Discussion:
Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
(too old to reply)
El Castor
2007-06-23 07:51:10 UTC
Permalink
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM

Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.

As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.

Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
Jim Higgins
2007-06-23 12:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
Doing work American robots won't do? Wonder when the George & Teddy
Show will take up the cause of robot rights?
rick++
2007-07-15 14:12:22 UTC
Permalink
If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
California Poppy
2007-07-15 14:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick++
If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
I doubt it. In the Livermore Valley in the 60'a & 70's there were
many workers to pick tomatoes. A few years later a mechanical picker
had been developed and along with new varieties of tomatoes, there
were no migrant workers. A different robot will be needed for each
crop, but there is no reason it can't be done.
e***@nospam.com
2007-07-15 17:04:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:34:16 -0700, California Poppy
Post by California Poppy
Post by rick++
If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
I doubt it. In the Livermore Valley in the 60'a & 70's there were
many workers to pick tomatoes. A few years later a mechanical picker
had been developed and along with new varieties of tomatoes, there
were no migrant workers. A different robot will be needed for each
crop, but there is no reason it can't be done.
If "new varieties" of those other crops must be developed to make it
work, I certainly hope no one tries it. They definitely destroyed
tomatoes when they turned them into something tasteless that could be
treated as roughly as an apple. They should be ashamed to even call
them tomatoes.
Jerry Okamura
2007-07-15 16:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@nospam.com
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:34:16 -0700, California Poppy
Post by California Poppy
Post by rick++
If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
I doubt it. In the Livermore Valley in the 60'a & 70's there were
many workers to pick tomatoes. A few years later a mechanical picker
had been developed and along with new varieties of tomatoes, there
were no migrant workers. A different robot will be needed for each
crop, but there is no reason it can't be done.
If "new varieties" of those other crops must be developed to make it
work, I certainly hope no one tries it. They definitely destroyed
tomatoes when they turned them into something tasteless that could be
treated as roughly as an apple. They should be ashamed to even call
them tomatoes.
"All tomatoes"?
arthur wouk
2007-07-15 23:10:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
<***@nospam.com> wrote:
:On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:34:16 -0700, California Poppy
:<***@aol.com> wrote:
:
:>On Jul 15, 7:12?am, rick++ <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
:>
:>I doubt it. In the Livermore Valley in the 60'a & 70's there were
:>many workers to pick tomatoes. A few years later a mechanical picker
:>had been developed and along with new varieties of tomatoes, there
:>were no migrant workers. A different robot will be needed for each
:>crop, but there is no reason it can't be done.
:
:If "new varieties" of those other crops must be developed to make it
:work, I certainly hope no one tries it. They definitely destroyed
:tomatoes when they turned them into something tasteless that could be
:treated as roughly as an apple. They should be ashamed to even call
:them tomatoes.
:

i have received good news. i stopped by the nearby farm last week to see
if the corn crop had come in. it had, and i had fresh-picked corn for the
first time this year. the supermarket corn, evem whole foods very pricy
stuff, does not compare. this was only a few days earlier than the usual
start of their corn season on july 15. lasts into first frost in
september.

i asked about real tomatoes - what they call field grown. they expect them
to be on sale within two weeks. this is a month or so earlier than the
historic dates, sometimes in late august. some years we get none, if the
ripening time is not long enough ot hot enough. we are ay 5400 feet
elevation.
--
"be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
--sT. Augustine
to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
rick++
2007-07-16 13:26:30 UTC
Permalink
This year is a bumper year for corn- both human food and industrial.
The later is going into ethonal (until that financial bubble bursts).
Good growing weather and spring rains too.
Jerry Okamura
2007-07-15 16:00:06 UTC
Permalink
NO. These things were most likely just recently perfected to the point that
they do work now, where they would not have worked in the past. That is
what technological inovation is all about. You keep tinkering, until you
find a solution....
Post by rick++
If these things worked, farmers would have used them long ago.
Jerry Okamura
2007-06-23 11:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Grapes in only one fruit.
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
El Castor
2007-06-23 16:26:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
unknown
2007-06-23 16:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Or propagate thier species like rabbits.
Post by El Castor
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
El Castor
2007-06-23 16:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Or propagate thier species like rabbits.
True, but will things always be the way they are now? What happens 50
or a hundred years from now when machines get smarter than we are --
and better at designing and building themselves than human engineers
and workers? It's going to happen.
Post by unknown
Post by El Castor
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
Jerry Okamura
2007-06-23 14:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
I did not say that it was a bad thing to mechanize. I was simply pointing
out that does not solve the illegal immigration problem. At best it "may"
solve part of the problem, but it does not solve the basic problem.....
El Castor
2007-06-23 19:19:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:53:36 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
I did not say that it was a bad thing to mechanize. I was simply pointing
out that does not solve the illegal immigration problem. At best it "may"
solve part of the problem, but it does not solve the basic problem.....
I never meant to imply that it did.
Thumper
2007-06-23 20:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
That's chiefly because mechanized car washes do a lousy job compared
to human beings.
Thumper
Post by El Castor
If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
El Castor
2007-06-24 00:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thumper
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
That's chiefly because mechanized car washes do a lousy job compared
to human beings.
Thumper
So, what do you think about robots picking fruit? Should it be
allowed?
Jean Smith
2007-06-24 00:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans. If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
They have a way of complaining when they get the summer off, like this year.
--
Remember YouTube - Nikki Giovanni: "We Are the Hokies. We Are Virginia Tech!"?
http://www.youtube.com/?v=O-Qx9dIr-68 then try this: Remembering Rosa Parks
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3975&fID=345
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America http://www.iava.org/index.php
jimstevens
2007-07-14 23:04:55 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:26:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
Several local car washes don't pay their Mekskins but they split up
the tips. It is a real racket. But, locally, folks are getting
pissed off about the whole thing and Prince William County is only one
of several jurisdictions where politicians are trying to walk the
fence to respond to angry folks. More and more we are seeing the
illegal immigration problem dominate the whole political landscape. A
local restaurant got busted for hiring illegals including housing them
in some community and the owners are in deep shit now. I am betting
they will be prosecuted to the sky as there are so many issues
involved.

If the political climate shuts off the supply of
Post by El Castor
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
El Castor
2007-07-15 03:23:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:26:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
Several local car washes don't pay their Mekskins but they split up
the tips. It is a real racket. But, locally, folks are getting
pissed off about the whole thing and Prince William County is only one
of several jurisdictions where politicians are trying to walk the
fence to respond to angry folks. More and more we are seeing the
illegal immigration problem dominate the whole political landscape. A
local restaurant got busted for hiring illegals including housing them
in some community and the owners are in deep shit now. I am betting
they will be prosecuted to the sky as there are so many issues
involved.
I don't see that happening, except in widely publicized cases designed
to take the heat off of politicians. There are 12 - 20 million illegal
aliens in this country, and reportedly 85% get a regular pay check.
Are we going to arrest the owners of half the restaurants and all the
construction firms -- as well as a hundred thousand women who pay
their cleaning lady in cash? Besides, the feds haven't given business
owners a practical way to check out fake documents before hiring a new
employee. If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could be
done -- but the politicians don't want it stopped. The Republicans
know it's good for business, and the Dems figure that when they can
vote they'll vote for them -- and all those women don't want to see
their cleaning lady deported. I don't even want them gone, at least
not the non-criminals, but I would like to see the border secured.
Enough is enough.
Post by jimstevens
Post by El Castor
If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
noname
2007-07-15 13:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:26:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
Several local car washes don't pay their Mekskins but they split up
the tips. It is a real racket. But, locally, folks are getting
pissed off about the whole thing and Prince William County is only one
of several jurisdictions where politicians are trying to walk the
fence to respond to angry folks. More and more we are seeing the
illegal immigration problem dominate the whole political landscape. A
local restaurant got busted for hiring illegals including housing them
in some community and the owners are in deep shit now. I am betting
they will be prosecuted to the sky as there are so many issues
involved.
I don't see that happening, except in widely publicized cases designed
to take the heat off of politicians. There are 12 - 20 million illegal
aliens in this country, and reportedly 85% get a regular pay check.
Are we going to arrest the owners of half the restaurants and all the
construction firms -- as well as a hundred thousand women who pay
their cleaning lady in cash? Besides, the feds haven't given business
owners a practical way to check out fake documents before hiring a new
employee. If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could be
done -- but the politicians don't want it stopped. The Republicans
know it's good for business, and the Dems figure that when they can
vote they'll vote for them -- and all those women don't want to see
their cleaning lady deported. I don't even want them gone, at least
not the non-criminals, but I would like to see the border secured.
Enough is enough.
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.

Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
George Z. Bush
2007-07-15 15:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.

I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.

George Z.
noname
2007-07-15 16:27:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:14:01 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
Do you have any idea of the numbers the INS would have to add to
accomplish what you suggest? There has been significant apprehension
on the Mexico-CA border. That is a different animal than seeking out
and deporting the millions already here and entrenched. The best the
INS can do at present is to conduct some showcase raids.
jimstevens
2007-07-16 01:11:36 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:27:56 -0700, noname
Post by noname
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:14:01 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
Do you have any idea of the numbers the INS would have to add to
accomplish what you suggest? There has been significant apprehension
on the Mexico-CA border. That is a different animal than seeking out
and deporting the millions already here and entrenched. The best the
INS can do at present is to conduct some showcase raids.
Just get serious about ripping the crap out of some employers and make
the cost of hiring illegals much higher then hiring Americans. Other
industries will make business decision to not hire illegals. Pretty
simple. We don't have to chase every illegal to ground. Just a few
were those hiring them are convinced they could be next.

INS is not the only agency involved. Local cops and every other
police agency could be motivated by RICO laws where they can seize
property of those involved in traffing, hiring, housing, and otherwise
involved with the business of bringing in and keeping illegals here.

Make a profit for local jurisdictions where they can seize homes of
those illegally housing them in boarding homes and the problem will
begin to be easier. This is not as big a task as you make it out to
be.
Islander
2007-07-15 16:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
last month:

While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.

The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.

There is a good description of Operation Wetback at:

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
El Castor
2007-07-15 18:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.

But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???

Jeff
noname
2007-07-15 21:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-15 23:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Jeff would likely welcome enforced roundup only to a point. That point
would be when certain corporate industries to his liking begin to show
profit decline as their supply of cheap labor erodes. However, you are
sadly deluded if you think that either party does not support illegal
immigration. They both do. They support it by their actions, not by
what they say. The Republicans supported it by their failure to stem
the tide of low wage, corporate friendly labor which maximized profits.
The Democrats supported it in numerous ways which the defeated Senate
bill reflected, amnesty, and a ridiculous and unenforceable system for
legal alien workers, in particular. Neither side is willing to craft a
bill which the majority of Americans support: Root them out, round them
up and send them home.

As far as your loaded question is concerned, I stated what Jeff is
likely to support, and why.
unknown
2007-07-15 23:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
I would, illegal is illegal. If I do something illegal, I'll be punished
for it not given a pass. If enough of them are deported, plenty would
go back willingly on their own.
El Castor
2007-07-16 00:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-16 01:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
Didn't we also hear about a guest worker program from our reactionary in
chief in the white house? Or is it amnesty only when you call it with
the same effectamnesty, but not amnesty if it's the same thing, just so
long as you don't call it amnesty?
jimstevens
2007-07-16 13:14:43 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:20:35 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
Not going to get a straight response from that question.
Islander
2007-07-16 15:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.

There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.

Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
unknown
2007-07-16 15:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
Since you seem to feel a moral obligation to provide services to the
illegals, just what would you do with those who couldn't produce a
valid ID card?
noname
2007-07-16 16:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There is indeed an ugly side -- the names illegal Mexicans are called
in an effort to incite passions against them being illegally in the
U.S. Having lived in NYC where illegals have come in on visitor's
visas and overstayed them from a wide variety of nations, I don't
instantly identify the term "illegal immigrant" with a Mexican.

It is quite one thing to want illegal immigration stopped and quite
another to hate them for taking advantage of a situation made possible
by those who employ them. I have always said if there were no jobs
they would not come. And who employs them? Businesses, farmers and
private citizens as well. If the jobs dried up, they would leave
voluntarily.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
Islander
2007-07-16 21:15:42 UTC
Permalink
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
lengthy, so I will just post the link:

http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4

At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.

What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.

The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.

The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.

This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
noname
2007-07-16 23:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
immigration.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-17 12:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
immigration.
You have that right now. The IRS does require that you report your
disbursements in compliance with the tax code. You do it willingly
every year, and there is absolutely NO Constitutional prohibition for
the Government requiring you to do so. Having the information stored
electronically would be no different. Only more efficient. Now, if you
want to make the argument that because its readily available, it can be
easily accessed, perhaps inappropriately, why that is quite another
argument. But then you would have to adopt the position that the
Government is going to access this information in the absence of proper
warrant or subpoena. A legitimate concern with THIS government. But
are you prepared to say that for EVERY subsequent Government? Should
the actions of the few n'er-do-wells be projected on to everyone who
might enter government service? I believe, when it came to other
subjects where this question arose, your answer to the above has been a
resounding 'NO.' Given that, why do you now seem to promote the
contradictory position?
noname
2007-07-17 15:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by noname
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
immigration.
You have that right now. The IRS does require that you report your
disbursements in compliance with the tax code. You do it willingly
every year, and there is absolutely NO Constitutional prohibition for
the Government requiring you to do so. Having the information stored
electronically would be no different. Only more efficient. Now, if you
want to make the argument that because its readily available, it can be
easily accessed, perhaps inappropriately, why that is quite another
argument. But then you would have to adopt the position that the
Government is going to access this information in the absence of proper
warrant or subpoena. A legitimate concern with THIS government. But
are you prepared to say that for EVERY subsequent Government? Should
the actions of the few n'er-do-wells be projected on to everyone who
might enter government service? I believe, when it came to other
subjects where this question arose, your answer to the above has been a
resounding 'NO.' Given that, why do you now seem to promote the
contradictory position?
I am not as sanguine as you to believe that ANY administration could
be trusted not to misuse such detailed information on how people spent
their money if cash was eliminated and all spending had to be done by
electronic card and kept by the government. I don't know what you are
referring to when you say I have taken an opposite view in other
subjects -- I haven't seen this one or anything similar to it arise
before to comment on. I suppose some might like it -- the government
would have a detailed paper trail of everywhere you spent money for
absolutely anything at all and thus would be able to track your
movements at any time. Any privacy at all would be gone. The notion
is Orwellian in scope.

Like many well meaning (perhaps) proposals to limit privacy for a good
cause, in this case to get rid of illegals, government goes too far
and finds other ways, not specifified to use the power to snoop.
If the privacy of each of us must be so invaded to get rid of some
illegals, then that is sad indeed and the means do not justify the
end.

To make sure we are on the same page, I understood Islander's proposal
to be that cash could no longer be the medium of exchange and
absolutely every transaction must be done by electronic card leaving
a record.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 12:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by noname
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
immigration.
You have that right now. The IRS does require that you report your
disbursements in compliance with the tax code. You do it willingly
every year, and there is absolutely NO Constitutional prohibition for
the Government requiring you to do so. Having the information stored
electronically would be no different. Only more efficient. Now, if you
want to make the argument that because its readily available, it can be
easily accessed, perhaps inappropriately, why that is quite another
argument. But then you would have to adopt the position that the
Government is going to access this information in the absence of proper
warrant or subpoena. A legitimate concern with THIS government. But
are you prepared to say that for EVERY subsequent Government? Should
the actions of the few n'er-do-wells be projected on to everyone who
might enter government service? I believe, when it came to other
subjects where this question arose, your answer to the above has been a
resounding 'NO.' Given that, why do you now seem to promote the
contradictory position?
I am not as sanguine as you to believe that ANY administration could
be trusted not to misuse such detailed information on how people spent
their money if cash was eliminated and all spending had to be done by
electronic card and kept by the government.
Then we part company here. What you say above is the exact rationale
that the so-called 'conservatives' use to rationalize and justify their
otherwise inappropriate positions: Mistrust of Government. I for one
an not going to assume, for some innate paranoia that NO Government can
be trusted safeguard our inherent rights and NOT to step over the line.

I do agree that it is a great concern, but simply because it is a great
concern, I am unwilling to say that there cannot be appropriate safeguards.

I don't know what you are
Post by noname
referring to when you say I have taken an opposite view in other
subjects -- I haven't seen this one or anything similar to it arise
before to comment on.
You have taken the view that the actions of a few should not be
generalized onto the universe. Your views on immigration and the few
felons among the illegals, for one of recent note. If you make the case
that the actions of a few can and should not be generalized on to the
universe, for good and logical reasons, I might add, then you CANNOT
reverse your position now, and expect that the logical inconsistency not
be noticeable, when the same issue arises with respect to Government.

You CANNOT generalize that EVERY future government will behave as does
THIS one. Because if you do, then you need to accept the position that
every illegal immigrant is a potential felon. If that argument fails(
which it does ), then your argument with respect to government similarly
fails, for the same reason.

I suppose some might like it -- the government
Post by noname
would have a detailed paper trail of everywhere you spent money for
absolutely anything at all and thus would be able to track your
movements at any time. Any privacy at all would be gone. The notion
is Orwellian in scope.
Having the ability to exercise an option and exercising the option are
not the same thing. Paranoia doesn't become you.
Post by noname
Like many well meaning (perhaps) proposals to limit privacy for a good
cause, in this case to get rid of illegals, government goes too far
and finds other ways, not specifified to use the power to snoop.
If the privacy of each of us must be so invaded to get rid of some
illegals, then that is sad indeed and the means do not justify the
end.
Government has ALWAYS had that power. It's called a SEARCH WARRANT.
The information for which such warrants has always existed. Government
had only to exercise its option to tap it through a warrant. Now, since
that is the case, just what are you against?
Post by noname
To make sure we are on the same page, I understood Islander's proposal
to be that cash could no longer be the medium of exchange and
absolutely every transaction must be done by electronic card leaving
a record.
Indeed. I read that and came away with the same understanding. And for
the most part, the overwhelming number of transactions are conducted in
that manner today.
JC
2007-07-19 12:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Then we part company here. What you say above is the exact rationale
that the so-called 'conservatives' use to rationalize and justify
their otherwise inappropriate positions: Mistrust of Government.
Anybody that trusts government should be required to hand over 100% of
their income and assets for the next 5 years and let the government manage
it for them. I bet they would lose that trust very quickly.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 14:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JC
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Then we part company here. What you say above is the exact rationale
that the so-called 'conservatives' use to rationalize and justify
their otherwise inappropriate positions: Mistrust of Government.
Anybody that trusts government should be required to hand over 100% of
their income and assets for the next 5 years and let the government manage
it for them. I bet they would lose that trust very quickly.
And anyone who mistrusts government should be required to employ a
private security force, pay a toll on every road on which they travel,
employ their own fire protection personnel as well as purchase needed
equipment.

Need more? Your problem is that you don't get to pick and choose when
you trust or when you mistrust government. You get the whole thing.
And fact remains, the majority rationale conservatives give for their
position is mistrust of government. Unfortunately it is, as I have
shown above a very 'selective' mistrust.
JC
2007-07-19 14:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Alan Lichtenstein <***@nospam.tld> wrote in news:-***@rcn.net:

Your problem is that you don't get to pick and choose when
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
you trust or when you mistrust government.
Oh but I do! And I never trust the government. Lots of people from Louisana
that trusted the government during a big storm they had. Those folks don't
trust the government anymore.

And you, I can tell how much you trust them by your anti-Iraq war rants.
You need to wake up and smell the crap you're trying to sell.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 17:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Your problem is that you don't get to pick and choose when
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
you trust or when you mistrust government.
Oh but I do!
No you don't. Either you trust government or you don't. You can't
conveniently say that I trust them when it's convenient for me to do so
and not when it's inconvenient. Get a different excuse. You'd have
more credibility.

And I never trust the government. Lots of people from Louisana
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
that trusted the government during a big storm they had. Those folks don't
trust the government anymore.
I see. So you don't trust them to build your roads, police your
communities, provide for defense against foreign invaders, and things
like that? I note you failed to address those issues.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
And you, I can tell how much you trust them by your anti-Iraq war rants.
You need to wake up and smell the crap you're trying to sell.
I have full faith in Government. Because THIS government is composed of
ideologues and otherwise incompetents is no reason to generalize
mistrust to ALL governments. That would be an error in logic. You
generalize from the universe to the specific; not the other way around.
An error apparently YOU and the other ideologues make repeatedly.
Aside from the error of contradiction, which I have already illustrated.
JC
2007-07-19 17:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Your problem is that you don't get to pick and choose when
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
you trust or when you mistrust government.
Oh but I do!
No you don't. Either you trust government or you don't. You can't
conveniently say that I trust them when it's convenient for me to do
so and not when it's inconvenient. Get a different excuse. You'd
have more credibility.
And I never trust the government. Lots of people from Louisana
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
that trusted the government during a big storm they had. Those folks
don't trust the government anymore.
I see. So you don't trust them to build your roads, police your
communities, provide for defense against foreign invaders, and things
like that?
It's kinda funny. Everytime I see a road being built, they have those
signs up identifying the company doing the work. I have yet to see one
that says "US Government" or anything even close to that. Same with the
police. It's usually fine, brave men and women trusting their instincts
to do what they think is best. Same with the military. You see, to me,
the government is wimps and wussies like you that sit in those plush air
conditioned offices thinking you know it all and as a result feel the
authority to tell everyone else how it needs to be done. But, thank
goodness, like I said before, you just generally get ignored and the
people that actually know what needs to be done are out there doing it.

Hope that clears things up for you enough that you will take your elite
self back into your intellectual cave and contemplate your next brilliant
essay.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 22:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JC
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Your problem is that you don't get to pick and choose when
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
you trust or when you mistrust government.
Oh but I do!
No you don't. Either you trust government or you don't. You can't
conveniently say that I trust them when it's convenient for me to do
so and not when it's inconvenient. Get a different excuse. You'd
have more credibility.
And I never trust the government. Lots of people from Louisana
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
that trusted the government during a big storm they had. Those folks
don't trust the government anymore.
I see. So you don't trust them to build your roads, police your
communities, provide for defense against foreign invaders, and things
like that?
It's kinda funny. Everytime I see a road being built, they have those
signs up identifying the company doing the work. I have yet to see one
that says "US Government" or anything even close to that.
Tell us you don't actually believe that the Government isn't behind road
construction.

Same with the
Post by JC
police. It's usually fine, brave men and women trusting their instincts
to do what they think is best.
Tell us you don't actually think that the government ISN'T the entity
behind hiring, training and paying the salaries of these individuals.

Same with the military.

Tell us you don't actually believe that the Government isn't behind that
either.

You see, to me,
Post by JC
the government is wimps and wussies like you that sit in those plush air
conditioned offices thinking you know it all and as a result feel the
authority to tell everyone else how it needs to be done.
Well, then you really need to be educated as to who actually, creates,
organizes, administers, trains and pays the bills for those entities.

And based on your emotionalism which you think somehow passes for
reasoned discourse, you do indeed require a great deal of educating.

But, thank
Post by JC
goodness, like I said before, you just generally get ignored and the
people that actually know what needs to be done are out there doing it.
Tell us that you don't actually believe that these things came into
being all by themselves. And your attempts to rationalize your
ridiculous statement about not trusting the government fall far short.
Next time, try to think something through before you post and then have
to take your foot out of your mouth. Which you do here.
Post by JC
Hope that clears things up for you enough that you will take your elite
self back into your intellectual cave and contemplate your next brilliant
essay.
Indeed it does. It tells me that before I only thought you a fool. Now
that you have taken your hand to mouse to 'explain' it to me, you have
removed all doubt.

Now, I'm done with you and your ridiculous emotional rants. Take your
petty prejudices elsewhere.
JC
2007-07-20 12:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Tell us you don't actually believe that the Government isn't behind
road construction.
Oh I believe the government is BEHIND a lot of shit. Way behind in most.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Same with the
Post by JC
police. It's usually fine, brave men and women trusting their
instincts to do what they think is best.
Tell us you don't actually think that the government ISN'T the entity
behind hiring, training and paying the salaries of these individuals.
Same with the military.
Tell us you don't actually believe that the Government isn't behind
that either.
You see, to me,
Post by JC
the government is wimps and wussies like you that sit in those plush
air conditioned offices thinking you know it all and as a result feel
the authority to tell everyone else how it needs to be done.
Well, then you really need to be educated as to who actually, creates,
organizes, administers, trains and pays the bills for those entities.
And based on your emotionalism which you think somehow passes for
reasoned discourse, you do indeed require a great deal of educating.
But, thank
Post by JC
goodness, like I said before, you just generally get ignored and the
people that actually know what needs to be done are out there doing it.
Tell us that you don't actually believe that these things came into
being all by themselves. And your attempts to rationalize your
ridiculous statement about not trusting the government fall far short.
Next time, try to think something through before you post and then
have to take your foot out of your mouth. Which you do here.
Post by JC
Hope that clears things up for you enough that you will take your
elite self back into your intellectual cave and contemplate your next
brilliant essay.
Indeed it does. It tells me that before I only thought you a fool.
Now that you have taken your hand to mouse to 'explain' it to me, you
have removed all doubt.
Now, I'm done with you and your ridiculous emotional rants. Take your
petty prejudices elsewhere.
That's about the fifth time you said you were going away. You must be a
government hack, never doing what he says he'll do.
Islander
2007-07-17 17:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
Still no luck.
I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
immigration.
You have placed your finger on exactly the problem with this approach
and it is this aspect of it that worries me. I didn't mention the other
technical implications and it gets even more worrisome. Credit cards
are increasingly incorporating RFID technology which allows reading the
card information at modest distances (up to perhaps a yard away). This
implies an ability to track people, even if they don't consciously use
the card. Implant technology is advancing in parallel and there is
already some experimentation with implanting credit card (or other)
information using RFID technology.

My intent here is to describe what is possible and the issues associated
with what technology makes possible. I am still attempting to get my
head around the legal and cultural implications of this.
arthur wouk
2007-07-17 17:22:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
noname <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
:On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:15:42 -0700, Islander <***@privacy.net>
:wrote:
:
:>noname wrote:
:>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:25 -0700, Islander <***@privacy.net>
:>> wrote:
:>>
:>---[clip]---
:>>>
:>>> Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
:>>> reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
:>>> view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
:>>
:>> I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
:>> other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
:>> necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
:>> illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
:>> totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
:>> here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
:>>
:>
:>I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
:>three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
:>lengthy, so I will just post the link:
:>
:>http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
:>
:>At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
:>are still relevant.
:>
:>What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
:>identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
:>that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
:>involved or not.
:>
:>The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
:>would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
:>illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
:>to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
:>since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
:>transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
:> course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
:>transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
:>
:>The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
:>implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
:>use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
:>suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
:>the name of national security.
:>
:>This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
:>TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
:>Still no luck.
:
:I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
:Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
:And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
:kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
:preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
:immigration.
:

if you use checks and charge/debit cards, the paper trail exists.
also if you use supermarket cards.

the only way to avoid the trail is by paying cash for everything, which is
practically impossible.
--
"be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
--sT. Augustine
to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
noname
2007-07-17 17:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by arthur wouk
:>>
:>---[clip]---
:>>>
:>>> Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
:>>> reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
:>>> view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
:>>
:>> I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
:>> other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
:>> necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
:>> illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
:>> totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
:>> here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
:>>
:>
:>I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
:>three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
:>
:>http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
:>
:>At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
:>are still relevant.
:>
:>What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
:>identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
:>that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
:>involved or not.
:>
:>The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
:>would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
:>illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
:>to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
:>since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
:>transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
:> course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial
:>transactions that could be used for many things, good and bad.
:>
:>The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
:>implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
:>use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
:>suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
:>the name of national security.
:>
:>This topic is also why I have been trying to recover the interview on a
:>TV show (Great Minds, I think) which addressed the issues of privacy.
:>Still no luck.
:I don't like the idea of a paper trail of how we spend our money.
:Don't like it at all. I imagine the IRS would like it, though.
:And someone would break into the system and use this info for all
:kinds of nefarious things including blackmail. No, we need to
:preserve basic privacy even in the good cause of squelching illegal
:immigration.
if you use checks and charge/debit cards, the paper trail exists.
also if you use supermarket cards.
the only way to avoid the trail is by paying cash for everything, which is
practically impossible.
When I use such cards I do so with my consent and knowledge the
transaction will be traceable. But I can choose to pay cash. No one
forces me to use them.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-17 12:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
---[clip]---
Post by noname
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to
the point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
I wonder how this would be implemented? Is there any data on how
other nations have made the change to issuing national IDs? I am not
necessarily against it, either. One way or the other, employment of
illegals is the key. While I agree with you our borders can never be
totally secured, if illegals couldn't work here they would not come
here. Would a national ID stop all employment of illegals?
I did some research on national IDs for a presentation about two or
three years ago and posted my notes here last year. It is pretty
http://tinyurl.com/28cvy4
At the time, I was not considering illegal immigration, but the issues
are still relevant.
What I came around to was to replace currency with an electronic form of
identification and currency exchange. Very controversial, but something
that I think we will eventually have, whether the government gets
involved or not.
Interesting. I had been coming around to this simple expedient, as you
well know in recent posts to the apologists for illegal aliens by
suggesting that one of the methods could be regulation of currency
transfers to foreign countries, with Mexico, and to a lesser extent,
certain other Central and Caribbean countries, as prime targets. I was
unaware that this had been discussed anywhere, and I'm quite surprised
that this article appeared in the WSJ. One would expect that they would
oppose anything that hinders business and increasing wealth of the
already wealthy. I reviewed my copy of the Constitution, and it does
appear that Congress can implement this quite easily, as it is their
right to coin money. Should they decide to coin money in electronic
form, that might annoy the entrepreneurs of the underground economy, a
few drug lords, sundry members of organized crime( both the old-line
traditional La Cosa Nostra-Mafia and the newly emerging Russian Mob ),
and any others I may have inadvertently omitted, but it will certainly
prevent the wetbacks from working. As that is the primary goal of the
wetbacks, once removed, they have no reason for being here, will be able
to be identified quickly, if they don't leave on their own, rounded up
and sent home.
Post by Islander
The principal issue is 4th Amendment rights since a national ID system
would only work well if everyone used it. As far as the issue of
illegal immigration is concerned, one would have to be a legal resident
to do almost anything in this country, including being paid for a job
since the ID would be used like a credit card for all financial
transactions. No ID, no pay and no capability to purchase anything. Of
course, there would also be a paper trail of all financial transactions
that could be used for many things, good and bad.
If by 4th Amendment rights you refer to money now being on the books and
subject to scrutiny, I think that's a stretch. The Government already
requires you to report income for tax purposes, and no one has claimed
that doing so is a violation of 4th Amendment rights. In fact, you can
be successfully prosecuted if you refuse, citing those rights. So I
think that's a stretch. Similarly, I think it's a stretch if a national
identity card is implemented, although I would bristle at same. but the
fact that I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's a violation of my 4th
Amendment Rights.
Post by Islander
The thing that bothers me most about this idea is that there is an
implied suspicion of guilt of everything and everyone implicit in its
use. That would require a major change in our culture. It is doubly
suspicious now because of the abuses of the Bush administration, done in
the name of national security.
I see your point, and it does indeed appear to go against our legal
culture. But one can also opine that it is merely technology making
things more efficient, and the motivation is not to establish a
different legal culture. The issue would be whether or not the
Government attempts to access personal information without the benefit
of subpoena or warrant. One can reason that the mere existence of
evidence does not mean that it is used inappropriately. True, such
'evidence' would be in the possession of the Government, and given the
attitude of THIS government, does indeed leave one to be skeptical. so
your point is well taken. However what this particular government does
should not be taken as typical.

We would do well to look at underlying beliefs before we elect anyone to
office. As the comparison between Nixon and Bush demonstrates, while
both were dishonest, at least Nixon subordinated himself to The
Constitution. Bush does not, and sees himself as superior to it when it
suits his needs. THAT is the underlying motivation which we should
uncover before electing anyone to office. And I submit that anyone
having the backing of the religious right, especially the groups
mentioned in Phillips' book should signal a red flag to informed and
objective, and RATIONAL voters.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-16 17:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower
dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course,
by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of
immigration laws to the extent that illegals were routinely and
regularly picked up and transported to the nearest border crossing
for immediate repatriation, with or without family and personal
possessions left behind. The result was that there was a large
subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and
citizenship, later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in
order to guarantee their legal futures in the US of A. He also
instructed the Attorney General to vigorously prosecute employers
of those illegals for their violations of federal law. In the
end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and
we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're presently
facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a shot for,
let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished recruiting
and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.

I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
unknown
2007-07-16 17:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower
dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course,
by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of
immigration laws to the extent that illegals were routinely and
regularly picked up and transported to the nearest border crossing
for immediate repatriation, with or without family and personal
possessions left behind. The result was that there was a large
subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and
citizenship, later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in
order to guarantee their legal futures in the US of A. He also
instructed the Attorney General to vigorously prosecute employers
of those illegals for their violations of federal law. In the
end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and
we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're presently
facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a shot for,
let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished recruiting
and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
BINGO !
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
BINGO !
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
BINGO !
jimstevens
2007-07-16 17:51:05 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:00:51 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest.
? You don't act out self-interest? Mighty big of you. Could you
send me all your assets please?
Islander
2007-07-16 21:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
jimstevens
2007-07-16 22:05:11 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
Abuses? A curious term! I might understand the pain some may
experience or some other misery but not abuse. Arresting and
prosecuting a criminal is not abuse. It may cause pain to their
family and may cost great deal of money. May put family in jeopardy
to have parent in jail. But, abuse?

I can understand compassion for those affected by the intervention of
American law. Who would not feel compassion. But, it is not abuse
Paul. In my region, the character of whole communities have changed
and many elderly can't live safely with the legions of single men
hanging around their neighborhoods. These men used to be working
every day. Now, most of them are not finding day labor and you can
find up to 100 or more at various 711's well into the afternoon. This
is a recipe for more crime and all the other problems one finds when
single men are outside the normal boundaries of family, religion, and
community.
unknown
2007-07-16 22:19:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:05:11 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
Abuses? A curious term! I might understand the pain some may
experience or some other misery but not abuse. Arresting and
prosecuting a criminal is not abuse. It may cause pain to their
family and may cost great deal of money. May put family in jeopardy
to have parent in jail. But, abuse?
I can understand compassion for those affected by the intervention of
American law. Who would not feel compassion. But, it is not abuse
Paul. In my region, the character of whole communities have changed
and many elderly can't live safely with the legions of single men
hanging around their neighborhoods. These men used to be working
every day. Now, most of them are not finding day labor and you can
find up to 100 or more at various 711's well into the afternoon. This
is a recipe for more crime and all the other problems one finds when
single men are outside the normal boundaries of family, religion, and
community.
He's in a virtual walled community populated by others of the Hippy
persuasion and not subjected to the legions of ne'er do wells hanging
out at 7-11s, Home Depots, Lowes, etc. drinking from bottles in bags
and urinating at will in plain view of the public. If I was isolated as
such maybe I would think differently too. It's easy to be pious from
high above.
jimstevens
2007-07-16 23:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:05:11 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
Abuses? A curious term! I might understand the pain some may
experience or some other misery but not abuse. Arresting and
prosecuting a criminal is not abuse. It may cause pain to their
family and may cost great deal of money. May put family in jeopardy
to have parent in jail. But, abuse?
I can understand compassion for those affected by the intervention of
American law. Who would not feel compassion. But, it is not abuse
Paul. In my region, the character of whole communities have changed
and many elderly can't live safely with the legions of single men
hanging around their neighborhoods. These men used to be working
every day. Now, most of them are not finding day labor and you can
find up to 100 or more at various 711's well into the afternoon. This
is a recipe for more crime and all the other problems one finds when
single men are outside the normal boundaries of family, religion, and
community.
He's in a virtual walled community populated by others of the Hippy
persuasion and not subjected to the legions of ne'er do wells hanging
out at 7-11s, Home Depots, Lowes, etc. drinking from bottles in bags
and urinating at will in plain view of the public. If I was isolated as
such maybe I would think differently too. It's easy to be pious from
high above.
Several days ago I drove through an area locally where I had not
traveled in a couple years. Formerly, the place was home to a lot of
lower grade Fed employees, working blue collar white and blacks, new
families, and others. I was shocked at the local 711 to see more then
a hundred illegals looking for work - at 2 in the afternoon. Such a
rapid change in the community. And they do piss on the wall and
otherwise disrepect those living there. How could a parent feel safe
with kids not constantly watched in such a place? Forget letting kids
go to store for pop.
Islander
2007-07-16 22:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
Abuses? A curious term! I might understand the pain some may
experience or some other misery but not abuse. Arresting and
prosecuting a criminal is not abuse. It may cause pain to their
family and may cost great deal of money. May put family in jeopardy
to have parent in jail. But, abuse?
I can understand compassion for those affected by the intervention of
American law. Who would not feel compassion. But, it is not abuse
Paul. In my region, the character of whole communities have changed
and many elderly can't live safely with the legions of single men
hanging around their neighborhoods. These men used to be working
every day. Now, most of them are not finding day labor and you can
find up to 100 or more at various 711's well into the afternoon. This
is a recipe for more crime and all the other problems one finds when
single men are outside the normal boundaries of family, religion, and
community.
The abuses that occurred in Operation Wetback were abuses on legal
residents who happened to be Mexican or even look like a Mexican. For
legal residents the rights that they have of being legal until proven
guilty are overturned and it becomes necessary for them to prove that
they are legal simply because of the color of their skin.

I think that you would scream bloody murder if you were picked up
repeatedly and demanded to prove that you are legal.
jimstevens
2007-07-16 23:11:42 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:34:15 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that
Eisenhower dealt with a similar situation of a much smaller
scale, of course, by beefing up the Border Patrol and ordering
the enforcement of immigration laws to the extent that illegals
were routinely and regularly picked up and transported to the
nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or
without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of
those illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value
of American residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of
acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their legal futures
in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their
violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we
backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings
us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even
occurred to the great minds pontificating on the severity of our
existing problem. Would it create problems for us? Sure it
would, but they might be lesser ones than the ones we're
presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give it a
shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in
comparison to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the
ugliness are the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap
labor. There seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
I disagree with your assessment, Islander. The ugly side has nothing to
do with the Republican Party; they are acting from a position of
self-interest. Their conflict arises between a need for corporate
contributions vs. what their constituents want. The underlying
discrimination is nothing more, in some instances, as the ethnocentric
discrimination levied against the throngs of immigrants from southern
and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. However, the
Mexicans, with their insistence upon demonstrating their allegiance to
Mexico has rightfully demonstrated to the American public the difference
between them and the immigrants of the past century. While the Mexicans
are only here to take from our economy to support the failing economy of
Mexico, the immigrants of the past had no intentions of retaining ties
to the old countries; they intended to become Americans. Big
difference, resulting in a valid reason for opposing illegal entry. The
threat of cultural balkanization looms large now, despite the fact that
supporters of these illegals try to label it with the kinder, gentler
label of 'diversity.' Such a 'threat' did not accompany the prior
immigrants, as they quickly sought to become Americans, unlike the
current crop of illegals.
Post by Islander
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern
for basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in
some ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide
them with essential human services. It is the moral thing to do.
Second, discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has
shown that legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any
mass rounding up of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical
issue of building a wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at
a time when we have much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work
very well. If it were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic,
but we cannot effectively guard the shoreline and we are already
seeing an increase in illegal immigration by boat.
Again, I disagree with your assessment. We have absolutely no
responsibility for them being here. The fact that we made our economy
strong and they failed to do that, even when they were given the
advantage of NAFTA is laid directly to their doorstep. I find it
ludicrous to think that you can spin the fact that we have a strong and
prosperous economy as a 'fault.' We have no obligation to share our
wealth which we created with others. Thus, we have no obligation to
provide them with anything that saps our national treasure, simply
because we feel sorry for them. Fact remains, we used them for profit
and gain, but capitalism always does that. I suppose it's a sin of the
economics. But if you make that argument, then lay the blame on the
corporations and employers, not the citizenry of America.
I agree with you that building a wall will probably not achieve very
much. The only thing to achieve is to root them out, round them up and
send them home. A better way would be to regulate very closely money
transfers to Mexico and other venues out of the country. Might even
catch a few more Colombian drug traders if we did, as an added bonus.
Fact remains, if you take a defeatist attitude that there are simply too
many of them, then you're using that as an excuse for not trying, which
is the same thing as supporting illegal entry. If we organize the
process and change a few laws, which would not be too difficult, we
could catch them all and send them home. Would take a few years, but it
can be done.
Post by Islander
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for
technical reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the
point of view that it may be the only solution to the illegal
immigration problem.
There is no need for a diminution of our civil rights by using a
national identity card if we but just decide that we're going to
organize the process of deporting them. I see no need to diminish my
civil rights because THEY entered this country illegally.
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue. Most of all, I
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem. The experience
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
Abuses? A curious term! I might understand the pain some may
experience or some other misery but not abuse. Arresting and
prosecuting a criminal is not abuse. It may cause pain to their
family and may cost great deal of money. May put family in jeopardy
to have parent in jail. But, abuse?
I can understand compassion for those affected by the intervention of
American law. Who would not feel compassion. But, it is not abuse
Paul. In my region, the character of whole communities have changed
and many elderly can't live safely with the legions of single men
hanging around their neighborhoods. These men used to be working
every day. Now, most of them are not finding day labor and you can
find up to 100 or more at various 711's well into the afternoon. This
is a recipe for more crime and all the other problems one finds when
single men are outside the normal boundaries of family, religion, and
community.
The abuses that occurred in Operation Wetback were abuses on legal
residents who happened to be Mexican or even look like a Mexican. For
legal residents the rights that they have of being legal until proven
guilty are overturned and it becomes necessary for them to prove that
they are legal simply because of the color of their skin.
I think that you would scream bloody murder if you were picked up
repeatedly and demanded to prove that you are legal.
I am not concerned about this and see it as red herring to discourage
any enforcement of our laws. Most of these illegals have some kind of
documentation - it is just phony and when stories come up I suspect
sympathetic writers and readers can find abuse as a predominant issue.
I am more concerned about the massive abuse of taxpayers who must pay
coercive property taxes or sales taxes and other costs to educate
these invaders.

Try to go to China or Mexico and insist you have the right to send
your kid to local schools free! Put a pillow on ur butt so you get a
soft landing when tossed out.

I just don't hear many on the left ever care for the poor Americans
who rely on emergency room treatment that can't get in because the
rooms are closing due to the overload of illegals. No care for kids
who can't get services because schools are overwhelmed by illegals
that cost more to teach. Just wonder why that is.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-17 12:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Islander wrote:

(previous post snipped-follow thread )
Post by Islander
Yes, I've read your posts on this topic and we will have to disagree on
most of the positions that you have taken on this issue.
Always the diplomat, Islander. I realize that you're being diplomatic
in declining discussion, however, I would really like to discuss the
issues with you, as you are likely not to argue from an emotional
posture, as does Rita, but from a far more objective position. I am
quite able of controlling my sarcasm when discussing something with one
who is not an emotional ideologue, and restrict myself only to the
academic issues. However, that is your choice, and I'll respect it.

I do shudder, though, when The Queer One, who is a mortal enemy of
reason, objectivity and rational thought, agrees with me.

Most of all, I
Post by Islander
don't view my position as defeatist, but as a cautious search for a
solution to what I believe is a very complex problem.
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems, you
have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal is to
insure the relative status quo of American life and culture as well as
limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That very important
distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed proper to ask you
which goal to you choose?

I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far in
understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'

The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being 'desirable,'
why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally, I believe it is
highly desirable. Economically, I think it could possibly be
disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume' any abuses will
occur?
Islander
2007-07-17 16:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems, you
have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal is to
insure the relative status quo of American life and culture as well as
limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That very important
distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed proper to ask you
which goal to you choose?
Having a sub class of illegal immigrants in this country is something
that will cause an increasingly wide range of problems over time. So,
something has to be done. I discount building a wall as expensive and
impractical. In addition, it does nothing to solve the problem of
illegal immigrants already within the country. Exporting all illegal
aliens is fraught with problems, IMV, not the least of which is that
sectors of our economy have become dependent on them. A round up would
put a sector of our legal population in the situation of having their
civil rights violated. This was the major problem that caused the
Operation Wetback in 1954 to fail. I suspect that we also do not have
the resources to find and export all illegal aliens, simply due to the
demands of due process. Finally, without sealing the border which I
believe is impossible, exporting aliens does not solve the problem since
they are highly motivated to come back in.

The solution that I am coming around to reluctantly is a national ID,
required for everyone, easily verifiable and required for payment of
wages. (I posted a more aggressive form of this in a response to Rita
yesterday.) I dislike the privacy implications of this, but simply see
no other practical way to solve the problem except to eliminate what
draws illegal aliens here in the first place -- low wage jobs.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far in
understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'
The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being 'desirable,'
why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally, I believe it is
highly desirable. Economically, I think it could possibly be
disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume' any abuses will
occur?
Sadly, because we are human.
jimstevens
2007-07-17 21:08:55 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:29:18 -0700, Islander
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems, you
have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal is to
insure the relative status quo of American life and culture as well as
limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That very important
distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed proper to ask you
which goal to you choose?
Having a sub class of illegal immigrants in this country is something
that will cause an increasingly wide range of problems over time. So,
something has to be done. I discount building a wall as expensive and
impractical. In addition, it does nothing to solve the problem of
illegal immigrants already within the country.
We don't have to send them all home. Make it a hostile place to work,
live, or otherwise survive and some will go home - reluctantly but
they will be out of other good alternatives. But, the real result
will be others from their home country will learn that America is not
a place one can go easily and survive economically. They will pay
their own way home.

Exporting all illegal
Post by Islander
aliens is fraught with problems, IMV, not the least of which is that
sectors of our economy have become dependent on them.
We slow down technological innovation and create a virtual slave class
of people willing to do any job for any pay with current system. Allow
immigration for employers willing to take total responsibility for
transporting, housing, and returning immigrants to their home -
including protections to insure immigrants are fairly compensated and
work in safe environment. If employers had to respect such laws and
requirements, they would find it cheaper to hire poor in their own
neighborhoods. I have family that have worked in slaughter plants in
Kansas City area as recently as five years ago. Most employees were
illegals and American workers were paid and treated like shit because
employers had alternatives to treating employees fairly.

You are a humanitarian? Consider the whole picture on just why
Tysons, Smithfields, and others are willing to recruit Mexicans in
Mexico and then treat them like shit.

A round up would
Post by Islander
put a sector of our legal population in the situation of having their
civil rights violated. This was the major problem that caused the
Operation Wetback in 1954 to fail.
People who look like foreigners walking around Shanghai or Moscow
better have some papers to show they are legal too. This is an issue
everywhere and it happens. If I were legally here, I would be damn
sure to have proper documentation and the telephone number of a good
attorney. Foreigners having problem being challenged to show
documentation in another country is a problem?

Problem is all illegals have SOME documentation! It is mostly phoney
but it passes muster sometimes. Some have real documentation from
places like Virginia and Maryland. But, they are still illegal and
trying to obscure their status. THEY create the problem for their
countrymen who may be here legally. You spin this problem everytime
like it is a primary issue. It is not.

I suspect that we also do not have
Post by Islander
the resources to find and export all illegal aliens, simply due to the
demands of due process.
So make it too difficult to hire, house, or support illegals in every
community in America. They will self deport in many cases.
Finally, without sealing the border which I
Post by Islander
believe is impossible, exporting aliens does not solve the problem since
they are highly motivated to come back in.
The solution that I am coming around to reluctantly is a national ID,
required for everyone, easily verifiable and required for payment of
wages. (I posted a more aggressive form of this in a response to Rita
yesterday.) I dislike the privacy implications of this, but simply see
no other practical way to solve the problem except to eliminate what
draws illegal aliens here in the first place -- low wage jobs.
National ID is great id - if it were really used to identify and
deport those who were not legal. But, authorities have convinced us
they are not going to enforce laws related to legal status. So the
rest of us will pay for and be required to carry an ID that solves
nothing I fear. But, I support it. It won't work alone and will only
be another salve to a hemoraging wound. We will have the issue
defused for most in the nation and nothing will change if ID is only
thing we see.

Enforce the laws on the books is more then sufficient Paul. If they
just used existing laws the problem would be greatly reduced. Why
more laws if they are not going to enforce?
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far in
understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'
The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I simply
do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either possible or
desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being 'desirable,'
why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally, I believe it is
highly desirable. Economically, I think it could possibly be
disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume' any abuses will
occur?
Sadly, because we are human.
My goal is not to 'solve' the problem by some date or have all
illegals gone by some date. My desire is to make it too hot to hire,
house, or deal in trafficing near slave labor for some period and then
open the doors to massive immigration - but on our terms while
demonstrating that if one is illegal here, they won't get buy below
radar for long!

It really is an issue of national survival.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 13:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems,
you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal is
to insure the relative status quo of American life and culture as
well as limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That very
important distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed
proper to ask you which goal to you choose?
Having a sub class of illegal immigrants in this country is something
that will cause an increasingly wide range of problems over time. So,
something has to be done.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.

I discount building a wall as expensive and
Post by Islander
impractical.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.

In addition, it does nothing to solve the problem of
Post by Islander
illegal immigrants already within the country.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.

Exporting all illegal
Post by Islander
aliens is fraught with problems, IMV, not the least of which is that
sectors of our economy have become dependent on them. A round up would
put a sector of our legal population in the situation of having their
civil rights violated. This was the major problem that caused the
Operation Wetback in 1954 to fail. I suspect that we also do not have
the resources to find and export all illegal aliens, simply due to the
demands of due process. Finally, without sealing the border which I
believe is impossible, exporting aliens does not solve the problem since
they are highly motivated to come back in.
I do not agree that a roundup is impractical, nor do I agree that we do
not have the resources. I have cited those resources briefly, and there
has been no documentation or other citation to indicate that they could
not be available for that use. The only counter is that certain
individuals, yourself included, do not believe they can be used.
Disbelief, as I'm certain you realize is not the same as documented
citation. Even if we are forced to use current laws, it could be
achieved with relatively minimal additional expense and no great
difficulty. Simply because the authorities in 1954 were less concerned(
as was the society as a whole regarding civil liberties ), those
shortcomings would not be evident today, in consideration of the way in
which law enforcement has evolved its methods. A national ID card would
only make citizenship identification somewhat easier. Nothing more.

As to the economic impact, I must grudgingly agree. But the impact is
not the one you would think. Those jobs would be filled.

But you still haven't answered the question.
Post by Islander
The solution that I am coming around to reluctantly is a national ID,
required for everyone, easily verifiable and required for payment of
wages. (I posted a more aggressive form of this in a response to Rita
yesterday.) I dislike the privacy implications of this, but simply see
no other practical way to solve the problem except to eliminate what
draws illegal aliens here in the first place -- low wage jobs.
There are other ways this can be achieved which would have the same
effect. The cost of setting up and monitoring this new national ID
would be greater, IMHO, than coordinating the agencies which already can
provide this information. And we don't need another bureaucracy. We do
need better organization. After all, wasn't that the rationale for
creating the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security?
Unfortunately, I don't see that they have done much better at
organization. But with the right administrator, it can be achieved.

Furthermore, if you eliminate the low wage jobs, then who will do those
jobs? Because if you're not saying that we are going to eliminate the
jobs, then you haven't thought through the economic implications of the
issue. And if you make that case, then you come to my fear of the
economic implications, which I opened to door to, as per my prior post
below,, when I said that economic effects of deporting them would be
disastrous.
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far in
understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'
The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I
simply do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either
possible or desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being
'desirable,' why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally, I
believe it is highly desirable. Economically, I think it could
possibly be disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume' any
abuses will occur?
Sadly, because we are human.
We humans have been able to abide by the precepts of our Constitution
for over 200 years. Given this, I do not share your skepticism. Had
such been the case, our Constitution, instead of evolving, would have
been shelved long ago. It has not. Experience has demonstrated that
the abuses you fear will not occur. And if that is the only rationale
you can offer, I suggest that it is a weak one.

But you still haven't answered my question. You haven't told me what
your goal is. I still don't know. Islander, and I do not mean this in
a pejorative sense, but do YOU know what your ultimate goal is? I tried
to lay out the issue in my question, which you still haven't answered.
Because once you do decide on what your goal is, then the remaining
questions follow easily.
Islander
2007-07-19 14:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems,
you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal is
to insure the relative status quo of American life and culture as
well as limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That very
important distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed
proper to ask you which goal to you choose?
Having a sub class of illegal immigrants in this country is something
that will cause an increasingly wide range of problems over time. So,
something has to be done.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
I discount building a wall as expensive and
Post by Islander
impractical.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
In addition, it does nothing to solve the problem of
Post by Islander
illegal immigrants already within the country.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
Exporting all illegal
Post by Islander
aliens is fraught with problems, IMV, not the least of which is that
sectors of our economy have become dependent on them. A round up
would put a sector of our legal population in the situation of having
their civil rights violated. This was the major problem that caused
the Operation Wetback in 1954 to fail. I suspect that we also do not
have the resources to find and export all illegal aliens, simply due
to the demands of due process. Finally, without sealing the border
which I believe is impossible, exporting aliens does not solve the
problem since they are highly motivated to come back in.
I do not agree that a roundup is impractical, nor do I agree that we do
not have the resources. I have cited those resources briefly, and there
has been no documentation or other citation to indicate that they could
not be available for that use. The only counter is that certain
individuals, yourself included, do not believe they can be used.
Disbelief, as I'm certain you realize is not the same as documented
citation. Even if we are forced to use current laws, it could be
achieved with relatively minimal additional expense and no great
difficulty. Simply because the authorities in 1954 were less concerned(
as was the society as a whole regarding civil liberties ), those
shortcomings would not be evident today, in consideration of the way in
which law enforcement has evolved its methods. A national ID card would
only make citizenship identification somewhat easier. Nothing more.
As to the economic impact, I must grudgingly agree. But the impact is
not the one you would think. Those jobs would be filled.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Post by Islander
The solution that I am coming around to reluctantly is a national ID,
required for everyone, easily verifiable and required for payment of
wages. (I posted a more aggressive form of this in a response to Rita
yesterday.) I dislike the privacy implications of this, but simply
see no other practical way to solve the problem except to eliminate
what draws illegal aliens here in the first place -- low wage jobs.
There are other ways this can be achieved which would have the same
effect. The cost of setting up and monitoring this new national ID
would be greater, IMHO, than coordinating the agencies which already can
provide this information. And we don't need another bureaucracy. We do
need better organization. After all, wasn't that the rationale for
creating the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security?
Unfortunately, I don't see that they have done much better at
organization. But with the right administrator, it can be achieved.
Furthermore, if you eliminate the low wage jobs, then who will do those
jobs? Because if you're not saying that we are going to eliminate the
jobs, then you haven't thought through the economic implications of the
issue. And if you make that case, then you come to my fear of the
economic implications, which I opened to door to, as per my prior post
below,, when I said that economic effects of deporting them would be
disastrous.
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far in
understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'
The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I
simply do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either
possible or desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being
'desirable,' why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally, I
believe it is highly desirable. Economically, I think it could
possibly be disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume' any
abuses will occur?
Sadly, because we are human.
We humans have been able to abide by the precepts of our Constitution
for over 200 years. Given this, I do not share your skepticism. Had
such been the case, our Constitution, instead of evolving, would have
been shelved long ago. It has not. Experience has demonstrated that
the abuses you fear will not occur. And if that is the only rationale
you can offer, I suggest that it is a weak one.
But you still haven't answered my question. You haven't told me what
your goal is. I still don't know. Islander, and I do not mean this in
a pejorative sense, but do YOU know what your ultimate goal is? I tried
to lay out the issue in my question, which you still haven't answered.
Because once you do decide on what your goal is, then the remaining
questions follow easily.
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly defined
goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you gave. It is
an interesting observation since I don't think that the nation has been
clear about what the goal should be either. I'm not so sure that the
solutions would easily follow, but I agree that we need a clearly
enunciated goal before we should be talking about solutions.

I honestly do not know what the goal should be.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 17:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems,
you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal
is to insure the relative status quo of American life and culture
as well as limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That
very important distinction must be addressed first. So, it is
indeed proper to ask you which goal to you choose?
Having a sub class of illegal immigrants in this country is something
that will cause an increasingly wide range of problems over time.
So, something has to be done.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
I discount building a wall as expensive and
Post by Islander
impractical.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
In addition, it does nothing to solve the problem of
Post by Islander
illegal immigrants already within the country.
Agreed. But you still haven't addressed the question.
Exporting all illegal
Post by Islander
aliens is fraught with problems, IMV, not the least of which is that
sectors of our economy have become dependent on them. A round up
would put a sector of our legal population in the situation of having
their civil rights violated. This was the major problem that caused
the Operation Wetback in 1954 to fail. I suspect that we also do not
have the resources to find and export all illegal aliens, simply due
to the demands of due process. Finally, without sealing the border
which I believe is impossible, exporting aliens does not solve the
problem since they are highly motivated to come back in.
I do not agree that a roundup is impractical, nor do I agree that we
do not have the resources. I have cited those resources briefly, and
there has been no documentation or other citation to indicate that
they could not be available for that use. The only counter is that
certain individuals, yourself included, do not believe they can be
used. Disbelief, as I'm certain you realize is not the same as
documented citation. Even if we are forced to use current laws, it
could be achieved with relatively minimal additional expense and no
great difficulty. Simply because the authorities in 1954 were less
concerned( as was the society as a whole regarding civil liberties ),
those shortcomings would not be evident today, in consideration of the
way in which law enforcement has evolved its methods. A national ID
card would only make citizenship identification somewhat easier.
Nothing more.
As to the economic impact, I must grudgingly agree. But the impact is
not the one you would think. Those jobs would be filled.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Post by Islander
The solution that I am coming around to reluctantly is a national ID,
required for everyone, easily verifiable and required for payment of
wages. (I posted a more aggressive form of this in a response to
Rita yesterday.) I dislike the privacy implications of this, but
simply see no other practical way to solve the problem except to
eliminate what draws illegal aliens here in the first place -- low
wage jobs.
There are other ways this can be achieved which would have the same
effect. The cost of setting up and monitoring this new national ID
would be greater, IMHO, than coordinating the agencies which already
can provide this information. And we don't need another bureaucracy.
We do need better organization. After all, wasn't that the rationale
for creating the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security?
Unfortunately, I don't see that they have done much better at
organization. But with the right administrator, it can be achieved.
Furthermore, if you eliminate the low wage jobs, then who will do
those jobs? Because if you're not saying that we are going to
eliminate the jobs, then you haven't thought through the economic
implications of the issue. And if you make that case, then you come
to my fear of the economic implications, which I opened to door to, as
per my prior post below,, when I said that economic effects of
deporting them would be disastrous.
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I think, perhaps, your response to the above might go somewhat far
in understanding your foundation for your 'disagreement.'
The experience
Post by Islander
that you have cited in your local community, notwithstanding, I
simply do not believe that exporting all illegal aliens is either
possible or desirable in view of the abuses that are likely to occur.
First, an observation: I have opined that this process would take
between 6-8 years as an optimistic figure. As far as being
'desirable,' why that is an issue open for discussion. Culturally,
I believe it is highly desirable. Economically, I think it could
possibly be disastrous. Second, a question: Why do you 'assume'
any abuses will occur?
Sadly, because we are human.
We humans have been able to abide by the precepts of our Constitution
for over 200 years. Given this, I do not share your skepticism. Had
such been the case, our Constitution, instead of evolving, would have
been shelved long ago. It has not. Experience has demonstrated that
the abuses you fear will not occur. And if that is the only rationale
you can offer, I suggest that it is a weak one.
But you still haven't answered my question. You haven't told me what
your goal is. I still don't know. Islander, and I do not mean this
in a pejorative sense, but do YOU know what your ultimate goal is? I
tried to lay out the issue in my question, which you still haven't
answered. Because once you do decide on what your goal is, then the
remaining questions follow easily.
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly defined
goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If you are
uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we can refine it
further. I'm willing to discuss the subject. Discussing individual
implementation strategies when the overall goal that those strategies is
designed to achieve is not productive, IMHO.

It is
Post by Islander
an interesting observation since I don't think that the nation has been
clear about what the goal should be either.
Possibly. IMHO, I think that most people, if queried, would choose the
first general goal I have outlined, and the remainder would choose the
second. Obviously, a third choice is that people have not decided yet.

I'm not so sure that the
Post by Islander
solutions would easily follow, but I agree that we need a clearly
enunciated goal before we should be talking about solutions.
Agreed. I, however, have no such problem. I have even considered the
economic 'disaster' which could arise from mass deportations, and have a
suggestion designed for that, if ever pressed. Unfortunately, no one on
any side of the debate has thought that far down the road.
Post by Islander
I honestly do not know what the goal should be.
I appreciate that response. It's honest. Absent that, however, a
discussion of implementation strategies is premature.
Islander
2007-07-19 18:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all problems,
you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty and opening
America's borders, then you choose one solution set. If your goal
is to insure the relative status quo of American life and culture
as well as limiting economic impact, then you choose another. That
very important distinction must be addressed first. So, it is
indeed proper to ask you which goal to you choose?
---[clip]---
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly defined
goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If you are
uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we can refine it
further. I'm willing to discuss the subject. Discussing individual
implementation strategies when the overall goal that those strategies is
designed to achieve is not productive, IMHO.
---[clip]---

Let me say why I am uncomfortable with the two options that you provided.

Amnesty and opening America's borders is, I believe, a gross
exaggeration of one anyone's position and is an inflammatory expression
of a goal. I don't know of anyone who is advocating this goal and I am
certainly not. This goal would only make the problem much worse.

Insuring the relative status quo of American life and culture as well as
limiting economic impact sounds reasonable on the surface, but contains
a troubling implication to me. American life and culture is something
that has continuously changed over our history and our immigrants have
added to the richness of our life and culture, IMV. I think that a goal
to preserve the status quo is a first step toward cultural isolation and
that this leads us to xenophobia.

I've written before that we need immigration to maintain our population,
our workforce, and our economy. I will add to that argument that we
also need immigration because of the benefits that it provides in
helping to diversify and improve our world consciousness. We need
immigration, but the current manner in which immigration is happening is
causing a set of problems which we agreed upon previously.

So, the goal of any immigration policy must be, I believe, to meet the
needs of our nation, including not only a hard working workforce,
adequately compensated for their labor and unique skills, but also
including the contribution that their culture adds to our own.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 20:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all
problems, you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty
and opening America's borders, then you choose one solution set.
If your goal is to insure the relative status quo of American
life and culture as well as limiting economic impact, then you
choose another. That very important distinction must be addressed
first. So, it is indeed proper to ask you which goal to you choose?
---[clip]---
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly defined
goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If you
are uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we can
refine it further. I'm willing to discuss the subject. Discussing
individual implementation strategies when the overall goal that those
strategies is designed to achieve is not productive, IMHO.
---[clip]---
Let me say why I am uncomfortable with the two options that you provided.
Amnesty and opening America's borders is, I believe, a gross
exaggeration of one anyone's position and is an inflammatory expression
of a goal. I don't know of anyone who is advocating this goal and I am
certainly not. This goal would only make the problem much worse.
Many who do, are advocating this goal. I accept the fact that you
reject it. so you reject the goal which can loosely be defined as the
social justice of diversity. Fine. I accept that. given that, then it
follows that since you are unconcerned about social justice, then
sending them back should not be morel problem for you, mechanics of the
deportation process set aside, for the moment, so we can clarify.
Post by Islander
Insuring the relative status quo of American life and culture as well as
limiting economic impact sounds reasonable on the surface, but contains
a troubling implication to me. American life and culture is something
that has continuously changed over our history and our immigrants have
added to the richness of our life and culture, IMV. I think that a goal
to preserve the status quo is a first step toward cultural isolation and
that this leads us to xenophobia.
The thrust of the second goal is the implication that past immigrants
Americanized themselves, or rather, acculturated themselves to America.
America, accepted that acculturation, while at the same time, took
from them and added it to the culture. So broadly speaking, we are in
agreement. And obviously, this goal does not preclude immigration, but
precludes unlimited and unrestricted immigration, for the reasons
mentioned. so that the culture of America can continue to evolve
accordingly.
Post by Islander
I've written before that we need immigration to maintain our population,
our workforce, and our economy.
Wrong. We need immigration to maintain our workforce, not our
population. Only Americans can produce more Americans. I am well aware
that we are experiencing negative population growth, but only our
current population can address that. Bringing in contract workers to
solve economic problems, which is up for further discussion anyway, does
not solve the population problem, unless these people are properly
acculturated. So we go in circles. History gives us examples of
societies which met their downfall when they attempted to bring in
foreign populations either for a solution to economic problems or other
actors.

I will add to that argument that we
Post by Islander
also need immigration because of the benefits that it provides in
helping to diversify and improve our world consciousness.
I do not share that altruistic view. IMHO, that is little different
from the first goal which I posted, which you rejected.

We need
Post by Islander
immigration, but the current manner in which immigration is happening is
causing a set of problems which we agreed upon previously.
Obviously.
Post by Islander
So, the goal of any immigration policy must be, I believe, to meet the
needs of our nation, including not only a hard working workforce,
adequately compensated for their labor and unique skills, but also
including the contribution that their culture adds to our own.
I do not see how this is much different from the second goal which I
mentioned. Perhaps a bit more specific, however, as I'm sure you
realize, objectives and goals, by their very nature, are supposed to be
very general.
Islander
2007-07-19 21:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all
problems, you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is amnesty
and opening America's borders, then you choose one solution set.
If your goal is to insure the relative status quo of American
life and culture as well as limiting economic impact, then you
choose another. That very important distinction must be
addressed first. So, it is indeed proper to ask you which goal
to you choose?
---[clip]---
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly defined
goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If you
are uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we can
refine it further. I'm willing to discuss the subject. Discussing
individual implementation strategies when the overall goal that those
strategies is designed to achieve is not productive, IMHO.
---[clip]---
Let me say why I am uncomfortable with the two options that you provided.
Amnesty and opening America's borders is, I believe, a gross
exaggeration of one anyone's position and is an inflammatory
expression of a goal. I don't know of anyone who is advocating this
goal and I am certainly not. This goal would only make the problem
much worse.
Many who do, are advocating this goal. I accept the fact that you
reject it. so you reject the goal which can loosely be defined as the
social justice of diversity. Fine. I accept that. given that, then it
follows that since you are unconcerned about social justice, then
sending them back should not be morel problem for you, mechanics of the
deportation process set aside, for the moment, so we can clarify.
Post by Islander
Insuring the relative status quo of American life and culture as well
as limiting economic impact sounds reasonable on the surface, but
contains a troubling implication to me. American life and culture is
something that has continuously changed over our history and our
immigrants have added to the richness of our life and culture, IMV. I
think that a goal to preserve the status quo is a first step toward
cultural isolation and that this leads us to xenophobia.
The thrust of the second goal is the implication that past immigrants
Americanized themselves, or rather, acculturated themselves to America.
America, accepted that acculturation, while at the same time, took from
them and added it to the culture. So broadly speaking, we are in
agreement. And obviously, this goal does not preclude immigration, but
precludes unlimited and unrestricted immigration, for the reasons
mentioned. so that the culture of America can continue to evolve
accordingly.
Post by Islander
I've written before that we need immigration to maintain our
population, our workforce, and our economy.
Wrong. We need immigration to maintain our workforce, not our
population. Only Americans can produce more Americans. I am well aware
that we are experiencing negative population growth, but only our
current population can address that. Bringing in contract workers to
solve economic problems, which is up for further discussion anyway, does
not solve the population problem, unless these people are properly
acculturated. So we go in circles. History gives us examples of
societies which met their downfall when they attempted to bring in
foreign populations either for a solution to economic problems or other
actors.
I will add to that argument that we
Post by Islander
also need immigration because of the benefits that it provides in
helping to diversify and improve our world consciousness.
I do not share that altruistic view. IMHO, that is little different
from the first goal which I posted, which you rejected.
We need
Post by Islander
immigration, but the current manner in which immigration is happening
is causing a set of problems which we agreed upon previously.
Obviously.
Post by Islander
So, the goal of any immigration policy must be, I believe, to meet the
needs of our nation, including not only a hard working workforce,
adequately compensated for their labor and unique skills, but also
including the contribution that their culture adds to our own.
I do not see how this is much different from the second goal which I
mentioned. Perhaps a bit more specific, however, as I'm sure you
realize, objectives and goals, by their very nature, are supposed to be
very general.
A couple of points in way of clarification.

Our birth rate is not only shrinking, but our population is aging. We
need a supply of workers in the 25-44 age group, earning fair wages and
paying taxes, to support our economy. This is not about the cost of
lettuce, but about the practical need for demographic balance.

I've certainly heard the acculturation argument before and I would like
to see an authoritative study on that. The language issue is very
apparent because Spanish is not only the language of our neighbor to the
south, but behind Chinese, English, and Hindustani, the most widely
spoken language in the world. Our major cities still include enclaves
where native languages other than English are spoken. Mind you, I think
it is foolish for young immigrants to not learn the language of the
country, but I wonder if this is blown out of proportion to support an
argument about acculturation.

Finally, I'll take exception to your observation about goals. It is
very important to have specific goals. I've had more than enough
experience with executives who wanted "wiggle room" in their goals so
that they could not be held accountable. My ideal of a goal statement
was by JFK, "...a man on the moon in this decade." No wiggle room
there and it rallied a nation.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-19 22:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all
problems, you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is
amnesty and opening America's borders, then you choose one
solution set. If your goal is to insure the relative status
quo of American life and culture as well as limiting economic
impact, then you choose another. That very important
distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed proper to
ask you which goal to you choose?
---[clip]---
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly
defined goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you
gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If you
are uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we can
refine it further. I'm willing to discuss the subject. Discussing
individual implementation strategies when the overall goal that
those strategies is designed to achieve is not productive, IMHO.
---[clip]---
Let me say why I am uncomfortable with the two options that you provided.
Amnesty and opening America's borders is, I believe, a gross
exaggeration of one anyone's position and is an inflammatory
expression of a goal. I don't know of anyone who is advocating this
goal and I am certainly not. This goal would only make the problem
much worse.
Many who do, are advocating this goal. I accept the fact that you
reject it. so you reject the goal which can loosely be defined as the
social justice of diversity. Fine. I accept that. given that, then
it follows that since you are unconcerned about social justice, then
sending them back should not be morel problem for you, mechanics of
the deportation process set aside, for the moment, so we can clarify.
Post by Islander
Insuring the relative status quo of American life and culture as well
as limiting economic impact sounds reasonable on the surface, but
contains a troubling implication to me. American life and culture is
something that has continuously changed over our history and our
immigrants have added to the richness of our life and culture, IMV.
I think that a goal to preserve the status quo is a first step toward
cultural isolation and that this leads us to xenophobia.
The thrust of the second goal is the implication that past immigrants
Americanized themselves, or rather, acculturated themselves to
America. America, accepted that acculturation, while at the same
time, took from them and added it to the culture. So broadly
speaking, we are in agreement. And obviously, this goal does not
preclude immigration, but precludes unlimited and unrestricted
immigration, for the reasons mentioned. so that the culture of
America can continue to evolve accordingly.
Post by Islander
I've written before that we need immigration to maintain our
population, our workforce, and our economy.
Wrong. We need immigration to maintain our workforce, not our
population. Only Americans can produce more Americans. I am well
aware that we are experiencing negative population growth, but only
our current population can address that. Bringing in contract workers
to solve economic problems, which is up for further discussion anyway,
does not solve the population problem, unless these people are
properly acculturated. So we go in circles. History gives us
examples of societies which met their downfall when they attempted to
bring in foreign populations either for a solution to economic
problems or other actors.
I will add to that argument that we
Post by Islander
also need immigration because of the benefits that it provides in
helping to diversify and improve our world consciousness.
I do not share that altruistic view. IMHO, that is little different
from the first goal which I posted, which you rejected.
We need
Post by Islander
immigration, but the current manner in which immigration is happening
is causing a set of problems which we agreed upon previously.
Obviously.
Post by Islander
So, the goal of any immigration policy must be, I believe, to meet
the needs of our nation, including not only a hard working workforce,
adequately compensated for their labor and unique skills, but also
including the contribution that their culture adds to our own.
I do not see how this is much different from the second goal which I
mentioned. Perhaps a bit more specific, however, as I'm sure you
realize, objectives and goals, by their very nature, are supposed to
be very general.
A couple of points in way of clarification.
Our birth rate is not only shrinking, but our population is aging. We
need a supply of workers in the 25-44 age group, earning fair wages and
paying taxes, to support our economy. This is not about the cost of
lettuce, but about the practical need for demographic balance.
While I have agreed that we are experiencing negative population growth,
I disagree with your assertion that we need considerably more workers in
the age group you cited. One of the major social reasons for increasing
educational requirements for various jobs is simply to PREVENT early
entry into the labor pool. And why? Because the number of jobs was
actually declining, due to technology. Most of the eliminated jobs were
manufacturing and other low and limited skill jobs due to technology and
outsourcing as major reasons. We do not need or require the number of
low skill jobs for our economy. In fact, the availability of those
11-12 million Mexicans and other illegals only serves to actually
depress the wages of those jobs, a highly negative feature, which I
believe, has ripple effects into other job categories.
Post by Islander
I've certainly heard the acculturation argument before and I would like
to see an authoritative study on that.
there is no study and there will be no study on that issue, because the
parallels are not the same. The argument made regarding that is that
the Mexicans do not want acculturation. The evidence is their very own,
and highly public demonstrations a year back. Couple that with the
amount of money flowing back to Mexico, a fact which has been cited in
several written news reports as well as electronic media, demonstrating
that these workers are not here as immigrants were in prior times, but
simply to work and to take from the economy. Immigrants of past times
learned English and attempted to become Americans. They came to America
in whole family groups precisely for that purpose. They wanted to
acculturate themselves, much unlike the current illegals. The issue is
not immigration; its only work. It is a disservice and incorrect to
refer to them as immigrants. May sound kinder and gentler, but putting
a less charged term to something which ought to be charged properly, is
IMHO, attempting to put a kind face on a travesty.

The language issue is very
Post by Islander
apparent because Spanish is not only the language of our neighbor to the
south, but behind Chinese, English, and Hindustani, the most widely
spoken language in the world. Our major cities still include enclaves
where native languages other than English are spoken. Mind you, I think
it is foolish for young immigrants to not learn the language of the
country, but I wonder if this is blown out of proportion to support an
argument about acculturation.
Hardly. It is symptomatic of the charge, and evidence which supports
the charge.
Post by Islander
Finally, I'll take exception to your observation about goals. It is
very important to have specific goals. I've had more than enough
experience with executives who wanted "wiggle room" in their goals so
that they could not be held accountable. My ideal of a goal statement
was by JFK, "...a man on the moon in this decade." No wiggle room
there and it rallied a nation.
A noble goal. Unfortunately, most goals and objectives need to be broad
so they can be refined accordingly by the implementation strategies.
something too specific is far too narrow to be an acceptable objective.
IOW, you need that wiggle room.
Islander
2007-07-20 15:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Complex problems require complex solutions. But like all
problems, you have to begin with a goal. If your goal is
amnesty and opening America's borders, then you choose one
solution set. If your goal is to insure the relative status
quo of American life and culture as well as limiting economic
impact, then you choose another. That very important
distinction must be addressed first. So, it is indeed proper
to ask you which goal to you choose?
---[clip]---
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
You are correct in observing that I have not given a clearly
defined goal and I am uncomfortable with the two options that you
gave.
I tried to set out the differences as succinctly as I could. If
you are uncomfortable, then offer a third alternative. Perhaps we
can refine it further. I'm willing to discuss the subject.
Discussing individual implementation strategies when the overall
goal that those strategies is designed to achieve is not
productive, IMHO.
---[clip]---
Let me say why I am uncomfortable with the two options that you provided.
Amnesty and opening America's borders is, I believe, a gross
exaggeration of one anyone's position and is an inflammatory
expression of a goal. I don't know of anyone who is advocating this
goal and I am certainly not. This goal would only make the problem
much worse.
Many who do, are advocating this goal. I accept the fact that you
reject it. so you reject the goal which can loosely be defined as
the social justice of diversity. Fine. I accept that. given that,
then it follows that since you are unconcerned about social justice,
then sending them back should not be morel problem for you, mechanics
of the deportation process set aside, for the moment, so we can clarify.
Post by Islander
Insuring the relative status quo of American life and culture as
well as limiting economic impact sounds reasonable on the surface,
but contains a troubling implication to me. American life and
culture is something that has continuously changed over our history
and our immigrants have added to the richness of our life and
culture, IMV. I think that a goal to preserve the status quo is a
first step toward cultural isolation and that this leads us to
xenophobia.
The thrust of the second goal is the implication that past immigrants
Americanized themselves, or rather, acculturated themselves to
America. America, accepted that acculturation, while at the same
time, took from them and added it to the culture. So broadly
speaking, we are in agreement. And obviously, this goal does not
preclude immigration, but precludes unlimited and unrestricted
immigration, for the reasons mentioned. so that the culture of
America can continue to evolve accordingly.
Post by Islander
I've written before that we need immigration to maintain our
population, our workforce, and our economy.
Wrong. We need immigration to maintain our workforce, not our
population. Only Americans can produce more Americans. I am well
aware that we are experiencing negative population growth, but only
our current population can address that. Bringing in contract
workers to solve economic problems, which is up for further
discussion anyway, does not solve the population problem, unless
these people are properly acculturated. So we go in circles.
History gives us examples of societies which met their downfall when
they attempted to bring in foreign populations either for a solution
to economic problems or other actors.
I will add to that argument that we
Post by Islander
also need immigration because of the benefits that it provides in
helping to diversify and improve our world consciousness.
I do not share that altruistic view. IMHO, that is little different
from the first goal which I posted, which you rejected.
We need
Post by Islander
immigration, but the current manner in which immigration is
happening is causing a set of problems which we agreed upon previously.
Obviously.
Post by Islander
So, the goal of any immigration policy must be, I believe, to meet
the needs of our nation, including not only a hard working
workforce, adequately compensated for their labor and unique skills,
but also including the contribution that their culture adds to our own.
I do not see how this is much different from the second goal which I
mentioned. Perhaps a bit more specific, however, as I'm sure you
realize, objectives and goals, by their very nature, are supposed to
be very general.
A couple of points in way of clarification.
Our birth rate is not only shrinking, but our population is aging. We
need a supply of workers in the 25-44 age group, earning fair wages
and paying taxes, to support our economy. This is not about the cost
of lettuce, but about the practical need for demographic balance.
While I have agreed that we are experiencing negative population growth,
I disagree with your assertion that we need considerably more workers in
the age group you cited. One of the major social reasons for increasing
educational requirements for various jobs is simply to PREVENT early
entry into the labor pool. And why? Because the number of jobs was
actually declining, due to technology. Most of the eliminated jobs were
manufacturing and other low and limited skill jobs due to technology and
outsourcing as major reasons. We do not need or require the number of
low skill jobs for our economy. In fact, the availability of those
11-12 million Mexicans and other illegals only serves to actually
depress the wages of those jobs, a highly negative feature, which I
believe, has ripple effects into other job categories.
Note that I said, "...earning a fair wage..." I'm certainly not arguing
for a continuation of the exploitation of illegal immigrants. I support
requiring legal residence for employment, but also recognize that just
paying higher wages and requiring legal residence is not likely to fill
the jobs. In order to fill not only the low skill jobs, but also
skilled jobs, we need more workers in the 25-44 age group. Our aging
population needs an expanding economy to support it that is larger than
that made possible by technology.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
I've certainly heard the acculturation argument before and I would
like to see an authoritative study on that.
there is no study and there will be no study on that issue, because the
parallels are not the same. The argument made regarding that is that
the Mexicans do not want acculturation. The evidence is their very own,
and highly public demonstrations a year back. Couple that with the
amount of money flowing back to Mexico, a fact which has been cited in
several written news reports as well as electronic media, demonstrating
that these workers are not here as immigrants were in prior times, but
simply to work and to take from the economy. Immigrants of past times
learned English and attempted to become Americans. They came to America
in whole family groups precisely for that purpose. They wanted to
acculturate themselves, much unlike the current illegals. The issue is
not immigration; its only work. It is a disservice and incorrect to
refer to them as immigrants. May sound kinder and gentler, but putting
a less charged term to something which ought to be charged properly, is
IMHO, attempting to put a kind face on a travesty.
Sorry, but we disagree on this point.
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The language issue is very
Post by Islander
apparent because Spanish is not only the language of our neighbor to
the south, but behind Chinese, English, and Hindustani, the most
widely spoken language in the world. Our major cities still include
enclaves where native languages other than English are spoken. Mind
you, I think it is foolish for young immigrants to not learn the
language of the country, but I wonder if this is blown out of
proportion to support an argument about acculturation.
Hardly. It is symptomatic of the charge, and evidence which supports
the charge.
Post by Islander
Finally, I'll take exception to your observation about goals. It is
very important to have specific goals. I've had more than enough
experience with executives who wanted "wiggle room" in their goals so
that they could not be held accountable. My ideal of a goal statement
was by JFK, "...a man on the moon in this decade." No wiggle room
there and it rallied a nation.
A noble goal. Unfortunately, most goals and objectives need to be broad
so they can be refined accordingly by the implementation strategies.
something too specific is far too narrow to be an acceptable objective.
IOW, you need that wiggle room.
And, we disagree on this point as well.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-20 20:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Islander wrote:

( previous post snipped-follow thread )
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
A couple of points in way of clarification.
Our birth rate is not only shrinking, but our population is aging.
We need a supply of workers in the 25-44 age group, earning fair
wages and paying taxes, to support our economy. This is not about
the cost of lettuce, but about the practical need for demographic
balance.
While I have agreed that we are experiencing negative population
growth, I disagree with your assertion that we need considerably more
workers in the age group you cited. One of the major social reasons
for increasing educational requirements for various jobs is simply to
PREVENT early entry into the labor pool. And why? Because the number
of jobs was actually declining, due to technology. Most of the
eliminated jobs were manufacturing and other low and limited skill
jobs due to technology and outsourcing as major reasons. We do not
need or require the number of low skill jobs for our economy. In
fact, the availability of those 11-12 million Mexicans and other
illegals only serves to actually depress the wages of those jobs, a
highly negative feature, which I believe, has ripple effects into
other job categories.
Note that I said, "...earning a fair wage..." I'm certainly not arguing
for a continuation of the exploitation of illegal immigrants. I support
requiring legal residence for employment, but also recognize that just
paying higher wages and requiring legal residence is not likely to fill
the jobs. In order to fill not only the low skill jobs, but also
skilled jobs, we need more workers in the 25-44 age group. Our aging
population needs an expanding economy to support it that is larger than
that made possible by technology.
A couple of points that you glossed over. One point I made was that
there are NOT the number of low wage jobs available to support the
estimated illegal population. What will you say when you realize that
there are far too many illegals in this country to sustain a 'fair
wage,' whatever you mean by that? Will you then support deportation
because they are actually depressing wages? You know, Paul Krugman, the
quite liberal economist has opined that that is precisely what they're
doing.

One of the major reasons for KEEPING the illegals is that they PREVENT
wage inflation, a scenario which scares both the Government and private
industry. If they suddenly were deported, there would be greater
competition for those jobs at the bottom, and a ripple effect going
through the higher job categories. When corporations have to compete
for employees, the only way they can do that is to increase wages and
benefits, thus lowering the productivity of each individual worker.
Such productivity has been one reason postulated for our current
prosperity. But when wages are forced to rise, inflation rears its ugly
head, with all that entails for our economy. It isn't the number of
workers in any specific wage category, it simply is the aggregate number
of workers, period. I submit that illegal entry in the country is not a
good means for combating inflation.
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Islander
I've certainly heard the acculturation argument before and I would
like to see an authoritative study on that.
there is no study and there will be no study on that issue, because
the parallels are not the same. The argument made regarding that is
that the Mexicans do not want acculturation. The evidence is their
very own, and highly public demonstrations a year back. Couple that
with the amount of money flowing back to Mexico, a fact which has been
cited in several written news reports as well as electronic media,
demonstrating that these workers are not here as immigrants were in
prior times, but simply to work and to take from the economy.
Immigrants of past times learned English and attempted to become
Americans. They came to America in whole family groups precisely for
that purpose. They wanted to acculturate themselves, much unlike the
current illegals. The issue is not immigration; its only work. It is
a disservice and incorrect to refer to them as immigrants. May sound
kinder and gentler, but putting a less charged term to something which
ought to be charged properly, is IMHO, attempting to put a kind face
on a travesty.
Sorry, but we disagree on this point.
When it exists, you can post it. Until then, disagreement based on
conjecture is not very productive.
Post by Islander
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The language issue is very
Post by Islander
apparent because Spanish is not only the language of our neighbor to
the south, but behind Chinese, English, and Hindustani, the most
widely spoken language in the world. Our major cities still include
enclaves where native languages other than English are spoken. Mind
you, I think it is foolish for young immigrants to not learn the
language of the country, but I wonder if this is blown out of
proportion to support an argument about acculturation.
Hardly. It is symptomatic of the charge, and evidence which supports
the charge.
Post by Islander
Finally, I'll take exception to your observation about goals. It is
very important to have specific goals. I've had more than enough
experience with executives who wanted "wiggle room" in their goals so
that they could not be held accountable. My ideal of a goal
statement was by JFK, "...a man on the moon in this decade." No
wiggle room there and it rallied a nation.
A noble goal. Unfortunately, most goals and objectives need to be
broad so they can be refined accordingly by the implementation
strategies. something too specific is far too narrow to be an
acceptable objective. IOW, you need that wiggle room.
And, we disagree on this point as well.
I won't argue too hard on this point, as the formulation with language
of what an objective or goal should look like is a complete matter of
conjecture, and really not very important as far as this discussion goes.
El Castor
2007-07-17 02:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.

Jeff
jimstevens
2007-07-17 05:22:22 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:28:14 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.
Jeff
I also support it but believe it will be like all the other laws -
meaningless for those we are trying to identify and handle
accordingly. Our government clearly is not going to enforce the law
on illegal immigration. Dem or Rep leadership does not matter. Thus,
national ID is a great idea that goes a long way to help address the
problem of illegals and terrorists - but it will be as useless as all
the border enforcement promises.

We are so screwed on this issue.
El Castor
2007-07-17 07:07:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:22:22 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:28:14 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.
Jeff
I also support it but believe it will be like all the other laws -
meaningless for those we are trying to identify and handle
accordingly. Our government clearly is not going to enforce the law
on illegal immigration. Dem or Rep leadership does not matter. Thus,
national ID is a great idea that goes a long way to help address the
problem of illegals and terrorists - but it will be as useless as all
the border enforcement promises.
We are so screwed on this issue.
Yup, and I'm not entirely sure why.
jimstevens
2007-07-17 12:35:27 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:07:58 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:22:22 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:28:14 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.
Jeff
I also support it but believe it will be like all the other laws -
meaningless for those we are trying to identify and handle
accordingly. Our government clearly is not going to enforce the law
on illegal immigration. Dem or Rep leadership does not matter. Thus,
national ID is a great idea that goes a long way to help address the
problem of illegals and terrorists - but it will be as useless as all
the border enforcement promises.
We are so screwed on this issue.
Yup, and I'm not entirely sure why.
1. Money and power are involved with the decision.

2. We don't count to politicians.


They know we have tweedle dee and tweedle dum choices and this is a
rare case where they can stick a finger in our eye with impunity. They
know they are going to piss of important constituencies one way or the
other and they get more money from others who want the borders open to
anyone. I am predicting the GOP is going to suffer one of the
greatest landslide losses in history in coming election.

The old game of scaring the hell out of economic, social, foreign
policy or other conservatives with big bad boogeybear liberals ain't
going to offset the damage Jorge Bush and other Republicans have done.
They are going to tell the GOP to go screw themselves. Predicting
this will be the case from the richest donor to the poorest chump out
n the piney woods!
Islander
2007-07-17 16:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:07:58 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:22:22 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:28:14 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.
Jeff
I also support it but believe it will be like all the other laws -
meaningless for those we are trying to identify and handle
accordingly. Our government clearly is not going to enforce the law
on illegal immigration. Dem or Rep leadership does not matter. Thus,
national ID is a great idea that goes a long way to help address the
problem of illegals and terrorists - but it will be as useless as all
the border enforcement promises.
We are so screwed on this issue.
Yup, and I'm not entirely sure why.
1. Money and power are involved with the decision.
2. We don't count to politicians.
They know we have tweedle dee and tweedle dum choices and this is a
rare case where they can stick a finger in our eye with impunity. They
know they are going to piss of important constituencies one way or the
other and they get more money from others who want the borders open to
anyone. I am predicting the GOP is going to suffer one of the
greatest landslide losses in history in coming election.
The old game of scaring the hell out of economic, social, foreign
policy or other conservatives with big bad boogeybear liberals ain't
going to offset the damage Jorge Bush and other Republicans have done.
They are going to tell the GOP to go screw themselves. Predicting
this will be the case from the richest donor to the poorest chump out
n the piney woods!
And the donors, large and small, are already voting. The Democrats are
raising more than twice the money than the Republicans.
Islander
2007-07-17 16:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
Jeff
I don't believe either party supports illegal immigration per se.
You are being unfair if you think that only those who call for
mass deportations are against illegal immigration and those who do
not are enthused about it. Would you welcome enforced round up
and deportation of all illegals presently here if it was possible
by whatever means necessary?
Really, Rita, how often do I have to deny that? The inescapable fact
is that the Left consistently opposes any attempt to tighten up the
borders. No use denying it. It's a fact. The only thing we hear from
the Left is Amnesty. Where does the DNC stand on halting illegal
immigration? Nowhere, that's where. Why is that?
There is an ugly side to this issue and I think that this is what is
splitting the Republican party. The ugliness is the discrimination
against Mexicans which seems to lie just under the surface of much of
the enthusiasm for closing the border. Of course, this is justified
with claims of protecting us from terrorists and prosecuting law
breakers, but that seems to be a pretty weak justification in comparison
to the discrimination part of it. The second part of the ugliness are
the benefits that we all receive from exploiting cheap labor. There
seems to be real reluctance to prosecute employers, IMV.
There are several aspects of the Democratic policy on immigration, on
the other hand, that appeal to me. First among these is the concern for
basic human rights. The illegals are here, we are responsible in some
ways for their being here, so we have an obligation to provide them with
essential human services. It is the moral thing to do. Second,
discrimination in any form is wrong and past experience has shown that
legal residents of Mexican heritage would suffer in any mass rounding up
of the illegals. Finally, there is the practical issue of building a
wall. It is not only prohibitively expensive (at a time when we have
much more pressing priorities) but it doesn't work very well. If it
were built, it would stop the more blatant traffic, but we cannot
effectively guard the shoreline and we are already seeing an increase in
illegal immigration by boat.
Personally, while I have opposed a national ID in the past for technical
reasons as well as privacy reasons, I'm coming around to the point of
view that it may be the only solution to the illegal immigration problem.
I also support a national ID, however I suspect there will be a big
constituency in congress to sabotage it. Simply issuing an ID card
that can be forged as easily as a driver's license would be a waste of
time. To be effective it would have to be truly national, with
biometric data, like a fingerprint, on the database end -- not just
the card. That would have to be combined with an amnesty program for
those already here, and genuinely scary criminal sanctions against
employers who employed illegals. I am confident that the extremes of
both the Left and the Right would do their best to sink it, either by
outright opposition, or by provisions that made it ineffective.
Jeff
I tend to agree, even though I am concerned about privacy concerns. At
one point, I thought that public hysteria over terrorism would be
sufficient to justify a national ID. Now, perhaps the hysteria over
illegal aliens will be sufficient. Bottom line is that it is likely to
happen.

From a technical point of view, you are correct in wanting the
biometric data on the data base end. However, there is a strong
industrial push to place in on the card (or other token carried by
individuals). The reason is purely economic -- it eliminates the need
to communicate with the data base. The companies want the decision to
be made at the point of sale (or identification) rather than at some
remote data base which might be periodically unavailable. This
pressure, if successful, will introduce a couple of vulnerabilities and
that is a more serious problem, IMV, than political opposition. Better
to have a system that works well, even if it is more expensive, than one
that can be spoofed.
Ron Peterson
2007-07-16 00:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
The left is a coalition of a number of different political
philosophies, just like the Republicans. Not all support illegal
immigration, H1B, and even some legal immigration.

--
Ron
jimstevens
2007-07-16 13:20:10 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:01:35 -0700, Ron Peterson
Post by Ron Peterson
Post by El Castor
Yes, I know, I've heard many times about Republicans and employers
supporting illegal immigration. Absolutely correct, and with good
reason.
But ... why does the Left support illegal immigration with even more
enthusiasm than the Republican party???
The left is a coalition of a number of different political
philosophies, just like the Republicans. Not all support illegal
immigration, H1B, and even some legal immigration.
Blacks and labor are generally against it but their concerns are
smothered in the news.
Jerry Okamura
2007-07-15 15:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for th posting....
Post by Islander
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing
up the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to
the extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and
transported to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation,
with or without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those
illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value of American
residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of acquiring legal
status in order to guarantee their legal futures in the US of A. He also
instructed the Attorney General to vigorously prosecute employers of
those illegals for their violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we backslid
into allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings us to where we now
find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to
the great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem.
Would it create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser
ones than the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing.
Why not give it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've
finished recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double
their size.
George Z.
You are probably referring to Operation Wetback. Here is what I posted
While the right focuses on not repeating the mistakes of the 1986 law
attempting to solve this problem, there is an earlier attempt that is
being misrepresented by the right in the various blogs. This is
"Operation Wetback" in 1954 where an attempt was made to deport
Mexicans. The blogs claim that we can use the same approach. It wasn't
successful despite serious abuses of the rights of many American
citizens who were of Mexican ancestry. While there were claims of 1.3M
deported, the actual number is about 80K. The program lasted less than
a year until public outrage at the abuses brought it to an end. A black
chapter in our history.
The problems were the same. Employers enjoyed the benefits of low wage
labor, in this case it was primarily the agricultural employers in Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
Jerry Okamura
2007-07-15 15:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and
transported to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation,
with or without family and personal possessions left behind. The result
was that there was a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those
illegals left behind, many of whom, recognizing the value of American
residence and citizenship, later took the trouble of acquiring legal
status in order to guarantee their legal futures in the US of A. He also
instructed the Attorney General to vigorously prosecute employers of those
illegals for their violations of federal law. In the end, it
worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately took over and we backslid into
allowing the situation to redevelop, which brings us to where we now find
ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to
the great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem.
Would it create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser
ones than the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing.
Why not give it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've
finished recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double
their size.
Glad to see you are capable of actually contributing to the discourse on a
subject matter. I knew you were capable of doing that.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-15 19:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
I was unaware the Eisenhower had the problem and took the steps he did,
however, it is enlightening. And, George, you know the answer to your
question as to why this simple expedient isn't done. The answer lies in
the unholy alliance between the flaming liberals and the greedy
conservative reactionaries. The former wants illegal immigration in
their wishful thinking quest for 'diversity,' and the latter because of
greed and the resulting economic gain they will achieve.

As to the comments from the peanut gallery, which I have hitherto
ignored, code enforcement is indeed a good start. Even if the peanut
gallery's comments regarding the numbers of illegal aliens who have
'blended in' have some merit, which they likely do not, being more
wishful thinking, we can still root out at least 25% quickly and
expediently and send them home. Rooting out the others will be a bit
more difficult, requiring the cooperation of larger, Federal enforcement
agencies,such as the SSA, IRS and INS. Actually, if we use the schools,
we can quickly root out by my estimation another 50%. Coordinating
their efforts can find the remaining numbers, whose repatriation will
only be limited by the ability of our government to transport them home.

The job is not hard. We only need to say 'let's do it.' And when we
do, why, it will be done.
George Z. Bush
2007-07-15 23:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and
citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
I was unaware the Eisenhower had the problem and took the steps he did,
however, it is enlightening. And, George, you know the answer to your
question as to why this simple expedient isn't done. The answer lies in
the unholy alliance between the flaming liberals and the greedy
conservative reactionaries. The former wants illegal immigration in
their wishful thinking quest for 'diversity,' and the latter because of
greed and the resulting economic gain they will achieve.
As to the comments from the peanut gallery, which I have hitherto
ignored, code enforcement is indeed a good start. Even if the peanut
gallery's comments regarding the numbers of illegal aliens who have
'blended in' have some merit, which they likely do not, being more
wishful thinking, we can still root out at least 25% quickly and
expediently and send them home. Rooting out the others will be a bit
more difficult, requiring the cooperation of larger, Federal enforcement
agencies,such as the SSA, IRS and INS. Actually, if we use the schools,
we can quickly root out by my estimation another 50%. Coordinating
their efforts can find the remaining numbers, whose repatriation will
only be limited by the ability of our government to transport them home.
The job is not hard. We only need to say 'let's do it.' And when we
do, why, it will be done.
What the naysayers always say by way of justifying doing nothing is that the
job is so big!!! Well, it all boils down to the truism that you can't run
until you first learn how to walk. If we don't start because the job is
going to be too daunting, we'll never get it done.....but first, we have to
start. It may take us longer than the ideal amount of time, but it'll
eventually get done.

George Z.
Alan Lichtenstein
2007-07-15 23:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
(Snip)
Post by noname
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor. As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
I read a recent report in which the writer claimed that Eisenhower dealt
with a similar situation of a much smaller scale, of course, by beefing up
the Border Patrol and ordering the enforcement of immigration laws to the
extent that illegals were routinely and regularly picked up and transported
to the nearest border crossing for immediate repatriation, with or without
family and personal possessions left behind. The result was that there was
a large subsequent voluntary repatriation of those illegals left behind,
many of whom, recognizing the value of American residence and
citizenship,
later took the trouble of acquiring legal status in order to guarantee their
legal futures in the US of A. He also instructed the Attorney General to
vigorously prosecute employers of those illegals for their violations of
federal law. In the end, it worked......unfortunately, greed ultimately
took over and we backslid into allowing the situation to redevelop, which
brings us to where we now find ourselves with 12 million of those problems.
I wonder why this potential solution apparently hasn't even occurred to the
great minds pontificating on the severity of our existing problem. Would it
create problems for us? Sure it would, but they might be lesser ones than
the ones we're presently facing as a result of doing nothing. Why not give
it a shot for, let's say, twelve months from the time we've finished
recruiting and training enough Border Patrol people to double their size.
I was unaware the Eisenhower had the problem and took the steps he did,
however, it is enlightening. And, George, you know the answer to your
question as to why this simple expedient isn't done. The answer lies in
the unholy alliance between the flaming liberals and the greedy
conservative reactionaries. The former wants illegal immigration in
their wishful thinking quest for 'diversity,' and the latter because of
greed and the resulting economic gain they will achieve.
As to the comments from the peanut gallery, which I have hitherto
ignored, code enforcement is indeed a good start. Even if the peanut
gallery's comments regarding the numbers of illegal aliens who have
'blended in' have some merit, which they likely do not, being more
wishful thinking, we can still root out at least 25% quickly and
expediently and send them home. Rooting out the others will be a bit
more difficult, requiring the cooperation of larger, Federal enforcement
agencies,such as the SSA, IRS and INS. Actually, if we use the schools,
we can quickly root out by my estimation another 50%. Coordinating
their efforts can find the remaining numbers, whose repatriation will
only be limited by the ability of our government to transport them home.
The job is not hard. We only need to say 'let's do it.' And when we
do, why, it will be done.
What the naysayers always say by way of justifying doing nothing is that the
job is so big!!! Well, it all boils down to the truism that you can't run
until you first learn how to walk. If we don't start because the job is
going to be too daunting, we'll never get it done.....but first, we have to
start. It may take us longer than the ideal amount of time, but it'll
eventually get done.
George Z.
Indeed. Islander's comments regarding Project Wetback, not withstanding.
El Castor
2007-07-15 16:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by noname
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:26:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
Several local car washes don't pay their Mekskins but they split up
the tips. It is a real racket. But, locally, folks are getting
pissed off about the whole thing and Prince William County is only one
of several jurisdictions where politicians are trying to walk the
fence to respond to angry folks. More and more we are seeing the
illegal immigration problem dominate the whole political landscape. A
local restaurant got busted for hiring illegals including housing them
in some community and the owners are in deep shit now. I am betting
they will be prosecuted to the sky as there are so many issues
involved.
I don't see that happening, except in widely publicized cases designed
to take the heat off of politicians. There are 12 - 20 million illegal
aliens in this country, and reportedly 85% get a regular pay check.
Are we going to arrest the owners of half the restaurants and all the
construction firms -- as well as a hundred thousand women who pay
their cleaning lady in cash? Besides, the feds haven't given business
owners a practical way to check out fake documents before hiring a new
employee. If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could be
done -- but the politicians don't want it stopped. The Republicans
know it's good for business, and the Dems figure that when they can
vote they'll vote for them -- and all those women don't want to see
their cleaning lady deported. I don't even want them gone, at least
not the non-criminals, but I would like to see the border secured.
Enough is enough.
Agreed. I think illegal immigration could be greatly diminished,
but not stopped entirely. But the 12-20 million already here?
I've noted spotty raids here and there but along with you I do
not see it happening on a systematic or large scale at all. Not
much of anything going on in San Diego with its flourishing
restaurant, hotel industries staffed by Mexicans, probably
illegals. Then there are all those working in the informal sector -
cleaning houses, tending lawns, etc. etc.
Nothing like a systematic effort by the INS or any other gov
agency. Will this happen? I greatly doubt it. Some say it
would be easy. But the notion some have that most live in crowded
rooming houses that could easily be picked off by enforcing various
codes is ludicrous. Nor are they to be found lining up for hire in
day labor.
They line up for day labor in San Rafael, the largest city in the
county. I know it, the INS knows it, and everyone over the age of 10
knows it. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a raid.
Doesn't bother me, but what gets my goat are the impediments to giving
the boot to felons. No reason to allow them to stay.

Interestingly, the initial wave of immigration is apparently pretty
law abiding. It's the second and third generation that causes most of
the trouble, and by then they're all citizens.
Post by noname
As you say, most draw a regular paycheck and have blended
into the community. In reality, people here don't give them
a second thought. Considering the large number of illegals in
California, almost nothing of consequence is taking place to remove
them. In the last year the INS arrested and deported 650 in San
Diego county -- people who previously had been targeted for
deportation. 650 isn't even worth talking about.
jimstevens
2007-07-16 01:18:13 UTC
Permalink
[Default] On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:23:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:04:55 GMT, jimstevens
Post by jimstevens
[Default] On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:26:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:56:38 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
Post by Jerry Okamura
Grapes in only one fruit.
I'm not sure what you mean. These machines are designed to pick tree
fruits. Fact is, that because of the availability of cheap willing
labor the US has fallen behind other parts of the world in the
mechanization of agriculture. I like to use the example of a local car
wash that was at one time entirely mechanized. When Mexican labor
became plentiful, they ripped out the machinery and brought in big
crews of Mexicans.
Several local car washes don't pay their Mekskins but they split up
the tips. It is a real racket. But, locally, folks are getting
pissed off about the whole thing and Prince William County is only one
of several jurisdictions where politicians are trying to walk the
fence to respond to angry folks. More and more we are seeing the
illegal immigration problem dominate the whole political landscape. A
local restaurant got busted for hiring illegals including housing them
in some community and the owners are in deep shit now. I am betting
they will be prosecuted to the sky as there are so many issues
involved.
I don't see that happening, except in widely publicized cases designed
to take the heat off of politicians. There are 12 - 20 million illegal
aliens in this country, and reportedly 85% get a regular pay check.
Are we going to arrest the owners of half the restaurants and all the
construction firms -- as well as a hundred thousand women who pay
their cleaning lady in cash? Besides, the feds haven't given business
owners a practical way to check out fake documents before hiring a new
employee. If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could be
done -- but the politicians don't want it stopped. The Republicans
know it's good for business, and the Dems figure that when they can
vote they'll vote for them -- and all those women don't want to see
their cleaning lady deported. I don't even want them gone, at least
not the non-criminals, but I would like to see the border secured.
Enough is enough.
Post by jimstevens
Post by El Castor
If the political climate shuts off the supply of
migrant labor, or a new Cesar Chavez starts organizing strikes, apple
growers will be left with a crop rotting on the trees. Machines don't
get stopped at the border or go on strike.
Post by Jerry Okamura
Post by El Castor
"Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers
Eliza Strickland Email 06.21.07 | 2:00 AM
Vision Robotics is developing a machine to trim grapevines in the
fall.
As if the debate over immigration and guest worker programs wasn't
complicated enough, now a couple of robots are rolling into the middle
of it.
Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots
that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other
fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could
perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that
currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural
associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the
migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the
availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision
Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa."
More ...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker
Use RICO laws where possible. We have at least 20 boarding houses in
our neighborhood here in Northern VA. Let the county develop task
force to target a few owners who own several of these where they seize
all their assets including cars, homes, and everything else when they
can show these cretins are involved in recruiting, importing, hiring
and housing these folks.

One guy owns a small concrete business and his Mex wife helped him
build a little business up where they own at least five boarding
homes. Pretty sweet target for the county to just take under RICO
laws. Bust a dozen or so of these kinds of operations and this
problem will quickly begin to solve itself. Local jusrisdictions
squeel about the costs? When homes are running 750K plus there are
assets to be seized that can keep them hiring more staff to run these
operations down.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...