of racial work ethic. I do believe people work for what its worth to them.

[mondo joe]

169. So if you invite someone to clean your house you've

effectively invited them to move in?

[hedgehog]

133. But what if WE forced them out of their house into ours....?

I've seen several sources indicating that illegal immigration from Mexico shot upwards about two years after NAFTA went through. US companies dumping cheap corn forced Mexicans off their farms. WIth limited options, some headed North to find work. Given the dangers of the border crossing, it's not a decision that anyone made lightly. These are people stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to find a way out. It's time to stop blaming them and look at who is really benefiting from a supply of cheap labor. Immigration quotas aren't adjusted because that would allow people to enter legally. Having all the illegals available to work without protection of labor laws is another way to keep wages down for everyone.

[Ms. Clio]

142. Such an intelligent post

People really don't seem to understand that there are large economic forces at work here -- it's much easier for them to personalize and demonize a minority population, especially when they don't live anywhere near the Southwest.

[Dr. Jones]

151. Hey Ms. Clio,

Check out my profile and see where I live. :)

I told you many times that I do blame the companies who hire illegals, and that they should be prosecuted. I'm not demonizing a minority population, just trying my darndest to convey the most effective way to approach this issue and to get the American people behind their cause. Currently they are on a very confrontational course with the American people, and that needs to change. They need to dump the rhetoric and get some humility and ask the American people to get behind their humanitarian cause of simply attaining basic worker's protections and dignity.

[Bridget Burke]

181. Ah, Dallas!

I live in Houston & don't share your opinions.

Humility is highly overrated. Most Mexicans I know do NOT lack dignity.

We need MORE workers to demand rights & protection. But so many in the USA express their feelings about outsourcing by being really rude when they get an Indian on the tech help line.

[Hoping4Change]

234. Who here is demonizing a minority. Please cite examples.

[leftstreet]

148. Then why did Mexico agree to NAFTA?

Why would they allow US corporations to dump cheap corn on their economy and harm their own citizens?

:shrug:

[Marie26]

150. Same reason we did

The power elite is in control, not the people.

[Ms. Clio]

152. Why does the U.S. allow H-1B visa holders to harm middle class workers?

Because the interests of the Mexican elites are nicely aligned with those of the U.S. elites.

[leftstreet]

158. Bill Gates loves those H-1Bs

For Gates, A Visa Charge

Sunday, March 19, 2006; Page B07

When the Senate comes back to work next week, it is scheduled to take up the issue of immigration. And that is what brought Bill Gates to Washington for a rare visit last week.

The Microsoft billionaire does not love this capital, but he decided to add his personal voice to his Washington office's lobbying effort to expand the number of foreign-born computer scientists allowed to work in this country under a special program known as H-1B visas.

In an interview sandwiched between his meetings on Capitol Hill, Gates told me the "high-skills immigration issue is by far the number one thing" on the Washington agenda for Microsoft and for the electronics industry generally. "This is gigantic for us."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701798.html

[hedgehog]

176. We wouldn't need high skills immigrants if our kids didn't have

to pay the full load for college. Who is going to go on to get a Masters or PHD in Science or Engineering when the clock is already ticking on the student loan for the undergraduate degree?


Also - just pick up a magazine from one of the engineering societies - ASME, IEEE, ASCE etc and you'll find out that there are plenty of US born engineers out there looking for work.

[Zookeeper]

208. Absolutely...

Not to mention that poorer countries are losing the educated people they need to improve their own well-being.

[Ms. Clio]

180. wow, thanks for that -- Gates says, "This is gigantic for us."

and how coincidental, that the article is from just over a month ago. Wasn't that about the time all this "illegal immigration" stuff started blowing up? Very interesting.

[DeBunk]

154. We hold these truths to be self evident:

that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not some men...ALL MEN.

Not by laws...BY THEIR CREATOR.

God gave them the right to march in the streets.

[Splatter Phoenix]

167. Our government

Is not dictated by the Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting. That was justification for breaking away from our "home country", England. It's not the document that controls this country's laws (which ILLEGALS are breaking).

[treestar]

199. So obviously it is just a technical question for you and you do not

subscribe to any of the underlying reasons for it.

[mondo joe]

209. The founders who penned the Declaration also wrote the

Constitution. Think they believed in the right of the United States to control its borders?

[DeBunk]

300. Controlling the borders is the Federal Governments responsibility

They have not done so. Why is it the fault of those who only seek life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?

[DeBunk]

299. Please find the law that illegals are breaking.

What law are they breaking?

[mondo joe]

174. There is no inalienable right to enter a country illegally,

and you certainly won't find it in the Constitution.

[treestar]

202. Sure there is - things are sometimes against the law and that

law is wrong.

So it wasn't against the law when your ancestors came. They still did the same thing.

We keep them illegal so we don't have to pay them according to all the laws we've whipped up for ourselves.

[mondo joe]

204. Where do you find this :inalienable right" to pass national borders

without consent?

[mike_c]

257. "inalienable" means "not dependent upon citizenship...."

It's pretty clear that the intent of the Declaration was to establish that fundamental human rights are not granted by men or by their institutions, including the state. They are "inalienable," not dependent upon citizenship.

[mondo joe]

258. Uh, no, that's not the definition.

And if you think that's what the Declaration meant, why is it not laid out as such in the Constitution which is the basis of our law?

[mike_c]

268. well, it formally means "incapable of being repudiated"...

...and "unforfeitable" for ANY reason-- including decisions of states. The derivation of the word is clear for anyone to see: "non alienable." As for your question, my belief is that the declaration provided the philosophical basis for the foundation of an independent American state, and the constitution was the practical expression of that philosophy-- the necessary bridge between a statement about the rights of humans, and decisions about who gets parking tickets.

[mondo joe]

286. Then I suggest you consider how it was applied in the "practical

expression" - notably citizenship.

[JVS]

305. I see a lot of assertion that the law is wrong on this, but never proof

[hogwyld]

173. Oh, just give up already!!!

Eliminate the borders, let them all in, and let the entire world vote in our elections as well. (We'll, that might not be so bad, since we would have never had * to begin with) Raise our taxes to 80% to supply the benefits to humanity. :sarcasm:

[fishnfla]

184. " we are the backbone of this country"

quote from an illegal immigrant in our local paper. Just as the OP says, an insult to our citizens.

I see they stopped waving the Mexican Flag, why? Because it was another insult to our citizens.

Now they are co-opting their demands as a "civil rights issue". Sure you take the black mans job, why not steal his thunder too? Think hispanics can't be racists or homophobes? Think again.


Mark my words, these protesters, and their organizers, have made a huge miscalculation by pushing this envelope. They totally handled this thing wrong from the get-go. The backlash cometh.

Adios :hi:

[treestar]

206. They are the backbone, the lowest paid workers. Just arbitrarily

making their presence "illegal" through the immigration laws does nothing to change that.

Your ancestors came legally? LOL! It was easy then. There were no minimum wage laws, wage and hour laws - our ancestors got exploited the same way. Except the Americans they confronted had to compete on the same terms.

And they made the same nativist noises.

[treestar]

201. Why are people so resentful?

What have these immigrants done to them?

They seem no different than most of our ancestors.

[mondo joe]

214. No different - other than entering the country illegally.

Why would anyone be resented for violating the law?

[ginnyinWI]

203. Make them legal.

This answers all the concerns about them working for low wages. If they are legal they can join unions and demand higher wages. There is a demand for more workers in the U.S. than can be satisfied with how many people are here now. We need more workers--just make them legal and they won't be a threat.

[mondo joe]

210. We need more workers? Where did you get that?

[ginnyinWI]

275. Ted Kennedy said it.

He said there is a demand for some 400,000 workers, but the U.S. currently limits immigration from Mexico to some lower number--might have been 5,000, not sure.

[Hoping4Change]

235. What unions? How many people do you know have a union?

And what do you suggest would prevent new waves of illegals from entering?

[ginnyinWI]

278. There still are unions, but they are weakened by low numbers.

If more legal Mexican immigrants join them, they'll be strengthened.They will also be strengthened if there aren't so many undocumented workers around.

If it is easy to come into this country legally and have papers and rights, why would Mexicans want to do it the hard way, which is both physically dangerous, risky as far as being caught and sent back.

It is simply impossible to stop the flow of people when you have a rich country bordering on a poor one. So the best thing we can do is to find ways to deal with it.

[Hoping4Change]

301. I hear what you're saying but I think it would be better to

demand that Mexico deal with rampant corruption through-out government and business. Mexicans are leaving Mexico because it is a hell-hole of corruption. The country can't function because taxes are are either avoided or siphoned off by corrupt officials so public services are very poor. If there were a dramatic improvement in Mexican living conditions, there'd be fewer illegals in the US.

Of course the the other reason for the lousy living conditions are American corporations who have sweatshops in Mexico.

[radio4progressives]

215. just more right wing racist crap.. adding to my ignore list

[liberaliraqvet26]

218. Agree 100%!!!

[GeorgeGist]

223. Unless you're an aboriginal...

you're illegal.

[mondo joe]

247. How so? Illegal by which set of law precisely?

[mike_c]

239. you mean the house we stole from it's previous occupants?

Or just the house that OUR immigrant ancestors were welcomed to? Because unless you're a native american, you have no more claim than today's immigrants. Most of them are in fact part of the direct mesoamerican bloodline, which gives them even more right to call the house their own.

[mondo joe]

248. What determines who has a right to call this their home?

Please be specific.

[mike_c]

255. I'm not playing that game-- the OP is....

I think we all have a legitimate claim to live here, and anyone who works hard, takes care of their familiy, and benefits America's economy deserves some access to the rest of the American dream, IMO. They're working folks, just like you and me. They want to be Americans? I'm proud to welcome them. It's my house too.

[mondo joe]

256. I'm sorry - your post made it seem that was precisely the game you were

playing.

Now since there are lots of people who meet the criteria you set ("works hard, takes care of their familiy, and benefits America's economy") I wonder if you could offer some sugggestion about how to determine that last part especially - "benefits America's economy".

[mike_c]

264. I probably should have used the :sarcasm: thingie....

Here are a couple of recent articles from more or less unbiased sources (there are plenty of articles on both sides of the debate that are clearly partisan):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_29/b3943001_mz001.htm

(snip)

But Inez and Antonio aren't your typical American consumers. They're undocumented immigrants who live and work in the U.S. illegally. When the couple, along with Esmeralda, crossed the Mexican border five years ago, they had little money, no jobs, and lacked basic documents such as Social Security numbers. Guided by friends and family, the couple soon discovered how to navigate the increasingly above-ground world of illegal residency. At the local Mexican consulate, the Valenzuelas each signed up for an identification card known as a matrícula consular, for which more than half the applicants are undocumented immigrants, according to the Pew Hispanic center, a Washington think tank. Scores of financial institutions now accept it for bank accounts, credit cards, and car loans. Next, they applied to the Internal Revenue Service for individual tax identification numbers (ITINS), allowing them to pay taxes like any U.S. citizen -- and thereby to eventually get a home mortgage.

Today, companies large and small eagerly cater to the Valenzuelas -- regardless of their status. In 2003 they paid $11,000 for a used Ford Motor Co. van plus $70,000 more for a gleaming new 30-foot trailer that now serves as headquarters and kitchen for their restaurant. A local car dealer gave them a loan for the van based only on Antonio's matrícula card and his Mexican driver's license. Verizon Communications Inc. also accepted his matrícula when he signed up for cell-phone service. So did a Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC ) branch in the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in northeast Los Angeles where they live. Having a bank account allows them to pay bills by check and build up their savings. Their goal: to trade up from a one-bedroom rental to their own home. Eventually, they also hope to expand their business by buying several more trailers. Matrícula holders like the Valenzuelas are "bringing us all the money that has been under the mattress," says Wells Fargo branch manager Steven Contreraz.

(snip)

At the same time, though, the fast-growing undocumented population is coming to be seen as an untapped engine of growth. In the past several years, big U.S. consumer companies -- banks, insurers, mortgage lenders, credit-card outfits, phone carriers, and others -- have decided that a market of 11 million or so potential customers is simply too big to ignore. It may be against the law for the Valenzuelas to be in the U.S. or for an employer to hire them, but there's nothing illegal about selling to them.

So with a wary eye on the heated political debate, business is targeting the Valenzuelas and millions of others who have entered the country illegally. Many companies do so more or less openly. Wells Fargo has half a million matrícula accounts, a majority of them, they acknowledge, opened by unauthorized aliens who lack regular residency or citizenship papers. At the Valenzuelas' branch, fully 80% of accounts are opened by matrícula holders. Blue Cross of California, whose parent, WellPoint Inc. (WLP ), is the nation's largest health insurer, sells health insurance to matrícula holders from company-staffed desks set up inside Mexican and Guatemalan consular offices in the U.S. Sprint Corp. (FON ) accepts such an I.D. for cell-phone contracts.

more@link-- too much good info to reproduce here within the four paragraph rule!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html?ex=1302840000&en=2314f86f5f3affb4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Cost of Illegal Immigration May Be Less Than Meets the Eye
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: April 16, 2006

CALIFORNIA may seem the best place to study the impact of illegal immigration on the prospects of American workers. Hordes of immigrants rushed into the state in the last 25 years, competing for jobs with the least educated among the native population. The wages of high school dropouts in California fell 17 percent from 1980 to 2004.

But before concluding that immigrants are undercutting the wages of the least fortunate Americans, perhaps one should consider Ohio. Unlike California, Ohio remains mostly free of illegal immigrants. And what happened to the wages of Ohio's high school dropouts from 1980 to 2004? They fell 31 percent.

(snip)

For instance, the availability of foreign workers at low wages in the Nebraska poultry industry made companies realize that they had the personnel to expand. So they invested in new equipment, generating jobs that would not otherwise be there. In California's strawberry patches, illegal immigrants are not competing against native workers; they are competing against pickers in Michoacán, Mexico. If the immigrant pickers did not come north across the border, the strawberries would.

"Immigrants come in and the industries that use this type of labor grow," said David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

more@link

And regarding that rather dubious study that found the primary negative economic impact of illegal immigrants was an average 8.2 percent reduction in the wages of high school dropouts only:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008634.php

Remember that study suggesting that illegal immigration had modestly reduced the wages of native-born high school dropouts? Well, it turns out there's even less to that than meets the eye:

(snip for the four paragraph rule, more@link)

So we went from 8.2% to 4.8% to 3.6% — and probably even less if trade flows are taken into account.

Bottom line: illegal immigration has had a (small) positive economic impact on the American economy as a whole; its sole negative impact has been tiny and limited to one segment of the workforce (high school dropouts); and if we're really worried about high school dropouts, everyone agrees they have way bigger problems than competition from illegal immigration anyway.

If this is the best we can come up with after 20 years and 8 million illegal immigrants, there really isn't a serious economic argument to make against immigration from Mexico. Cultural backlash is pretty much all that's left.

This is just a sampling. It's dinner time and I'm still in my office, so I'm off for a bit.

[Hoping4Change]

240. I aggree with your comments however I do think that the

the confrontational attitude is a symptom of high stress illegals endure. To be an illegal must be hell.

I think that this issue needs to be treated as but ONE part of a larger issue: the destruction of the middle class which is being carried out by outsouring, insourcing, and illegal immigration.

American expectations of prosperity, of having upward mobility that developed after WWII do not serve global corporate interests. At one time having a well paid American workforce served corporate intersts. Now it doesn't because the booming markets are in India and China.

[Upfront]

250. Agree

Well said.

[Cleita]

252. I think it's BS because most of the immigrants have been

welcomed by someone over here and speaking of houses, how many rich people in your town have hispanic maids and nannies who live with them. It sounds like the welcome mat was out in those houses.

[DisgustedTX]

259. Correct. Revisionist history at work from your Mexican Junta

Yell at Fox you buffoons!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

263. Here's my opinion....

They don't do jobs americans won't do. They do jobs americans won't do for very little compensation. They need to learn to finish their sentences. I don't think it's ridiculous to say that illegal immigrants are the reason that minimum wage is so low. :shrug:
Duckie

[sentelle]

271. Groan

1. Yes, the Mexican cessation ocurred. The area of the US southwest was taken from Mexico. Afterwards, the Mexican government and the US signed the gadsen purchase, which had the US aquire the land at the southern portion of NM and AZ. By this, it is inferred that both governments have settled their differences regarding the border.

2. H1b visas should go under a lot more scrutiny than they are today. I know (personally) someone who has an H1b.... she is basically a travel agent. Does no one really have the skills to be a travel agent?

3. Corporations using Illegal workers. There are rules for a reason. The congres should pass a law that states that anyone who does hire a non-documented worker is required to pay them (at the least) minimum wage. It should be a crime punishable by treble damages for those who pay less than minimum wage in the US. Additionally, fines for hiring undocumented workers should be made to be double the cost of transporting the particular undocumented worker to their country of origin. It should also be made into a felony for the person who perpetrated the crime, punishable by jail time (and not club fed).

4. My 'ancestors' (which, if I have to name them specifically, are my father, and my grandparents on my mothers side) all came here legally, and had to become citizens the old fashioned way. My wife did too, so I know the process.

Seriously, I know that there are rules as to how many from each country can legally immigrate. Its something along the lines of 36,000 per country/year. If there are more that want to come in, there is a waiting list. The list (per something I was reading) regarding the Republic of the phillipines is some 12 years long. You see, its not so easy for them to just 'cross the border'. There are many many people that want to be in the US. Is is ethical to say that its OK to let the Mexicans in illegally, but not the Filipinos? is it fair to allow one nation to export their people wholesale to the US?

I am for legal immigration. I am even for giving amnesty to undocumented workers who blow the whistle on companies doing illegal things. Lets make one thing clear though. Illegal immigration is a crime in almost every nation. Not just the US, not just in 'white' nations. If you go to anywhere (for example) in Europe, Asia, or South America, and try to work without permission, and you are caught, you will serve jail time. Is is ethical to forget the crimes of others simply for the 'good' they do to the nation?

And as for this 'guest worker visa' thing. What makes anyone think that the people that hire undocumented workers will do this stuff, pay their workers a living wage and do all the paperwork? Its lip service to play to the Mexican President, but defacto, means nothing.

[bcool]

274. Unintended consequences of the rallies - unemployment!

My wife & I ate at a local pizza chain tonight & got talking with the manager. He said that all of his Hispanic workers didn't show up for work Friday. He said that he's not sure why they did it on Friday and not Monday, but he ended up terminating all of them because they didn't make arrangements to take off.

I wonder how many others who participated in the rallies had this happen to them??

[ulysses]

281. I think this is probably a great punchline

to most Native Americans.

[mdelaguna2000]

295. thanks for tackling a hard issue

I am hard left on almost all issues, but agree that immigration must be legal, for all the well-argued points on this position found in the posts above.

$500,000 fines to the companies hiring illegals - punish the employers, first and foremost.

Sad to see how this issue has divided so many of us that agree on so many other things. I'm sure that's how it was intended.

[APPLE314]

297. Cut the wages in half several times . It's good for America

Get in line in the regular immingration programs.

Do it from your home country. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Don't demand something you haven't earned.

[Ms. Clio]

304. trying not to miss another opportunity to teach

So much ignorance, misinformation, propaganda, lies, and brash and enthusiastic bigotry abound in these discussions. So here, for anyone who is interested, is a reading list on Southwestern, Western, and Mexican American history, especially labor history, as the DUer who requested the list was under the bizarre impression that “Mexicans” had no role in the history of the U.S. West.

For some strange reason, the person who asked for the list never acknowledged receiving it. Students these days, so rude . . . . At any rate, I repost it here, with a number of additions (and I could add so many more).

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