Illegal Immigration- what to do? by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But go back in U.S. history far enough, and you'll see the same "keep them out" argument used against the Irish, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans. I get the feeling that the prejudice sort of defaults to whoever is coming in the largest numbers.

Now it's the Hispanics from various parts of the Americas. Over 50% of immigrants, legal or illegal, come from Mexico, and a big bunch more pass through Mexico from south of there. Add into the mix that it's easier for them to get here illegally, since they can "just" walk across the border rather than having to go through seaports or airports with their tighter security, and the potential to focus on them as the main immigration problem just increases. There's probably some amount of racial prejudice in there as well, but I don't think it's a main driver of attitudes.

The Irish and Italians were not considered white when they first started emigrating in large numbers. There's some books on the subject of how immigrant groups like the Irish were initially discriminated against until they were perceived as being white and then they joined in the discrimination. It's difficult to distinguish between ethnicity and religion in the 19th century prejudice. A lot of the anti-immigrant groups were anti-Catholic as well (I'm specifically thinking about the Know Nothings).

So, yeah, it's convoluted. It seems like the grandkids of the immigrants are sometimes the ones that are most vociferous against new immigrants. I almost get the feeling that every generation wants to shut the door on the next generation.

* edited to add: Here's a quote that I'm sure many of you have read (it's gotten some publicity recently).

Quote:

... why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?

I don't find it too much of a stretch to replace the German people being talked about in the quote with Mexican and the language with Spanish. It's a quote that, with minor updating, could be uttered today (and many variants are being uttered). It's from Ben Franklin back in the 1750s (his rant is even more surprising when you remember that he printed the first German language newspaper in America back in the 1730s).

We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

"Dog in the manger" seems to be an enduring American paradigm. Like the old saw, "An environmentalist is someone who has already built a house in the mountains."

People are always afraid of losing what they have. It's not really an unreasonable fear. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there who will try to convince you that you're going to lose it to the immigrants, or the liberals, or the conservatives, or the social welfare system, or the corporations, or whatever, just to advance their agenda. As others have noted here, that's what threatens any chance of actual intelligent discussion of the issue.

My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:13 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"Dog in the manger" seems to be an enduring American paradigm. Like the old saw, "An environmentalist is someone who has already built a house in the mountains."

People are always afraid of losing what they have. It's not really an unreasonable fear. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there who will try to convince you that you're going to lose it to the immigrants, or the liberals, or the conservatives, or the social welfare system, or the corporations, or whatever, just to advance their agenda. As others have noted here, that's what threatens any chance of actual intelligent discussion of the issue.

My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well said. Only it seems like such a slim hope, methinks our national bullshit meter is burnt out.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 16, 2006 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My only hope on the immigration issue is that it'll get so silly that a large proportion of the population raise the B.S. flag and ask for a little sanity.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well said. Only it seems like such a slim hope, methinks our national bullshit meter is burnt out.

Agreed, with a caveat. During the Schiavo proceedings polls showed that a strong majority of Americans thought it should've been a non-issue. That the husband probably knew Terri's wishes best and that she should be allowed to die with dignity. In other words, a national debate on the issue would've had little resonance (IMO). However, if you simply watched the news stations you would've got the impression that the vast majority of Americans wanted a national debate on the issue. That there was resonance. I guess the lesson may be that it doesn't really matter if the bullshit meter goes off. The ones who get to write the narratives forgot where that particular meter was located.

* edited to add: I think I'll finally get around to addressing the thread title. What to do? Well, here's a good place to start:

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006
061800613.html

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

I recommend the entire article (if you have the time). There are some fascinating examples of what happens when the government actually enforces immigration law. And who ends up complaining. I do have one nitpick with the article, but it's pretty minor.

** link to WaPo article found via Common Dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 17, 2006 8:53 AM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a very hard time learning languages. All that rote memorization! I used to be fluent in French, and I can stumble my way around German but that doesn't help when everyone around me is speaking Tagalog or Cantonese.

Forgive me for wandering off topic a bit...

Do you find yourself in the company of people who speak Tagalog often? I am trying to learn Tagalog. I too am struggling with learning a new language. My 51 year old brain has a hard time with new linguistic concepts.

As for fluency... I have a story about that. A friend I work with is retired Navy. His job in the Navy was to listen in on comms chatter between Russian jets. As he was wandering past my office one day, I heard him singing a Russian song. I stopped him and asked just how fluent he was in Russian. He said "Fluency is a word that was avoided in the Navy language classes... its too hard to define. The Navy grades your competency in a foreign language at 5 levels. Level 1 is crude basic conversation like 'where is the bathroom.' Level 3 is functional, everyday conversation. Level 5 is the ability to converse easily with a college professor in his field of expertise. I was trained to Level 3 in Russian. But I consider myself fluent in Russian Fighter Pilot!"

For some reason, his last comment tickled me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A couple of comments

Quote:
An eager flow of immigrants has been the fuel source that's driven our country since it's inception. I fail to see the advantage in shutting that down.

Sarge, I don't think you can make a case for immigration making us special, different, or more advanced. Europe -including England- has a long history of emigration. Canada experienced less immigration than the USA. Japan has virtually no immigration. And yet these nations are at least as advanced and with a comparable living standard... and arguably more advanced and more comfortable. I don't think you can say that immigration per se made us any better than what we would have been without it. So it's fair to say that immigration has POPULATED this nation.... but that's about it. Do we want or need a higher population?

And there is another question- assuming that the third generation assimilates, how diverse a current population can a nation tolerate and still maintain it's identity? Canada is still struggling with Quebec. India has 400 languages, but one common language (English). the USSR fractured into it's smaller parts again, despite decades of attempted integration. Ditto Yugoslavia and (I propose) Iraq.

I see Jews and Lebanese reacting to the current Israeli-Hizbollah conflict very differently depending on their heritage... but neither party is reacting like an "American" ie from a USA viewpoint.

Soup- Thanks for the link. I get squirmy whenever I find myself on the same "side" as exploitative meatpacking companies, mega-farms and sweatshops. To argue that people should come here to get exploited is a little like saying that the Marianas benefit from their sweatshops exporting directly to the USA (no customs, no tariffs). But the only thing I see happening is a few people getting very very rich.

In my humble opinion, the only way to resolve the problem is to raise the minimum wage and to enforce working conditions AND immigration status. Exploitation is exploitation, whether it takes place here or someplace else.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do you find yourself in the company of people who speak Tagalog often? I am trying to learn Tagalog. I too am struggling with learning a new language. My 51 year old brain has a hard time with new linguistic concepts.

The language du jour follows my workplace population. A few recent retirements made Tagalog less spoken than Mandarin.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Soup- Thanks for the link. I get squirmy whenever I find myself on the same "side" as exploitative meatpacking companies, mega-farms and sweatshops. To argue that people should come here to get exploited is a little like saying that the Marianas benefit from their sweatshops exporting directly to the USA (no customs, no tariffs). But the only thing I see happening is a few people getting very very rich.

In my humble opinion, the only way to resolve the problem is to raise the minimum wage and to enforce working conditions AND immigration status. Exploitation is exploitation, whether it takes place here or someplace else.

SignyM,

Yeah. That was the one nitpick I had with the article. They trot out the old, "undocumented workers do the jobs Americans won't," argument. To me we can't know this (anecdotal experiments - such as the gardener experiment one reporter ran - aside). What is definitely true is that American born workers won't do those jobs for the compensation that the employers provide.

Employers need to pay their workers a living wage. We need to enforce our existing immigration policy before we even think about revising it. Providing health care for employees should not be the responsibility of employers, the federal governement should handle that. Every hourly worker should be able to join a union. It should not be cheaper to relocate your company, or a portion of your company, over the border (which is the big stick that companies can use to threaten workers to agree to unacceptable conditions). The second a company relocates outside of the country they should lose all their tax exemptions and should be treated like a foreign based company. American companies should be able to pay their workers a living wage, provide a safe work environment and leave an acceptable footprint on the environment while still being able to compete with foreign companies. We need to do whatever it takes, trade agreements wise, to ensure that. We need to make it easier for people to move into the middle class. Upward mobility, not this trickle down crap that results in increased stratification.

If employers aren't hiring undocumented workers then their main reason for crossing the border evaporates. To borrow a phrase, we don't have an illegal immigration problem as much as we have an illegal employer problem.

* edited to add: The thing I've never understood is why we don't negotiate from our strengths when it comes to international trade. It seems to me that our main goal is trying to make it easier for our own companies to sell in foreign markets and offshore their manufacturing and assembly operations. In other words, we put ourselves in a position of weakness by drooling over what other countries have. We should instead be hyping up what we have and that's a consumer base that likes to buy crap and spends a lot of money on crap. You should have to pay through the nose to be able to sell your products in the US because it'll be worth it.

Our negotiations should go something like this, "We have millions of people who want to spend billions of dollars on crap. You make crap. How much is it worth it to you to be able to sell your crap to our crap-buyers?"

Although, we've kind of neutered our ability to negotiate by our debt situation. Thanks a lot assholes.

* edited to change employees to employers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Soupcatcher,

I know you weren't replying to me, but that's an interesting idea. (The 'pay for the right to sell crap' one.)

One thing I wonder about is the wisdom of cheap imports. As wages go down in the US, could cheap imports artificially inflate the standard of living? (You make less but you pay less for junk.) And if they can, is / where is the endpoint of such a system?

Quote:
American companies should be able to pay their workers a living wage, provide a safe work environment and leave an acceptable footprint on the environment while still being able to compete with foreign companies.

Some other places manage (not all - China uses prison labor and is in the process of detroying its environment.) if those other places can, why can't the US?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is the European paradigm and the "cheap labor" paradigm. I read an article recently in the LA Times about how Germany "needs" to change its ways and squeeze more out of its workers. The funny thing is, the article said in the very beginning that Germany is not only the largest economy in Europe it's also the fastest growing. So why would the writer push for a solution to a "problem" that doesn't even exist?

Effing stupid capitalist suck-ups! Apparently they can't connect the dots ... heck, they can't even see the dots... even when they personally write them down because it crosses some deep ideological barrier.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:01 PM

Rue,

I don't know where the endpoint of that system would be. Not sure I want to find out. You also have to add in forced obsolescence and that companies purposefully design their products to wear out quicker than they used to.

SignyM,

When we started doing joint projects with German colleagues it was amazing to me how much vacation time they got. Color me green with envy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Soupcatcher,

Thanks for the reply.

I just want to ramble a bit - I hate, hate - shopping. I find cruising the malls depressing. There are stores and stores and stores of crap. How many shoes can you buy? How many phones? Plastic dishes? Trinkets?

And yet the US economy is based on regularly unloading crap out of the stores (mostly around x-mas - remember patriotic shopping the x-mas season after 911 ? - but at other times of the year, too).

Consumer spending is, roughly 80% of the US economy. But as empty as it seems, there is a substantial segment of the population whose main motivation in life is to repeatedly throw out old crap and buy new crap. The one who dies with the most toys wins ... and all that.

I sometimes wonder what would happen to the economy if people just stopped reflexive shopping.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:48 PM

Rue,

I'm right there with you on the hating shopping. I don't browse in stores. Going to the mall feels so high school. If I'm planning on buying something, I'll research on the internet until I find the exact model I want and a store that carries it and then I'll go buy it. The only shopping I do on a regular basis is at the supermarket and even that is pretty targetted.

And, from watching television, I'm apparently not in the target demographic. Pretty much nothing I see advertised appeals to me.

So if they're depending on people like us to keep the economy going, good luck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:24 PM

KANEMAN

Earlier posts...We should all be proud that we come from "imigrants"...The key word is Legal...say it all together now "LEGAL"...As Savage says....A nation without a common language, a national culture,and a soverin boarder will fail. Pick up a history book...be one be all ...let's not be France.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let's assume that we throw open our borders to immigrants so that our LEGAL immigrant population is high. I still wonder how much diversity a nation can tolerate and still maintain a functional identity. 10%? 20%?

I know that a very small group- less than 5%- who behave in a criminal manner can swing an entire society's spending. A slightly larger group of people- 15%- can maintain an organized insurgency by simply sheltering insurgents. A larger group of people- 20%-can be a huge pain in the *ss by simply refusing to assimilate. Quebec, for example, is about 20% of Canads's population (7.5 million out of 33 million).

My guess is that if people are eager to assimilate and there is no barrier (ie prejudice) to their eventual inclusion, the number might be something like 10%. At that point, services like language classes become choked.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/3/229?query=TOC

Language Barriers to Health Care in the United States

Some 22.3 million (8.4 percent) have limited English proficiency, speaking English less than "very well".

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Americans ... with limited English proficiency grew by 7.3 million (a 53 percent increase). The numbers are particularly high in some places: in 2000, 20 percent of Californians and 47 percent of Miami residents had limited English proficiency

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:06 AM

Rue,

Thanks for the highly informative link. It raises an important point about language proficiency: that there are situations when the inability to communicate can have life or death implications.

More to come, but I wanted to let you know that the article has sparked some revised thinking on my part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Soupcatcher,

I'm glad you found the article useful.

The whole topic sparked some thinking on my part as well.

My mother's parents were immigrants and spoke Polish exclusively in the home. I mentioned my mother's first language was Polish, and that she was taught English in school (by bilingual nuns). The family lived in a small but functional Polish community. The nuns all spoke fluent Polish and some English, as did the priest, the doctor, the baker, store keepers, factory owner, neighbors etc.

So my grandparents were lucky enough to live in a highly functional Polish-speaking community. They spoke basic English. And on the off chance they needed to go beyond basic English (for medical care, complicated financial transactions etc) they had loving, responsible, helpful children who were well spoken in both languages who lived nearby.

The neighborhood was less than a mile from where my parents bought a home, and our family went to the same church my mother went to when she was growing up. We children also went to the same parochial school my mother went to. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents in that neighborhood.

For me that was normal, comfortable and happy. It seemed to work pretty well. So I hope you can see I don't start out with the idea that all "those" foreign people should learn English - or else.

But the old paradigm doesn't seem to work now, not even in that neighborhood where it used to work so well. I think the difference is that direct contact with the larger world is vital, whereas before it wasn't as important. And for its part, the larger world has more need to communicate well with the various immigrant communities.

It pains me to think of those unique immigrant communities homogenized, sterilized and standardized into bland uniformity. But speaking English is now a necessity for immigrants and for the country.

Sincerely,
Rue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I've actually come at the question of immigration from several different angles over the course of my life. One of them is from the perspective of the "desti-nation". The other is from the perspective of the immigrant.

Let's assume that the destination wants to do everything reasonable for new arrivals. (That's assuming compassion the USA doesn't show even for its citizens, but this is is a thought experiment... not bounded by reality.)

That would mean not only a background check but a physical to make sure they aren't bringing in communicable diseases, intensive language instruction, driving instructions, and significant education on the laws of the land... rights as workers, consumers, individuals, borrowers. Classes about the banking system. Personal counseling for people who may been persecuted, tortured or otherwise victimized Some level of followup to make sure people aren't disadvantaged in their everyday dealings in modern American society.

I realize that many things are a function of money, btu I don't see us doing ANY of this.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:36 PM

KANEMAN

The term used should be illegal alien..It is the only term used (for someone who enters the country illegally)in any federal law or regulation..not undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, etc. Recently lou dobbs had a story that claimed illegal aliens make up 33% of the US prison population. I've seen it stated as 25% but never that high. So when someone says we shouldn't stop people from working....It doesn't seem like they are coming here to work. That coupled with the fact that 46% of illegals are on some sort of welfare...illegally. It starts to get ridiculous.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:52 PM

Rue,

I've been looking at language proficiency data from the 2000 census. Well, to back up for a second, I've been trying to get a feel for real data on undocumented immigration. For the most part, when I hear critics with a national media platform, the threats they rant about are pretty vague. Complaints such as, "They don't learn English," without any hard numbers to back up that assertion. Or even an acknowledgement that language proficiency changes over time. I realize that there is no desire on the part of many people to quantify their rants. It's enough that they get a large number thinking, "I don't want people in this country who can't be bothered to learn English." But, since we're members of the reality based community here, I think it's important to put some numbers on the issue and figure out the scope. Some of the questions I've been mulling over: how does the number of people living in the country who don't speak English compare with past generations, what level of proficiency is necessary, what are the situations when a higher level of proficiency is desirable. Stuff like that.

The census breaks language proficiency down into four categories (which I'm guessing is self-reported): none, not well, well, and very well. They only looked at the population 5 and over.

2000 census
Total: 262,375,152
English only: 82.1%
Speak English very well: 9.8%
Speak English well: 3.9%
Speak English not well: 2.9%
Do not speak English: 1.3%

1990 census
Do not speak English: 0.8%

1890 census
Unable to speak English: 3.62%

These are the only three years I've been able to find so far. More for, hmmmmm, rather than anything else at this point.

There are some jobs, IMO, where only a rudimentary grasp of English is necessary. I don't really need to carry on a conversation when I'm buying beer at a convenience store, or getting gas, etc. And I kind of see it as the job of the employer to screen for proficiency based on the nature of the job. You mentioned in an earlier post that it was considered rude to speak any language other than English at work, which seems sensible to me. In those situations you'd probably want someone to at least speak English well.

But, until I read the link you posted, I had only been thinking in terms of proficiency at work. Getting accurately diagnosed clearly requires precision of language, only speaking English very well perhaps. In that case, there's 8.1% of the population that are problematic. That's a pretty big number. I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Maybe having a translator hotline that many hospitals can tap into, or printed flash cards to aid in the diagnosis.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I assume that most everyone who speaks at least some English is improving their proficiency over time. Given enough time they moved up to, at least, the well category. But if an emergency happens before they get to a certain level of proficiency then we need to be able to ensure the quality of the diagnosis using some type of assistance.

Once again, I've kind of gone on longer than I thought. Where I'm coming from in all this is that I know people who can't stand hearing someone speak any language other than English. It doesn't matter what the context is. Even if they are just overhearing a conversation on the street. It ticks them off. They're offended that they can't understand, even if it's none of their business. I'm not sure if it's the arrogance of the monolingual or what but it's an attitude I find hilarious. I come from the point of view that I have no problem with varying levels of proficiency as long as I can carry out whatever business I need to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:30 AM

FLAKBAIT

There are a number of things about the illegal immigration situation that really bug me. I think a big problem with the debate is that the pro-immigrant side relies primarily on unrealistic ideals and the anti-immigrant side comes out looking racist. Neither side has reliable numbers to look at. Chances are I'm going to look racist, but this is based on everything I've seen and heard in my life.

Living in Texas, I meet a lot of immigrants. I've worked with them, gone to school with them, hung out with them, dated them, and so forth. One of my groomsmen was Mexican. I have no problem with the people but their presense here brings up a few problems, and my opinion on their moving here in the first place is pretty low. I don't think it has much to do with seeking out a better life and opportunity; they come here because they can cross the border, have half a dozen kids for free, then get a bunch more free stuff. For the most part, they're not really contributing much other than manual labor that I'm sure could be fulfilled if employers bothered to look. They can get ultra cheap housing that legal immigrants and natural born citizens haven't even heard of. They go to free health clinics that we can't qualify for. The only ones who learn English are the kids in school, who generally have to translate for their parents. I don't really care that they don't learn English, but the assertion that most do or even try is way off base.

My wife works for the state immunization department. She recently visited a hospital in Dallas that delivers something like 10,000 illegal immigrant children per year. The place is a mess, and none of those kids get their immunizations, because their mother didn't stick around in the hospital long enough to fill out a form she couldn't read, and the nurses are too swamped to do any of the paperwork properly. You can imagine who foots the bill when those kids get sick later down the line.

In a car wreck with an illegal immigrant? You're the one screwed, not them.

The problem with waiting for the Mexican government to do something is that they won't and never will. They have one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and it's not in their interest to change anything. It would be interesting to see if all those construction workers and janitors that cross the border to soak up our social programs could change their own system if they just stayed home. They seem to think that they only thing it takes to be a citizen is the "harrowing journey" across the border. You get over, you're a citizen, and suddenly you're entitled to all this free crap that full citizens don't get. Meanwhile, the people who actually apply and go through the process get the shaft.

Just my .02.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Soupcather,

This thread seems to have thoughtfully progressed while I've been away.

I did want mention an experience I had with the other situation you pointed out, which is employees' English proficiency. I once got very ill with E. coli O157-H7. (It's the bug that killed some kids in the Pacific NW about a dozen years back.) Because the closest ER was in a Hispanic neighborhood, it was staffed with an intake clerk who was Spanish fluent, but not English. I could just not get it across that I was shitting massive quantities of blood and having gut pain that put me on the floor. In accommodating the Spanish-speaking community, Anglophones (like me) were put at risk.

Thinking back to my grandparents' time, and looking around, I have regretfully concluded (in an inexact unquantified way) that the need to speak proficient English is greater than it used to be.

I see that a lot of that comes from the need to interact with government (driver's licenses, taxes, benefits, schools) in ways that didn't exist before; and also with the medical system (which is more effective but more interactive than in my grandparents' day).

As long as people speak passable English, I think it's great to hear other languages when you're out and about. But English speaking is a must.

--------------------------------------------------

Please forgive my very inappropriate humor, but the 'self-reported' English proficiency results reminded me of some airline instructions I saw once. In the middle of the instructions, was a sentence in bold font that said "If you do not speak English or cannot otherwise understand these instructions, please report it to the nearest flight attendant."

--------------------------------------------------

My experience with 'illegals' per se is that most are here to work hard. But there is a significant fraction that does want to game the system

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:05 PM

Rue,

(re: airline instructions).

That's a pretty chilling story about the intake clerk. It wouldn't seem to be too hard to mandate that at least one person on duty at a hospital speak English very well (although, since I know very little about hospitals it may be a lot harder than I think). And back up this policy with hefty fines. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the problems with our current immigration policy is that we have, for the most part, stopped enforcing it with respect to employers. In instances where the inability to communicate can result in death or bodily harm I think it is the employer's responsibility to make sure effective communication can occur.

I'm wondering if learning English could be used as a carrot. For example, passing high school exit type exams in English proficiency could cut 2 years off the time you have to wait to apply for citizenship (or maybe a lower level test, I'm not sure how many native born Americans could test out at 12th grade English). Or something along those lines. I don't know what level of proficiency is required right now during the interview. But some way to make tangible the intangible belief that an immigrant will be better off if they strive for English fluency.

So some combination of a policy that identifies jobs where a high degree of proficiency in English is necessary, levies heavy fines for employers who do not meet those standards, and provides incentives for those who improve their language skills (only for those between a certain age - 18 to 50 say).

flakbait,

Thanks for the information. You may be right that my expectations that immigrants (whether legal or illegal) are working to learn English is unrealistic. My experience has been more with families who have been in the country for a while and so, even though they might have thick accents, they have been working on their English for years.

The main reason, at least IMO, that the debate is characterized as between racists and open-borders-lovers is because of who actually sparked the national debate. Illegal immigration as a problem was championed for years by fringe racists. The threat of a less white America has been a great recruitment tool for white supremacist groups for a long time. And they have developed quite a litany of complaints. So when the various Minutemen groups, who have ties to white supremacist organizations, starting getting positive national attention by parroting many of these complaints that had previously been relegated to hate groups it raised red flags. It's what we (in my field) talk about as first-to-market. The first company to sell a product that accomplishes some new function defines what products of that type should be (until a - ugh, pardon while I hold back a gag - paradigm shift - phew, I got it out - occurs). The Minutemen groups were first-to-market and so the terms of the debate were defined using racist beliefs. I firmly believe that a majority of those who think the Minutemen are on the right track have no clue of the roots they are supporting. To me, part of the big problem with the immigration debate is that much of the material being used was developed over a period of years by folks who had a decidedly fringe agenda - rahowa (or, as I like to think of it, WASP jihad).

The open borders part is just part and parcel of the American right's way of defining debate. Don't agree that we should go to war in Iraq? You love Saddam. Don't think that we should hunt down immigrants illegally crossing the border? You want to let them all in. Granted, there are people who think we should have an open border policy. But they are a tiny fraction of the population and have no power whatsoever to enact that agenda. It's as close to a straw man as you are likely to get. I feel pretty confident in stating that no one will get elected to national office campaigning on the platform of opening the borders. But it's a useful way to marginalize any critique of the racist demogoguery spouted by the Minutemen.

It is possible to have a debate on immigration policy that does not employ racist wingnuttery. But I think it is improbable because of that whole first-to-market effect. The national media, as a whole, is lazy. Once they get a story line they stick to it, rarely questioning who fed them that storyline and not modifying that line based on evidence.

It's one of the reasons why I try to use numbers from sources like the census rather than statistics put out by organizations like the Minutemen.

That's a long and roundabout way of saying that it's up to us to police the debate.

The points you raise in your post, with respect to first hand knowledge (yours and your wifes) are appreciated and valuable. The immunization part is especially disturbing. I'm not sure how to go about alleviating that situation. On a personal level, I'm not a big fan of immunizations (I actually went into quarantine during undergrad when a student at my school came down with rubella and I refused to get an MMR - turns out it was moot, when I applied to graduate school there was a doctor on staff at the school who was sympathetic to my stance, tested me and determined I didn't need one). But as a policy, I see the need for mass immunizations at birth. In this instance, I think a case can be made for the good of the many trumping the rights of the few and I might even condone not allowing discharge from the hospital until immunizations are done (although I have no idea if that is feasible).

Not sure if that makes sense. It's getting late and all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:32 AM

FLAKBAIT

Excellent points about how polarized the debate becomes. I think that frequently, the national media is a hinderance rather than a help to debates over any issue of importance. After all, it's the extremists (of all sides) who yell and scream the loudest, and hence get the most attention. It's hard for anyone of reason to get a word in edgewise.

I've wondered why no one (that I've heard anyway) has brought up the possibility of changing the citizenship requirements. Make it so at least one of your parents has to be a legal citizen for auto citizenship at birth? And as far as I can tell there are no real incentives for becoming a citizen; they're getting services and jobs now, without having to go through all that bother. Why even sign up for a guest worker program, when you can do it indefintely already? Obviously none of that addresses all the illegals here already, but at least we could a) stem the tide coming in and b) make following the rules something to be desired.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here's an interesting story about not knowing English: In Riverside, an Indian (from India) businessman thought he heard suspicious noises from his property (I as I recall it was a warehouse) and sent his cousin out with a gun to look for the intruder while he called 911. It was night, and when the police showed up they saw an armed man prowling the property. They called out for him to drop his weapon... but since he didn't understand English and thought he was facing intruders he apparently raised his gun in defense. Needless to say, he was shot and killed by the police. There are a LOT of morals to this story but one of them is that not knowing English can be immediately fatal.

I also want to quote a friend who said "There are no nations, only language groups." While I think that's an overstatement (religion is another coalescing factor) many nations (like Poland) have disappeared off the map entirely only to reappear later. The national identity couldn't be erased by erasing the "homeland", its borders and its power structure. Obviously the group identity was maintained by some other factor, and that appears to be most closely related to language. If you want to make a group disappear, kill its language (as the English attempted to do with Gaelic and Welsh). If you want to try to create a group, give it a common language... as India did with Hindi and English

IMO the need for a common language (needed by inhabitants as well as needed by the group) should be so self-evident as to be undebatable. Languages are meant for communication- they work best when they ARE common and they work poorly when they don't provide a common forum.

Everybody should be able to speak the common language moderately well. Not speaking the common language isolates people to their own little group, sometimes to their small community and sometimes even just to their immediate family.

My MIL never learned English very well, and was subject to her abusive husband for years because she was isolated ... by many factors, first and foremost by her husband and secondly by lack of language. I see this pattern in many first-generation couples, where speaking English preserves the male power structure and learning English upsets the balance. I've seen men actively sabotage their wives efforts to learn English (I'm friends with an ESL community college tutor). If I'm living in Sacramento and I only speak Hmong I'm isolated to my own little group. I may not know that 13-year-olds being kidnapped into marriage is not allowed, and even if I did I might not be able to appeal to CPS. The point is that not knowing the common language makes a person vulnerable in many ways- medically, legally, economically, and socially.

Perhaps one thing to do is to think about what the process of immigration SHOULD be and then figure out how much money we are willing to spend to support such a process and what the rate-limiting step would be. That would tell us how many tens or hundred or thousands of LEGAL immigrants could be processed each year.

As part of that I personally don't see any reason why immigrants should evade a regular, orderly process which includes intensive English instruction.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So (here I am talking to myself!) the first thing we need to do is to handle "temporary visitors" better. At least half the illegals came in legally, on various temporary visas and so forth, while others slip over the border. And then they disappear into the system.

How do these people disappear so thoroughly? Some of them find above-ground jobs, others work in the underground economy, and still others are supported by friends and family. It should be relatively easy to find the white-market job holders (if we can get past business' kicking and whining) but people who dive into the underground economy or who are supported by others are impossible to ferret out. Heck, we can't even find mass murderers.. the ten most wanted... so what can we do?

The reason why I'm on this kick is because unless there is a good reason to think that you will be caught and punished for being here illegally there is no incentive to actually go through the process.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:01 PM

We had something similar happen in San Jose where a Vietnamese woman was shot by police for brandishing a long vegetable peeler after they entered her apartment. The city ended up having to pay the family more than a million dollars.

I agree that one priority of our immigration policy should be fast-tracking English proficiency. Maybe we could learn something from the LDS. When my cousin went on a mission to Russia I was amazed at how quickly he went from zero proficiency to at least being able to do whatever it is they do on missions. I'm not sure what resources they bring to bear, but it appears they have it figured out. I wouldn't support, however, just farming it out to the LDS. Kind of rubs my separation of church and state the wrong way (which is a whole other topic). How to fund a program of this nature? Not sure. I'm kind of leery of using fines for employer offenses to pay for immigration services but it's a place to start. We do it with taxes on cigarettes. Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. I imagine that if we actually started enforcing penalties against employers we could generate quite a lot of money.

I like the idea of revising our immigration policy, but you both (flakbait and SignyM) raise good points about, "what's in it for the immigrant?" How to make getting on the track to citizenship desirable enough to get people to enroll in the program? I can imagine some type of points system where you gain or lose time to application based on behavior. Fluent in English? A year less. Let someone live in your house who is in the country illegally? A year more. Get convicted of a felony? Five years more. Report on an employer who hires illegal immigrants? Ding ding ding, jackpot (okay, that last one was a bit facetious but see where I'm going?). Although now I'm starting to think about indentured servitude, so maybe not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm just catching up on topics of interest.

I thought the idea of ^ English proficiency v time to legal status is GREAT! And it seems like the idea that it's good to know English has been converged on from several different directions.

That's why I keep coming back to RWE. I keep learning awesome stuff, and:

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2023 12:15 PM

Drug Gangs, Human Smuggling and more Jihadist 'Migrants' Captured at Mexico Border?

Biden’s border policies facilitate shocking modern slavery

https://nypost.com/2023/01/10/bidens-border-policies-facilitate-shocki
ng-modern-slavery/

Nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants are known to have slipped past overwhelmed Border Patrol agents since the beginning of fiscal 2023, which began in October, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources tell Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nearly-300000-illegal-immigrants-slip
ped-past-border-agents-less-four-months-sources

Is an ‘open border’ to blame for America’s fentanyl crisis?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fentanyl-crisis-bord
er-biden-mexico-b2259727.html

Border Patrol chief fumed at Biden admin’s handling of whipping controversy, emails show

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-patrol-chiefs-fumed-biden-admi
ns-handling-whipping-controversy-emails-show

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

We're a country of immigrants who dislike immigrants.

Watching the Native American culture go extinct and a people replaced then looking at jihads freak out over a bunch of funny cartoons might have finally taught a lesson

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
How about we let them in legally? Then they wouldn't be illegal.

How about Open Borders for Saudi and Israel?

Should Ruskies be allowed to arrive by the millions and take over San Franciso, New York and Austin Texas....no wait a sec...that might actually improve SanFranshitsco or San Fransicko

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

My mother was first generation living in a Polish community. Polish was her fist language, she learned English in school. My father was from Poland, arriving in the US at the age of 40.

I wonder if Commiefornia would have new taxes for reparations

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2023 1:14 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Should Ruskies be allowed to arrive by the millions and take over San Franciso, New York and Austin Texas....no wait a sec...that might actually improve SanFranshitsco or San Fransicko

Nope. They don't want any more whites. They certainly do not want any more Christians.

Even Chinese ones...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/01/29/as_refugees_floo
d_into_us_chinese_christians_told_to_wait_148785.html

But we'll keep fuckin' bringing everyone else in and ruining this country.

--------------------------------------------------

Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:58 AM

Are these from the Mainland which would have Billions?

or part of the over seas diaspora in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines which also number in the tens of Millions?

https://twitter.com/VenturaReport/status/1637973466992222208

I've been covering the border the last couple of years and have never seen this amount of Chinese nationals crossing illegally into the US , this sector is experiencing over a 900% percent spike in Chinese nationals apprehensions compared to last year

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:19 AM

‘Scared’ Rockland County residents blast Adams plan to bus migrants upstate after state of emergency declared

https://nypost.com/2023/05/08/rockland-county-residents-blast-nyc-mayo
r-eric-adams-plan-to-bus-migrants-upstate/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2023 4:24 AM