Why do so many DU'ers think it is racist to be concerned about

[pnwmom]

unrestricted immigration? About the flood of illegal immigrants who have entered the country in recent years, depressing wages in local industries and stressing local government resources?

Don't we need some planning, some limits, on immigration? Can the resources of our country support unlimited immigration?

Shouldn't the number of immigrants allowed in each year be based on the number our economy needs -- without depressing wages and benefits -- and our infrastructure can handle?

Is it racist to say a person from Mexico should have to obtain a VISA to immigrate here, just like a person from Somalia, Vietnam, or Afghanistan?

[babylonsister]

1. Serious question: has the number of immigrants entering

this country illegally in recent years differed significantly from prior years? I didn't know about the flood.

[pnwmom]

7. Some parts of the country are more seriously impacted than others,

which might account for why you haven't noticed it. One of my sisters had children in a school without any ESL students, which is inconceivable to me.

The flood has been going on for some time. From Federation for Immigration Reform:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_media4527

"May 28, 2004

"In a display of unusual candor, Business Week recognized recently the negative impact immigration—coupled with globalization—has in perpetuating an army of permanently poor, hard-working Americans. In its May 31, 2004 cover story "Working... and Poor," the financial magazine states that a flood of immigrants, mostly from Mexico, is swelling the low-end labor pool and throwing least-skilled Americans into direct competition with people willing to work for pennies on the dollar.

"Finally, a company rooted in the business sector is admitting the negative effects immigration has on business, and especially on the lower rungs of the economic ladder," says Dan Stein, Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "We applaud Business Week for its insightful and informative article, especially as it comes from a sector historically promoting less immigration control to provide a cheap source of labor."

"Economists claim globalization is responsible for about one-fifth of the decline in blue-collar pay since 1973. As globalization accelerates, the unskilled American worker is increasingly placed at a distinct disadvantage, and when added with a torrent of immigration, this has shoved many hourly wage occupations into a "worldwide, discount labor store stocked with cheap temps, hungry part-timers, and dollar-a-day labor in India, Mexico, and China."

"More than 28 million Americans earn less than $9.04 per hour, representing about 25 percent of the workforce between the ages of 18 and 64. Of these millions, approximately 20 percent are foreign-born, mostly from Mexico. Over the next decade, five of the ten fastest-growing jobs will be of the menial, dead-end variety, including retail clerks, cashiers, and janitors, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

SNIP

[Up2Late]

156. Be very careful about referring to F.A.I.R., here's what the SPLC says ...

...about Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

From the Southern Poverty Law Center "Intelligence Report" article "Anti-Immigration Groups": <http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=175>

Federation for American Immigration Reform

Washington, D.C.
www.fairus.org

Founded in 1978 by John H. Tanton, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is one of the country's best-established anti-immigration groups — and the richest beneficiary among them of the largesse of the infamous Pioneer Fund.

The Fund, which has long subsidized dubious studies of the alleged links between race and intelligence, awarded FAIR $1.2 million between 1985 and 1994, according to the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. FAIR now says that it has severed its links to the controversial Fund.

Today, FAIR claims a staggering 70,000 members, although that number is almost certainly inflated. Tanton remains on FAIR's board and also is the publisher of The Social Contract Press, which sells racist anti-immigrant tracts.

Dan Stein, the group's executive director, has warned that certain immigrant groups are engaged in "competitive breeding" aimed at diminishing white power. Rick Oltman, FAIR's western representative, has spoken before and worked with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.

Garrett Hardin, a FAIR board member, has argued that aiding starving Africans is counterproductive and will only "encourage population growth." Overall, FAIR blames immigrants for crime, poverty, disease, urban sprawl and increasing racial tensions in America, and calls for a drastic cut in the numbers of those allowed in.

FAIR recently helped run a billboard campaign in Virginia blaming immigrants for traffic and sprawl. Last summer, FAIR attacked Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), an Arab-American, for supporting more visas for foreigners with high-technology skills.

In radio and TV ads, it said Abraham's proposal could "make it easier for terrorists like Osama bin Laden to export their way of terror to any street in America." FAIR's ads were condemned across the country and caused former Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) to resign from FAIR's advisory board.

In a 1997 interview, Tanton said that unless U.S. borders are sealed, America will be overrun by people "defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs."

(more at link)

<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=175>

My opinion is that the whole debate is RW BS! I feel Republican's have manufactured this "crisis" but de-funding the INS (or USCIS and ICE as it's now called in the DHS) creating such huge back log of unprocessed applications for Visas and Citizen requests that last 5 to 10 YEARS now.

This has causes millions of people to over stay their Visas, and encouraged illegal immigration, because the legal route now take so long and is so expensive (Lawyers fees, etc.)

[unlawflcombatnt]

158. Do they have any tangible evidence regarding Stein?

"Dan Stein, the group's executive director, has warned that certain immigrant groups are engaged in "competitive breeding" aimed at diminishing white power."

This is just a statement by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Is there any evidence (i.e., quote) where Stein actually said this? I'd like to see it if there is.

It seems to be common practice here to label each and every source that opposes illegal immigration a racist source. I haven't read anything from Stein that even vaguely suggests he's a racist. Until I actually do see a quote from Stein indicating he is, I'm assuming this is a false claim.

There are entirely too many false claims of "racism" and "bigotry" made that have absolutely no basis in fact. In some cases, a liberal/progressive writer, such as Randall Burns of the Kucinich site, is branded as being a "racist." Burns has difficulty posting at any liberal or progressive sites, because none will accept articles that oppose illegal immigration. It's almost as if by definition, those opposing illegal immigration must be racists or bigots.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Up2Late]

214. Is a letter by Dan Stein, where he admits to using the phrase enough?

(I'm still going though more Google hits, but I thought I would post this before you lose interest in the subject.)

Here's a letter Dan Stein wrote to Sal Osio, Sr. - Publisher and Chief Executive Officer of HispanicVista.com <http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/About_Us/about_us.htm>,
the self declaired "...premier Internet forum and dialog of issues and events that impact American Hispanics..." after Patrick Osio, Jr. Editor of HispanicVista.com, referred to this SPLC quote in his October 7, 2005 Column entitled,

"Is it about illegal immigration or keeping non-white people out?"

<http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/posiojr/10070505osio.htm>

You asked, "...Is there any evidence (i.e., quote) where Stein actually said this? I'd like to see it if there is...."

Here's the link (Click here)to the November 13, 2005 letter he sent to HispanicVista.com over a month after Patrick Osio, Jr's October 7, 2005 Column appeared.
(Note: you have to scroll down a little more than half way on the linked page)

I've highlighted the part where he admits to using the phrase "competitive breeding", though he claims that the reporter misrepresented what he meant when he said it, and that the widely respected Southern Poverty Law Center "...is not a credible organization."

<http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Dialogue/Letters_to_Editor/031405Letters.htm>

Letters from November 13, 2005

(Editor’s Note: Dan Stein, President of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), took exception to an article written by HVC editor, Patrick Osio, Jr. in his weekly article, Is it about illegal immigration or keeping non-white people out? (http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/posiojr/10070505osio.htm) he wrote in part:

“This should not be surprising as FAIR’s Stein has warned “that certain immigrant groups are engaged in ‘competitive breeding’ aimed at diminishing white power. Or how about the comment from another of FAIR’s board members, Garrett Hardin, that aiding starving Africans is counterproductive and will only “encourage population growth.”

Mr. Stein wrote asking for the source of the quote attributed to him, but never challenged the premise of the article. He was informed that the quote came from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and was provided with the direct link to the article containing his remarks. Mr. Stein insists that he did not make the remark and wanted HispanicVista.com to write a retraction. HVC will not since the SPLC is a very prestigious and respected organization. Mr. Stein’s last letter questions the credibility of the SPLC (and admits he was aware the quote was attributed to the SPLC). This is a view held by most if not all individuals and organizations the SPLC had exposed for their racist and hateful activities, FAIR being one of them. It is surprising that the SPLC can be right about the KKK, and neo-Nazi organizations it exposes, but not about Mr. Stein’s organization. His last letter to Mr. Osio follows.)

Mr. Osio,

I appreciate your time on this because it matters to me. I've been trying to appeal to you on this matter because I am assuming you adhere to higher journalistic standards than the SPLC.

In my view, SPLC is not a credible organization because apparently they don't think they need to be. But it is not a reliable news source, has no internal standards for fact checking or accuracy and prepares a wide range of propaganda material designed to describe various individuals in the most negative of manners -- using name-calling, character assassination and distortion at every opportunity. The SPLC attacks organizations and people -- and has the audacity to claim it teaches tolerance. The SPLC uses the polarizing technique of taking phrases of a sentence and re-casting the meanings and contexts. The technique is rather commonplace and certainly is not designed to enlighten. Nor is the SPLC interested in promoting common dialogue or reaching across sides of a dispute to seek common ground.

Naturally, I raised this issue of accuracy with the SPLC the minute they put it up, to no avail. I have repeatedly told the SPLC that an entire range of information they have posted is inaccurate including this alleged statement, and they refuse to correct anything. Nor have they been willing to provide balance or add information in the interest of providing a fair view.

Regarding this particular comment -- which I assume you reprinted because you thought it was damaging -- I have been striving to assert its inaccuracy since it first appeared years ago. Since I know precisely how this business got started, I demanded a correction by the original writer the minute it appeared when he blatantly mischaracterized the context in which I used two words -- "competitive breeding" – and entirely altered my oral statement. You'll notice the only words in quotes are "competitive breeding," and nothing else. The original comment had nothing to do with immigrants per se, and that's why the reporter did not quote my entire statement. No one can produce an original complete quote from me that makes the statement you have attributed to me. The SPLC apparently doesn't care; their view is that they are free to republish and recast any material from any other source as long as it was printed somewhere sometime in some fashion.

I realize you use the statement as a springboard for your attack on FAIR, but if I say I didn't make the statement as characterized in your article, and no one can gainsay me on the matter, then why isn't that enough to justify a retraction?

Dan
Dan Stein, President
FAIR -- Federation for American Immigration Reform

<http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Dialogue/Letters_to_Editor/031405Letters.htm>

I hope you agree that this letter by Dan Stein absolutely established that he did use the word "competitive breeding" when speaking to a reporter. I'm still looking through the 74 Google hits to see if I can find the context of the quote, or the original article.

I'll keep you posted as to what I find.

If you'd like to Google along with me, enter this exactly into the Google search line to get the same results I got:

"Dan Stein" "competitive breeding"

<http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Dialogue/Letters_to_Editor/031405Letters.htm>

[unlawflcombatnt]

404. That Proves Nothing Whatsoever

"I hope you agree that this letter by Dan Stein absolutely established that he did use the word "competitive breeding" when speaking to a reporter. I'm still looking through the 74 Google hits to see if I can find the context of the quote, or the original article.".

I definitely do not agree with you. The letter proves nothing. To the contrary Stein clearly states that his "competitive breeding" quote was taken out of context in order to make this false claim.

Here is what Stein says about this false claim:
"Regarding this particular comment -- which I assume you reprinted because you thought it was damaging -- I have been striving to assert its inaccuracy since it first appeared years ago. Since I know precisely how this business got started, I demanded a correction by the original writer the minute it appeared when he blatantly mischaracterized the context in which I used two words -- "competitive breeding" – and entirely altered my oral statement. You'll notice the only words in quotes are "competitive breeding," and nothing else. The original comment had nothing to do with immigrants per se, and that's why the reporter did not quote my entire statement. No one can produce an original complete quote from me that makes the statement you have attributed to me. The SPLC apparently doesn't care; their view is that they are free to republish and recast any material from any other source as long as it was printed somewhere sometime in some fashion."

Furthermore, the passage you quoted only has the phrase "competitive breeding" in quotes. The insertion of that quote into a sentence is someone else's editing, not a direct quote from Stein.

What you've proven from this is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Stein is a racist, or has ever made a racist statement. The reason you couldn't find any such evidence is that none exists.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Robert Oak]

182. SPLC

I frankly don't trust their "reporting" anymore.

Harper's mag also blasted them.

I know they are right on one group but seemingly *any* group talking about immigration and isn't for open borders they are classifying as a "hate" group.

There is a huge difference between the two positions.

I don't know about FAIR, but some of them, I've never seen a racist fart come out of these groups.

[unlawflcombatnt]

189. I don't either

The Southern Poverty Law Center is cited here as if it were the Bible. It's not. I don't care how the SPLC classifies anyone. It certainly does seem that anyone opposing unrestricted immigration is labeled as a racist, without any further thought.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Up2Late]

220. "...seemingly *any* group talking...are classifying as a "hate" group."???

Did you read the introduction to the SPLC list at the link I provided? Because your statement
"...but seemingly *any* group talking about immigration and isn't for open borders they are classifying as a "hate" group...." is absolutly false.

The introduction to the SPLC list states clearly that, "...Only four of the 10 groups described below are designated as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (see The Year in Hate)...."

Here's the full introduction, so that you can read it in context:

<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=175>

Anti-Immigration Groups

Behind the recent upswing in anti-immigration activism are an array of groups, including the 10 listed here. Most of these groups regularly work together, and their leaders frequently hold cross-memberships in several organizations at once. Some of the groups have clear ties to openly racist organizations, and even some of those that don't still espouse thinly disguised bigotry.

In the eyes of most of these groups, immigrants (typically, non-white immigrants) are responsible for nearly all the country's ills, from poverty and inner city decay to crime, urban sprawl and environmental degradation.

Many of them also believe there is a secret a plot by the Mexican government and American Hispanics to wrest the Southwest away from the United States in order to create "Aztlan," a Hispanic nation. Only four of the 10 groups described below are designated as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (see The Year in Hate)....

[Robert Oak]

307. still implying it

I guess they finally gave up because they sure were classifying them as hate groups, so your link just implies it instead
of outright claims it. Guess to avoid a lawsuit?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-lilevy094655334mar09,0,5838594.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print


The groups I'm talking about where I've never seen anything, nothing that could be construed as racist or hateful is
NumbersUSA and CIS (think tank).

But, people blast their reports constantly, when frankly I don't see problems in the CIS papers to date.

They always use SPLC claims, yet why is it Academia references CIS papers quite a bit? I don't think the whole world
is racist when discussing the economics of what's going on.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

310. CIS is a right wing group. Here's a link about their history.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1452

[unlawflcombatnt]

369. Not Proof of Anything about CIS

The site you've referenced has no "proof" of anything. They've simply published their extremely biased, one-world government, globalist-advocating opinion. They don't have a shred of tangible evidence showing that CIS is a racist site. They're simply on a witch-hunt to discredit anyone who is against amnesty and open borders.

And, surprise, surprise, they are supported by the Wall Street Journal, who would like nothing better than to open the flood gates into the U.S. to more cheap labor to increase their profits.

The worst criticism they've come up with is that CIS is "restrictionist" and that one of their associations is with someone who was a proponent of reducing China's population growth. What an abhorrent idea!

:sarcasm:

Once again, you're posting an extremely biased source's opinion as "proof." It's not proof of anything.

However, your source, "Right-Web," has revealed its ugly one-world government, globalist, and Corporatocratic motivation. To promote cooperation among international organizations
(read Corporations) so that they can better enslave the workers of the world. That's their underlying motivation. To allow capital to flow to the country with the lowest wages. And if capital outflow is not possible, to allow any workers in the world to migrate to the U.s. and compete with Americans for jobs, suppressing their wages, and increasing the profits of Corporate Multinationals.

That's certainly a "reliable" source that you posted.
That is, a reliable advocate of a one-world Corporatorcacy.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

377. Funding from advocates of sterilization of the undesireables

Fair got money from the Pioneer Fund. Fix your post to include that and see how many agree with it then.

"concerned about China's overpopulation" I'd say that is a huge understatement.

You know, you're great. Every source that disagrees with you is "biased" even if the majority of DUers trust it (see Media Matters). Then you accuse everyone on the other side of doing exactly what you do!

[pnwmom]

395. FAIR has gotten funding from many sources. The org has backers

on the right and the left, because the issue of immigration doesn't neatly fall on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

Sen. Eugene McCarthy supported FAIR, as well as many people involved in the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood.

[pnwmom]

397. They have connections with Planned Parenthood, too.

Does that make Planned Parenthood a right-wing, racist group?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

400. John Tanton isn't just a donor, he's their founder.

One board member who also sits on the Planned Parenthood board isn't the same thing. Regardless, we're talking about immigration. No organization or person is right on 100% of the issues. One should read the thoughts of the founders and current leaders of FAIR and make their decision. Other democrats or liberals should not dictate the positions taken by oneself.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

402. Another of their leaders, Dan Stein

Who charmingly said

"Immigrants don't come all church loving freedom loving, God fearing. Some of them in socialist or redistributionist ideas. Many of them hate America and hate everything the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans"

And on Eugenics

"what is your problem with that? Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?"

http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/Is_Fair_Unfair.pdf

[unlawflcombatnt]

442. According to the SPLC

Planned Parenthood must be a hate group. Any group that tries to limit our population growth is a "hate" group. Because the Southern Poverty Law Center says so. And they're always right.
Aren't they?

:sarcasm:

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

423. Wrong Again

No, however, every source that disagrees with you is labeled as racist or bigoted.

Show me where FAIR got money from the United Fund, and then show me the proof that the United Fund is racist.

Again, you're making blind assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. And again, the opinion of the Globalist-Corporatist site you referenced doesn't quite make it as "proof" or "evidence."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

431. I said PIONEER FUND not UNITED FUND. And it was a huge scandel

From the words of their own site (They admit their purpose is the study of eugenics):

http://www.pioneerfund.org/

And here is a link about the scandel:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2501

And Another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

And Another:
http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/Institut/pioneer/view/homepage.htm

And Another:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

And Another:
http://www.answers.com/topic/pioneer-fund

And Another:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17625/pub_detail.asp

But let me guess, these are all biased sources :eyes:

You want facts? Here are two FACTS.

1. Pioneer fund gave significant amounts of money to FAIR (Even FAIR admits this)
2. Pioneer fund was founded for the study and evolution of Eugenics.

[unlawflcombatnt]

440. Wrong Again

The Pioneer fund was NOT founded for the purpose of "Eugenics." It doesn't say anything of the sort at their own site. It was founded for the purpose of scientific and anthropological study of the differences between people, including heredity. That's not "eugenics." It's basic science.

The word "Eugenics" is not even used at the Pioneer fund's own site. Their stated purpose is research.

The following is the introduction from the Pioneer Fund's site.

"About Us

The Pioneer Fund, Inc. is a New York 501(c) (3) not-for-profit foundation established in 1937 to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences. Named to honor the early pioneers who built America, our mandate is to support pioneering research in those fields. We solicit contributions, which we use to fund vital research projects into the basis and correlates of human ability and diversity, and for the dissemination of that research to the public. "

The Wikipedia reference mentions nothing whatsoever about "eugenics" in their reference to the Pioneer Fund.

From the "FAIR" reference, there is mention that the Pioneer fund charter stipulated giving scholarships to those born in the United States, and originally to those of predominantly white ancestry. However, the requirement that they be white was dropped in 1983. Since 1984, there's nothing "racist" mentioned anywhere.

This is simply another flimsy attempt to claim every organization opposing illegal immigration is racially-motivated. And stretching this false charge by calling an organization racist, because it accepted donations from an organization that had previously had racial policies 26 years ago is absurd.

Studying genetics and anthropological differences between different people is not "eugenics." It's scientific research.

And, once again, the "opinion" of the Southern Poverty Law Center means nothing to me. Their bias is very obvious.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[radwriter0555]

443. Let's examine the pioneer fund's more notable achievements, shall we?

The Pioneer Fund has been one of the main sources of funding for the partly-genetic hypothesis of IQ variation among races. This has generated a large amount of controversy ever since the publication of The Bell Curve (1994) - a book exploring the role of intelligence in American life, including variation among races - which drew from Pioneer-funded research.

snip

The fund has also generated controversy for its focus on the controversial areas heredity, intelligence, human differences, and eugenics. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights advocacy and anti-racism organization, has characterized the Pioneer Fund as a "hate group," using the definition "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics".<2> The SPLC cites the Pioneer Fund's funding of some organizations and individuals the SPLC considers racist, and the funding of race and intelligence research.<3>

snip

The Pioneer Fund was incorporated in 1937 by two American scientists: Harry Laughlin, who received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 in recognition of his contribution to Nazi eugenics, and Frederick Osborn, who Barry Mehler claims wrote in 1937 that the Nazi sterilization law was "the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried".<4>

snip

The fund's main benefactor and de facto final authority was Wickliffe Draper (1891-1972), Mayflower descendant and heir to a large fortune. <5> According to one geneticist he "wished to prove simply that Negroes were inferior" He funded advocates of repatriation of blacks to Africa and anti-Semitic and neo-nazi advocates such as Willis Carto. Draper also made large financial contributions to efforts to oppose the American Civil Rights Movement and the racial desegregation mandated by Brown v. Board of Education, such as $215,000 to the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission in 1963.<6>.

The Pioneer Fund supported the distribution of a eugenics film titled Erbkrank ("Hereditary Defective" or "Hereditary Illness") which was published by the pre-war 1930s Nazi Party.

snip

Eugenicist and anthropologist Roger Pearson, founder of the Journal of Indo-European Studies<12>, received over a million dollars in grants in the eighties and the nineties.<13><14> Using the pseudonym of Stephan Langton, Pearson was the editor of The New Patriot, a short-lived magazine published in 1966-67 to conduct "a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question," which included articles such as "Zionists and the Plot Against South Africa," "Early Jews and the Rise of Jewish Money Power," and "Swindlers of the Crematoria." <15>. The Northern League, an organization founded in England in 1958 Pearson supported Nazi ideologies and included former members of the Nazi Party <16>.

snip

The Fund has given significant support to immigration reductionist organizations, primarily to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), but also to the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF), and ProjectUSA. During the campaign over California's Proposition 187 critics noted that the Pioneer Fund was channeling money in favor of the initiative through contributions to the FAIR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

Perhaps you'd care to revise your position on the integrity of the Pioneer Fund.. unless of course you support and would care to promote their eugenics, racially biased policies?

They're certainly not an organization I'd support or want to endorse.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

444. Right...you are defending the Pioneer Fund.

If you are so opposed to recognizing the bias in FAIR you'll defend Pioneer Fund, I'm done.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

380. Here is some quotes from that gentleman that's only a concerned citizen

"1. Will Latin American migrants bring with them thetradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.? What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States? See Harrison’s Washington Post article in the September 3 packet."

"What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)?"


"What are the implications of the changes shown on Graphs 2 and 3 for the separation of church and state? The Catholic Church has never been reticent on this point. If they get a majority of the voters, will they pitch out this concept?" (This one is hillarious because it isn't the Catholics (although they probably would if they could) that are erasing the separation between church and state).


http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=560

[pnwmom]

396. Here's a quote from (former Pres. candidate) Sen. Eugene McCarthy

You and FAIR are to be congratulated for your twenty years of effective work, not only informing and calling immigration problems to the attention of the American people, but also moving them to effective action."
-Former U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

403. Consider:

Nobody is right 100% of the time and nobody agrees 100% of the time. As I said in my post further down the thread, I believe there are two groups at work here, on each side.

FAIR is supported by two sides. Those legitimately concernced about immigration and bigots who are using immigration as an excuse to advance their agenda. That's fact. The opinion part is, which side does FAIR itself fall on? I believe a little of both. If you look at their articles, they utilize whatever happens to be the worry of Americans AT THAT MOMENT to sell their ideas. If people are worried about jos, they say immigrants take your jobs. After September 11, immigrants were terrorists.

The LEADERS of FAIR have left their organization vulnerable to this criticism by their own words and actions. They're not sorry they took money from the pioneer fund. Neither do they apologize for their own bigoted comments. How can a group possibly be impartial when two of their highest members, including the founder, say such things?

[unlawflcombatnt]

441. Who are you quoting? N/T

[Up2Late]

315. CIS and FAIR are the same people, Lots of very hateful stuff at their...

...website, and NumbersUSA is too and is no better. I found one site last night that I thought was from from a different group that looked fairly good on the surface, but when you dug a little deeper into their "10 Immigration myths," it was full of lies and dis-info. I just noticed that it's one of their's too (ProjectUSA).

Here's a list of the organization and the years that this guy John Tanton started these groups:

1973 Population-Environment Balance
1979 Federation for American Immigration Reform
1982 U.S. Inc.
1983 American Immigration Control Foundation
1983 U.S. English
1985 Center for Immigration Studies
1990 The Social Contract Press
1992 American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
1994 California Coalition for Immigration Reform
1994 Pro English
1996 NumbersUSA
1996 Californians for Population Stabilization
1999 ProjectUSA

This list is from this pdf file: <http://www.irnin.org/docs/Understanding%20the%20Anti-Immigrant%20Movement.pdf>

Here's a very good report from Anti-Defamation League (ADL), it from 2000, but the info is still very good:
<http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/Is_Fair_Unfair.pdf>

If you do read it and you'll see a reference to a 1997 article written by Tucker Carlson in the Wall Street Journal, well I found that too. If you read nothing else today, read this, I may post this later. It's almost amazing to read Carlson writing like he's got a pair:

<http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m10.a/msg00040.htm>
NOTE: You have to scroll down to about the fourth story.

Oh hell, here are some of the more tasty bits:

The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --

October 2, 1997

Edit Page Features

The Intellectual Roots of Nativism

By TUCKER CARLSON

When the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform issued its final report on Tuesday, Dan
Stein, executive director of the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, stood ready to
comment. Responding to a recommendation
that the U.S. citizenship oath be modified to
strike antiquated words like "potentate," Mr.
Stein told the Los Angeles Times, "If the oath
of is too hard for the immigrants to
understand . . . we're admitting the wrong
immigrants...."

(clip)

...Where does FAIR stand politically? It's hard to say, says Mr.
Stein: "Immigration's weird. It has weird
politics."

Certainly FAIR does. Consider the group's
connection to Garrett Hardin, a University of
California biologist who became moderately
famous in the 1960s for his essay "The
Tragedy of the Commons," a polemic against
population growth and Americans' "freedom
to breed." Mr. Hardin, now in his 80s, was for
many years one of the more active members of
FAIR's board of directors, writing and
speaking extensively under the group's
auspices. He is now a board member
emeritus, and his ideas are still influential at
FAIR; just this spring, Mr. Stein quoted "noted
immigration scholar and thinker Garrett
Hardin" in testimony before the Senate.

In Favor of Infanticide

What are Garrett Hardin's ideas? "Sending
food to Ethiopia does more harm than good,"
he explained in a 1992 interview with Omni
magazine. Giving starving Africans enough to
eat, Mr. Hardin argued, will only "encourage
population growth." His views got less savory
from there. In the same interview, the "noted
immigration scholar" went on to criticize
China's notoriously coercive population
control programs on the grounds they are not
strict enough. He also argued against
reducing infant mortality in undeveloped
nations and came out foursquare in favor of
infanticide ("in the historical context," as the
Omni reporter put it), which he declared "an
effective population control."

"In all societies practicing infanticide," Mr.
Hardin explained to the reporter, who
happened to be five months pregnant at the
time, "the child is killed within minutes after
birth, before bonding can occur." Not
surprisingly, Mr. Hardin wasn't shy about his
enthusiastically pro-choice views: "A fetus is
of so little value, there's no point in worrying
about it."

What does eliminating children have to do with
immigration? According to Mr. Hardin, just
about everything. "Because widespread
disease and famine no longer exist, we have to
find another means to stop population
increases," he explained. "The quickest,
easiest and most effective form of population
control in the U.S., that I support
wholeheartedly, is to end immigration."

At FAIR, Mr. Hardin's views are considered
well within the pale. Founded in 1979 by a
Michigan ophthalmologist named John
Tanton, FAIR has from its inception been
heavily influenced by the now-discredited
theories of Thomas Malthus, an 18th-century
English clergyman...

(more at link)

<http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m10.a/msg00040.htm>

It just gets more and more disgusting from there, these are some very twisted individuals.

[unlawflcombatnt]

374. Environmentally Consistent

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the the field of Environmental Biology, as it pertains to giving food to starving populations. It makes the problem worse, unless it is accompanied by birth control. Alleviating starvation increases the birthrate. This is a universally accepted concept in the field of Environmental Biology, and has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with making a bad problem worse.

I received my undergraduate degree in Biology, and this is exactly what my instructor stated, exactly what the textbook stated, and exactly what everyone in the field of Environmental Biology believes.

The following statement is from Garrett Harding:
"Sending food to Ethiopia does more harm than good,"
he explained in a 1992 interview with Omni
magazine. Giving starving Africans enough to
eat, Mr. Hardin argued, will only "encourage
population growth."

The above statement is completely supported by EVERYONE in the scientific community, especially in Biology. Again, I know this for a fact from college Environmental Biology studies.

"In the same interview, the "noted
immigration scholar" went on to criticize
China's notoriously coercive population
control programs on the grounds they are not
strict enough.

What problem do you have with that statement? China was, and still is, trying to reduce it's explosive population growth. Most people applaud their attempts to do so, though not through the totalitarian methods employed. But their general desire to limit their population growth is lauded by all who have any concern about overpopulation or the environment.

Again, much of this quotation is just the author's piss-poor attempt to misconstrue what was said.

The comments implying that he said infanticide is "an effective population control" is 100% correct. It certainly is not a "desirable" method. But its "effectiveness" is well established. And I don't see any implication that he was suggesting this method be used.

"Because widespread
disease and famine no longer exist, we have to
find another means to stop population
increases," he explained. "The quickest,
easiest and most effective form of population
control in the U.S., that I support
wholeheartedly, is to end immigration."

He's absolutely correct with this statement. Without the diseases and famine that used to kill off much of the population, there are less factors to limit population growth. And the biggest source of increase in the U.S. population is immigration. And limiting immigration into the U.S. is the best way to control our population. Our birthrate is not responsible for our explosive population growth. Illegal immigration is. Why should the United States, which has successfully reduced its own birthrate, have to absorb the flood of immigrants from those countries that have not controlled their own growth? If we control our own birthrate, why should we be forced to share the burden of countries who have not done so?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[bunyip]

461. You make sense.

Go and stand in the corner

[SemiCharmedQuark]

343. By the way, where does "Academia" cite CIS?

Just curious.

[unlawflcombatnt]

348. Word Games

The opening 2 paragraphs imply that all of these groups are "bigoted."

"Behind the recent upswing in anti-immigration activism are an array of groups, including the 10 listed here. Most of these groups regularly work together, and their leaders frequently hold cross-memberships in several organizations at once. Some of the groups have clear ties to openly racist organizations, and even some of those that don't still espouse thinly disguised bigotry.
In the eyes of most of these groups, immigrants (typically, non-white immigrants) are responsible for nearly all the country's ills, from poverty and inner city decay to crime, urban sprawl and environmental degradation."

The implication is clear. They consider ALL of the groups they listed as "bigots." That's why they listed all of them. And they implicitly admit that they don't have evidence to prove that, with their statement "Some of the groups have clear ties to openly racist organizations, and even some of those that don't still espouse thinly disguised bigotry." If the latter groups don't have any "ties," then there is no "proof" that they are racist, bigoted, or xenophobic. Yet they are still listed.

Just as previously stated, they're calling every group opposing illegal immigration bigoted. With no proof whatsoever on most of them, or with obscure historical connections with a group that was labeled racist in the past.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Up2Late]

382. Word Games?!? Yes, You are playing word games...

...and wasting my time on top of that. It appears that, if you can't win an argument, you change the argument to something different. :spank:

Pleeeeeeeease....

Grow up.

You write: "The opening 2 paragraphs imply that all of these groups are 'bigoted'."

Yeah, so what!?!?

That was NOT what the OTHER person, who I was responding to, had a problem with or wrote about, he said the SPLC "...seemingly *any* group talking about immigration and isn't for open borders they are classifying as a "hate" group..."

"Robert Oak," the member I was responding to, didn't say anything about "bigoted,"

His statement was absolutely wrong and I pointed that out to him/her, How is pointing a false statement a "word game?"

What proof does the SPLC have proof that these groups are Bigoted?

They have the groups WEBSITE! If you go and read what they write at their websites, you can see for yourself what they write about is bigoted.

I'm though wasting any more time responding to you. I've provided plenty of evidence in my other posts.

Take a break from writing your silly posts, and READ what I and others here have written and posted here, their plenty to read already.

Good-bye

[unlawflcombatnt]

422. I have read them, and you are 100% Wrong

It is you who needs to take some time reading the sites you've called "bigoted." I have already read those sites extensively, and they are not bigoted. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but read an outside group's worthless opinion of whether they are bigoted. And those outside groups don't have a shred of evidence to base their false claims on. That's pretty well implied, even in the reference you cited. They didn't post any evidence because they don't have any evidence.

Actually, it's extremely "bigoted" to label everyone who opposes illegal immigration as a racist or bigot, which is exactly what's being done here. Apparently any site that states an "inconvenient truth" regarding illegal immigration is labeled "bigoted" or "racist."

Why don't you go read the sites yourself, instead of wasting my time with your non-fact supported accusations. Then post the "evidence" that they are "bigoted" or "racist" or whatever claim you'd like to make.

Most of us with any type of science background don't accept a biased outside organization's non-supported opinion as "fact."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[pberq]

320. I think you're missing the point about illegal immigrants

flooding the labor force and depressing wages. Big business loves the illegal immigrants who will work for practically nothing, which depresses wages for everyone else.

Thom Hartmann has talked extensively on this and noted that many people in the labor movement over the years have been against illegal immigration.

[unlawflcombatnt]

371. Right you are.

Thom Hartman has posted some very good articles about how illegal immigration suppresses wages. And, as of yet, no one has accused him of being a racist or a bigot.

[madokie]

94. I don't have the numbers handy but I believe it has increased dramatically

the construction work here is mostly Mexican where just a few years ago you hardly seen any and when you did they were the ones who have lived here for years, not true today.

[unlawflcombatnt]

152. Yes

Yes it has. I'll try to find you some exact numbers.

Also of interest is that the annual U.S. population growth of 1.1% is much higher than other industrialized countries such as Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, or Britain. Our population growth rate is much greater than that of China. Yet our birth rate is no higher than those countries. The reason for the difference in our growth rate is the flood of illegal immigration. And that flood increases the labor pool faster than other countries, causing the supply of labor to increase faster than the demand, and causing wages to be lower than they otherwise would be.

The CIA website actually has some good details on this. The general link is http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html

They show economic and population information by country. This includes GDP, total population, population growth rate, and more.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Cybergata]

198. Immigration in the past...

if studied, looks very racist. When the Irish arrived on the east coast, they were the ones everyone wanted to limit and were worried about. The same exact arguments were given then for why the U.S. should restrict their immigration.

When the Chinese started coming to the U.S., the U.S. started calling for immigration quotas based on from where immigrants came from. If you came from western Europe, you were in. Less so for eastern Europe and even less so for the Far East especially China as well as our neighbors from the south.

It is literally the cyclic event to scream about people immigrating into the U.S. The "immigration debate" seem to come when there are big problems in the country and the government prefers that people pay less attention to the real problems. Immigration is always a good decoy.

It is probably no more of a problem now than it was the last time everyone worried about "those illegals" taking our jobs, etc. It is more of a case of those who have don't want to share with those who don't have. It was okay when are ancestors came as immigrants, but no for anyone else after us. I think it is based on greed.

I don't make that much money, but I would never mind paying taxes if I knew my tax money helped people who are in need rather than going to pay for a war for oil. Why shouldn't newcomers benefit from services in the U.S., the rich sure do, especially the oil companies. Just think of the health care we would have for all people, even newcomers, if we stopped being a country ready to fight in a major galactic war. Weapons development and purchase is ridiculous. All that money could be used to give everyone services.

What I'm more worried about is that the rich moving into the area I live are displacing those of us who have lived here for generations. They bulldoze our homes, and build expensive houses, which leds to a raise in property value, which leads to higher taxes which the poorer can't afford. Heck, Let's face it, if you are rich in this country it is okay to do the same thing that isn't okay for a poor person to do.

[pnwmom]

398. Does it bother you to pay a higher tax rate than the richest people

in Mexico? The wealthy top tier who is controlling the economy and the substantial resources there, and keeping the vast majority of the population in poverty? Are you bothered by the idea that you are paying more in taxes so that the U.S. can act as a safety valve for the rich families that run the Mexican government?

If you're paying more than 14%, then you're paying more than the richest man in Mexico. His government wants him to keep as much of his wealth as possible, even if it means no services for the poor. But that's okay -- you don't mind paying for his share. Do you?

How long would that government last if we weren't providing the escape valve for the desperate people in that country?

[Cybergata]

419. I live in New Mexico...

which is actually been a part of the United States since U.S. troops occupied it in 1848. We haven't been part of Mexico since the U.S. occupation. I live in the same country as you do. I'm even a registered Democratic voter and have voted since 1972. I've given you plenty of my opinions, and have not received one convincing reply addressing these opinions, so I'm done with this conversation.

[pnwmom]

448. You completely misunderstood me. I didn't think you lived in Mexico.

What I'm saying is that anyone in the U.S. who is paying above the lowest rates HERE is paying at a higher rate than the wealthiest people in Mexico.

Our U.S. taxes are being used to subsidize the poor in Mexico who come here because their own government is too starved for funds to help them. So all of us are helping Mexico to keep their tax rates low on their wealthiest people.

Does that seem right to you?

[Clarkie1]

469. Irregardless, immigrants are the main contributor to population growth. nt

[dorktv]

2. Because most of the rhetoric around the immigration debate is

"keep 'em out cuz their brown."

There should be a better system for allowing legal migration from those countries that have a large stream of people coming into the US though.

[pnwmom]

19. I've never seen any DU'ers say " keep 'em out because they're brown."

Have you?

[guruoo]

42. Make them prove it!

They can't, because it ain't happening.
I think there's some 'outside agitation' at play here,
don't you pnwmom?

[dorktv]

45. *looks at you*

[madokie]

95. listen to you

[guruoo]

112. Here....

Chill out, watch a video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17MrYEK8Org&mode=suggested&search=sting

[guruoo]

108. What's that supposed to mean?

[unlawflcombatnt]

159. Exactly

The proof is completely non-existent.

I think there's definitely some 'outside agitation' at play here.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[dorktv]

44. no, but the impression that many DUers have is that is exactly what

someone who is vocal about immigration is being.

[pnwmom]

55. But hasn't the Democratic party always stood up for American

workers? And so shouldn't the Democratic party be worried both about the effects of unlimited immigration AND about outsourcing?

[dorktv]

136. actually historically it was the immigration from the Eastern European

countries that helped create the labour movement in America. The Democratic Party has a long history with helping those who have immigrated to our country stand up for their rights.

[creeker]

146. Uhhh--Shouldn't that be "Legally" Immigrated?

[dorktv]

149. Not really. The rules were pretty lax before the 1920s on immigration.

If you were healthy, did not have a criminal background (like they really checked) then you were good to go.

And they only checked for things like TB or jandice...basically infectious diseases.

And in the 1800s becoming a citizen was incredibly easy...just had to sign a paper at the local courthouse.

[unlawflcombatnt]

169. Those are, in fact, rules

There definitely were rules then, and far more obstacles to immigrating to this country. We definitely had the ability to control immigration at that time. A trip across the Atlantic Ocean made it far more difficult to immigrate here than it is at present. There were far more limits on immigration back then than there are at present. As a result, we were never flooded with immigrants. It simply wasn't possible, due to the major obstacles there were to immigration at that time.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[dorktv]

183. The US Congress has always been able to set the laws regarding

immigration...and has.

http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigration_history.html

The current quota system dates from 1952.

[unlawflcombatnt]

192. But hasn't enforced them

Unlike back then, there's been only limited enforcement of immigration laws. And there's been essentially no enforcement of laws forbidding the hiring of illegal immigrants.

Laws don't help anything if they're not enforced.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[dorktv]

187. oh and in 1907 we had 1.3 million people coming into the US.

That is a bit more then the current amount which is around 300-500K.

[unlawflcombatnt]

193. A population Growth of 3 million/year IS too much

A population growth of 3 million per year is too much. We don't have the jobs to support a population growth rate that large, or the increase in labor force size that results.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[pnwmom]

233. The current amount is about 1 million legal, 500K illegal.

[unlawflcombatnt]

367. Annual Population Growth over 3 million/year

The numbers I've seen indicate a population growth of about 1-1.1% annually. Again, this is much greater than the population growth rates of Japan, Germany, Britain, France, South Korea, or any of the major industrial powers. It's also much higher than that of China.

Our labor force cannot continue to grow at this rate without greatly reducing the quality of life for most Americans, especially American workers who must compete for jobs with an ever increasing number of workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

197. Nonetheless, those who came through this process were here

legally.

[unlawflcombatnt]

161. Yes, they should

And that's what is so amazing about the apparent support for illegal immigration among the Democratic Party elite. Illegal immigration drives down the wages of their American constituents, and enables Corporate America to reduce labor costs and increase profits as a result.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[guruoo]

107. What impression is that?

Be specific.

[BlooInBloo]

127. I'm with YA! If they don't SAY racism is involved....

... then OBVIOUSLY racism is NOT invovled...

Sheesh.

[unlawflcombatnt]

173. If there isn't any tangible evidence of racism, then it's not involved

If you can't find a shred of evidence to support claims of racism, then it definitely is not involved. Then it becomes nothing but an "unsupported" claim, which is exactly what these claims are.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

154. No, no one is saying that on this board

It's just a straw man argument that keeps popping up. The only references to "brown-skin" come from those advocating amnesty and open borders. It's part of the language included in their false assertion that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a "racist," "bigot," "xenophobe," "white nationalist," or "white supremacist."

I've read over a dozen threads here that oppose illegal immigration. And I've never seen anyone say "keep them out because they're brown." Or anything like it. That's because nothing like that has been posted.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

157. Hmmm

I think there should be a better system for preventing illegal migration from those countries that have a large stream of people coming into the US.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

196. Please link to one post

where a DU'er says "keep 'em out 'cuz their (sic) brown".

I double dog dare ya.

[Critters2]

229. Do you mean most of the rhetoric around the issue on DU?

Are you accusing DU'ers of being racist?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

20. That might be it. We're all being painted with the same brush.

[greyl]

385. Thanks for understanding what I meant. :) nt

[Klukie]

304. Ding Ding Ding......

we have a winner. Immigraton is important to both parties for very different reasons. Republicans tend to view it in terms of race and profit, whereas Democrats tend to see it as an exploitation issue. One thing both parties tend to agree on is that this country can't sustain the levels of illegals currently pouring through the borders. Some on the left can't seem to seperate their overwhelming urge to be PC at any cost from the basic concept of doing what is best for our country.

[pnwmom]

399. Very good, succint post, Klukie.

Thank you.

[Critters2]

321. If you're talking about DU'ers

you're violating the rule against painting your fellow DU'ers with a broadbrush. Laws, rules, they're all just made to be broken, I guess.

[greyl]

337. I don't get it. ? nt

[Klukie]

352. Me neither....

I beleive that reply #3 was making the point that some democrats feel any anti-illegal immigration stance is racist because many republicans who are anti-illegal immigration are racist. Just because the two sides agree on the basic issue at hand doesn't nessecarily mean that they have the same reasons for coming to their opinion. I don't get why this comment was removed. I think it was a legitimate assessment.

[greyl]

383. My immediately previous reply

was posted before my other one was deleted. I'm shocked to find it deleted.
I think somebody must have caused a stink because they didn't understand what I said.

To the best of my recollection, I said "One reason is that many of the people against immigration are racist, and any non-racist valid reasons (for regulation) aren't given a second thought". Looks like all but one person understood me and didn't fly off the handle. ;)

[unlawflcombatnt]

389. I agree with your sentiment

Just because someone else opposes immigration because of racial concerns, doesn't mean everyone else who opposes illegal immigration is a racist. I think most making that claim know better, but play the race card because they have no other argument.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[greyl]

384. I'm not. Thanks a lot for your help. nt

[GrumpyGreg]

4. No,it isn't racist. They wouldn't necessarily need a visa--the Canadians

don't and many other countries don't.

It's just such an astonishing wave of people in such a short time that this country will have trouble handling it in the future.

It has nothing to do with race.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Yes it is racist.

"Is it racist to say that a person from Mexico should have to obtain a VISA to immigrate here, just like a person from Somalia, Vietnam, or Afghanistan?"

I'm looking at my map. It seems the Mexico is our neighbor to the south. I cannot find the border we share with Somalia, with Vietnam, or with Afghanistan. We ought to have a sensible fair guest worker program that legalizes the de facto system and brings it under normal labor regulations.

The 'flood of immigrants' is not destroying the economy. Globalization is destroying the economy. Our problem is not Mexicans coming in to take our jobs, it is corporations sending our jobs to places far away. The same mechanisms have also pretty well wrecked the Mexican economy along the way, increasing the numbers heading north across the border looking for some way to survive. You are being played for a fool with the usual divide and conquer game. Pay no attention to the hollowing out of our infrastructure and the pillaging of our treasury for the benefit of the elites, no fear Mexicans, they are different!

[pnwmom]

9. Mexico is a separate country. Why should Mexicans be allowed to

immigrate here in an unrestricted manner simply because they live across the border?

And talk to Californians about how illegal immigrants are not affecting the economy there. Corporations can't send construction jobs to another country, and illegals are heavily employed in those industries.

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. To answer your question:

NAFTA

[unlawflcombatnt]

200. NAFTA is not the fault, or the doing, of the American People

NAFTA was passed against the will of the American people by Corporate interests in Mexico and the United States. In no way is it the fault of the American people, and in no way should the American people be forced to accept lower living standards and wages as a result of Mexico's problems. That's why it is so important to stop illegal immigration. To make sure the American people don't pay the price of Corporate America's and Mexico's mistakes.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

175. I agree

And it is well documented that construction jobs, which have experienced the largest growth of any jobs under the Bush dictatorship, have seen a decline in wages due to competition with illegal immigrants.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[IndyJones]

265. Yes, please do. Because those of us in areas flooded with them see the

negative social and economic impacts - especially on our school system. So Cal just cannot continue to support 75% of them alone. And yes, they are taking jobs Americans want here. Construction is certainly not a job that Americans won't take.

[nofurylike]

10. very well said, Warren Stupidity. absolutely!! eom

[babylonsister]

13. Excellent, Warren Stupidity! The blame needs to be directed

at the corporations and our government who thought outsourcing was such a great idea. Cost saving for the corporations, devastating to others, including Americans, who relied on the jobs that have gone overseas.
Again, the distraction is ruling, instead of getting to the root.

[pnwmom]

16. We should be concerned about unrestricted immigration AND outsourcing

of jobs.

It's not an either/or situation. They're both important issues and both are seriously impacting American workers.

[IndyJones]

266. Completely agree. Both are important issues.

[Clarkie1]

14. If you think over-population is not a problem, you are kidding yourself.

Most of the population increase in the U.S. is from immigration.

I'm not saying we should not have any immigration, but it is amazing to me how this important factor in the immigration debate is seldom addressed. Mexico has an overpopulation problem, and it is being exported to America. There are many factors at work, but that is an important one which needs to be addressed by Mexico.

And it's not racist, it's just looking at the numbers of people. We have limited resources, natural and otherwise.

[pnwmom]

17. A half-billion Americans by 2050. The guest worker program

could balloon the population to that level, according to a report by FAIR.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_release3162006

"Washington, DC -- Sometime later this year, the 300 millionth American is projected to be born. If the current effort by President Bush and leaders of both parties in Congress to adopt a massive increase in immigration is successful, that 300 millionth American could witness the arrival of the 500 millionth American about the time he or she turned 44 years old, finds a new report published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The report, Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050, reveals that immigration policy decisions that are made (or not made) in Congress this year, could vary the size of the mid-century population of the United States by as many as 135 million people.

"Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050, authored by FAIR's research director Jack Martin and statistician Stan Fogel, examines four population scenarios for the United States over the next 45 years, based on various immigration policy choices. Because of decades of high levels of immigration, even a policy of zero net immigration - where incoming immigrants balance those leaving or dying - will still result in an increase of 66 million people, or about 22 percent growth, by 2050. On the other end of the scale, a de facto amnesty or guest worker program for the estimated 12 million illegal aliens now living in the U.S., coupled with a legal immigration policy that allows them to reunify with family members now outside the country, will push U.S. population to the half billion mark by mid-century and to about 1 billion by the end of the 21st century.

"The enormity of the consequences of the policies Congress is debating right now is not fully appreciated by them or by the American public,' said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "While the political leadership of both parties is focused on what policies are going to win them the votes of ethnic blocs in the next election, or garner campaign contributions from business interests that want cheap labor, they have given no consideration to what their decisions will mean for the future of this nation.

"A difference of 135 million people would affect every aspect of life for Americans of 2050," continued Stein. "Congress's actions on immigration this year will determine whether we have endless urban sprawl or a healthy environment at mid-century. It will affect access to, and the cost of, vital resources like water and energy. The size and make-up of the immigration flow will be a determining factor in whether America remains a nation with a solid middle class, or increasingly becomes a nation of haves and have-nots like much of the rest of the world."

SNIP

[unlawflcombatnt]

391. Thanks for this post

I especially like this part:

"While the political leadership of both parties is focused on what policies are going to win them the votes of ethnic blocs in the next election, or garner campaign contributions from business interests that want cheap labor"

It's these same business interests that provided the funding for the May immigration protests, and most of the money that goes into lobbying Congress to support amnesty and open borders.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Joanne98]

434. Here's a link to the world mapper...........

http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=17

Here's a map showing net immigration. Check out the US. We're blown-up more than anybody on earth. I don't know how to post pictures or I would. It's a shocker.

[pnwmom]

450. Thanks Joanne. What a great visual! I've never seen that before.

[PsycheCC]

460. Here's the picture.

I just learned how to show a picture. Practicing my new skill. :)





The link says the U.S. alone receives 37.1% of the world's net immigration.

[RagingInMiami]

22. There is plenty of room in this country

Have you ever driven through Texas? Been to North Florida? Nebraska? Oklahoma? Idaho? North Dakota? South Dakota?

New York, South Florida, Southern California and many places along the east and west coasts may be overpopulated, but there is plenty of open space in this country.

[pnwmom]

31. I don't think there's plenty of room for a half billion people in 2050,

or a billion people at the turn of the century, even if most of the immigrants went to the red states. Which they won't.

[Porcupine]

34. Yep, Huge tracts of California with no water and no people........

Could it be that people are reluctant to try and live an all mineral, no water, no income lifestyle?

The areas of the U.S. with water supplies and employment opportunities are populated. The reason that much of the Midwest has counties where the average age is over 50 is that there are no employment opportunities. Until rural incomes change over from farming grain to farming the wind and solar resources this will not change.

In the meantime, yes, overpopulation is a problem.

[DeaconBlues]

36. There's a reason that very few people live in most parts of South Dakota,

Nebraska, etc. These places are far from any resources, infrastructure, etc., that could support a large influx of population. And this isn't going to change any time in the foreseeable future.

That means that the places that are now crowded will become even more crowded by massive immigration. Saying that overpopulation isn't a problem because there is plenty of room in the country's wastelands is really oversimplifying things.

[Solo_in_MD]

37. An little to no infrastructure or resources. Where will that come from

espcially water.

[Clarkie1]

38. It's not simply a matter of enough room.

Although, as population continues to grow, that too will become a limiting factor. The most limiting factor is the water supply, and already in California the population is at a critical level. There is also the damage to the environment that overpopulation brings. It's not just a U.S. issue, it's a world issue, but Mexico must take steps to address the problem. That's the root of the immigration problem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. California has a water problem because there are no rivers there to draw

enough water from. This is explained very well in the movie Chinatown.:)

[pnwmom]

163. You're right. And many of those so-called empty states -- that some

posters say could be used to pack in a greatly expanded U.S. population -- have water scarcity problems.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

166. No one who cares about the environment, which is an issue that

most Democrats care about, would advocate that. Even if all that land had water or was arable, which it is not.

But suppose we sold off ALL the land to private developers. How long do you think it would take before unchecked immigration used up even that space?

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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

[unlawflcombatnt]

191. Well put

Our population is increasing faster than that of any other industrialized nation, including Japan, Germany, Britain, South Korea, and even China. Our population growth is 1.0-1.1% per year. None of the previously mentioned countries have population growth rates that high.

This information can be found at the CIA site, which shows economic and population statistics of most nations of the world. The site is at:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Information on individual countries can be found at the site above by clicking on that country's name.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[conflictgirl]

64. Based on that logic, emigrating to Canada should be easier then

After the 2004 election I was one of the many who looked very seriously into the option of moving to Canada. It is pretty difficult to emigrate to Canada and get citizenship. If you just show up there illegally and then apply for citizenship, there are penalties including being returned to your home country. In the EU, for example, I'm not clear on the ease of moving from one country to another. There may indeed be reciprocal agreements. At the present time there is no such North American reciprocal agreement regarding immigration rights. Maybe there should be.

If the U.S. has an obligation to accept all Mexican immigrants because we share a border, then by that logic Canada has an obligation to accept all US immigrants. And hey, if that's the way it goes down, that's great news for me, because I would more seriously consider moving to Canada again. As it stands now, without refugee status or more than $10,000 saved to move my whole family there, it's not a feasible option.

Yes, the problem of our weak job market is not the fault of immigrants. However, I don't think that means that we should have weaker immigration laws than other countries do, either.

edited because I left out a word

[LoZoccolo]

102. For having no right to tell people what goes on in their head.

See you in November.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. The OP asked.

I didn't just volunteer my opinion. I also pointed out a specific statement the OP made that I found rather peculiar. You tell me that the situation with respect to our Mexican border is the same as the situation with respect to Somalia and I might think that you have some sort of issue or reality disconnect with respect to Mexico, the United States, and Somalia.

[Yollam]

104. The flood of immigrants is just another form of globalization.

The effect is the same, since they work for the same pitiful wages here as Chinese sweatshop workers get. Controlling immigration is just one part of stopping the negative effects of Globalization (global enslavement).

[guruoo]

114. So how is losing jobs through foreign outsourcing different than losing

jobs to illegal immigration here at home?

[Warren Stupidity]

128. Well I am glad you asked.

I can't compete with an Indian software engineer living in India on a cost basis as the Indian standard of living allows the Indian software engineer to underbid me by a factor of 10 or more. Furthermore, as high tech increasingly relocates offshore, I face the same problem that factory workers in this country have faced for the last 20 years or so: the jobs aren't even located in this country anymore so if I want to compete for those jobs I may have to consider relocating, and most likely I will just have to change careers. Manufacturing jobs in this country did not disappear into the hands of undocumented workers, they went to China, to the Phillipines, to Vietnam.

Now consider the immigrant coming here. If the immigrant takes away a job from a domestic worker he does so with the a similar basic cost of living structure within the same market. I can compete directly with immigrant workers for the same jobs.

Of course some undocumented workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers who use their undocumented status to underpay them, so for this subset there is a level of unfairness in the competition. That however is a problem that can be fixed by normalizing a guest worker program and bringing the undocumented into the regulated labor market.

Under the banner of globalization our national economy has been raped and pillaged and shipped overseas. The globalists, realizing that there may be an uncontrollable level of discontent over the degradation of the economic status of workers in this country have trotted out the tried and true diversion: fear of foreigners newly arrived in this country. It's divide and conquer, pit one group against the other, and it works like a charm every time.

[guruoo]

129. The cost of living may be lower in India, but so

is the standard of living.

[bettyellen]

131. there is no subset in new york- they look to hire illegals so they can pay

less across the board.
in kitchens and construction sites pay has been cut 30-50% across the board and labor violations abound. they know they have these people by the balls. they'll live 5-6 to a one bedroom apartment, and keep their mouths shut. i know it's not everywhere, but in certain area, entire job categories have been taken over. and no, it's not fair. american workers individually and collectively are getting fucked over these businesses want everyone living in fear of losing their jobs and it;s working.

[pnwmom]

165. So, those of us who are living with the effects, like those with kids

in school districts that receive no extra funding despite high numbers of ESL students (one student in five, in my area), are just imagining things . . . or being influenced by divide-and-conquer strategies.

[IndyJones]

270. Couldn't have said it better myself. I love how people who don't live

in areas flooded with them can ignore the real problems those of us in flooded areas face - especially the education system.

But ask them to pay a special tax to help the border states pay for the flooding and they close their wallets faster than you can imagine. It's okay for OTHER people to pay the social and economic costs, but they aren't volunteering any of their personal resources to help the border states. The weather must be nice on those high horses.

[proud2BlibKansan]

406. No extra funding?

Got a link to back that statement?

[unlawflcombatnt]

167. Some agreement, some disagreement

I couldn't agree more that Globalization is destroying our economy. It reduces the demand for American labor. But along with that reduced "demand," labor "supply" is being increased by illegal immigration. In fact, 7 million of our 143 million jobs are currently taken by illegal immigrants, according to the New York Times. Does an additional 7 million workers added to our labor force suppress wages? Absolutely. According to economist George Borjas, immigration suppresses wages 4% annually, or about $1700/year per worker. That's an annual loss of aggregate worker wages of $242 billion per year. That's the estimate of the annual aggregate wage suppression caused by illegal immigration.

Certainly we should get out of NAFTA and demand that Mexico fix their corrupt government. But in no way should the American worker have his economic status lowered to accommodate for problems in Mexico. We can't fix Mexico. And we can't remain a dumping ground for the people they can't take care of. There is no reason why American living standards should suffer as a result of Mexico's problems.

Some claim it it "our" fault Mexico is so poor as a result of NAFTA. It is not "our" fault at all. The American people never supported NAFTA, and should not be expected to pay any price for its passage. It was never the will of the people. And we, the people, should not be forced to have our living standards lowered by Mexico's problems that resulted from the collusion of American and Mexican Corporate elites.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[TahitiNut]

170. Nonsense.

Treating human labor as a commodity is both morally and (technically) legally corrupt. Subordination of human labor to the polemics of "supply and demand" is exactly that. It's an inversion (or perversion) - the seduction of "capital is King" thinking. It's the kind of thinking that countries like Abu Dubai engage in. There is no lower underclass than a worker without voting rights - a worker who won't report violations of labor laws out of a fear of retaliation: deportation and loss of a job in an "employment at will" legal system.

But I've said this before to the same deaf ears. Paul Krugman agrees, as any reasonably intelligent person can read in "North of the Border" and "The Road to Dubai" if they're not so wedded to the bullshit.

Regarding the claim that that (illegal!) aliens (not "immigrants"!) are not depressing wages, that's more nonsense. Let's just review some 2005 labor statistics to get (perhaps) a better handle on this. The median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers was $651, with whites at $672, blacks at $520, Asians at $753, and Hispanics at $471.

The median wage for Hispanics is about about 10% less than for blacks in this country, 27% less than the median for all workers. I think it's naive in the extreme to think that Big Business hiring 11 million undocumented alien workers doesn't have a lot to do with this.

Is the force behind this travesty the insatiable corporatism running amok? Ubetcha. Have these same forces destroyed Mexico's economy? Ubetcha.

We need to export a solution, not import the problems.

[unlawflcombatnt]

177. Wage Suppression

"Regarding the claim that that (illegal!) aliens (not "immigrants"!) are not depressing wages, that's more nonsense."

I completely agree. I thought I should also post the real wage charts from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Real wages have been steadily declining since December 2002. Below is a copy of the charts from the BLS regarding real hourly and real weekly wages measured in 1982 inflation-adjusted dollars.



The above information can also be found at:

Real Hourly Wages: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000049

Real Weekly Wages: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000051


A decline in real wages is a solid indication of a surplus of labor. And a surplus of labor decreases wages. The addition of 7 million illegal immigrants to our workforce is definitely assisting in the wage decline.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Euphen]

281. Wages increased during the 90s and early 2000s according to your chart.

Has there been a significant change in illegal immigration since 2004?

[unlawflcombatnt]

424. Probably

Statistics on how many people have illegally immigrated here since 2004 are difficult to come by. It's always based on some degree of guess work. However, many observers have stated that the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. increased once Bush announced his "guest worker" proposals and his "earned amnesty" proposals.

I suspect there has been an increase since 2004, based on news reports of increased border crossing activity. There certainly is no reason to think it has declined, considering the increased prospects of guest worker programs and earned amnesty proposals being espoused by Bush. He's certainly sending a message to illegal immigrants that their chances of being able to stay in the U.S. have increased.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[greiner3]

215. Human labor as a commodity;

Hmmmmm. 11 million immigrants that are at risk for deportation because they lack papers. They accept less wages because they work less? Not as hard? Less skilled? Or because that is what the market will pay them. If all 11 million left tomorrow, the shock to the US labor market would shake the stock market and the money supply. Companies across the nation would face an inflation of wages because of massive under employment. Wages would rise as empty positions command higher and higher wages. Bonuses would be on a scale of yearly wages. Prices would spike because of less overall production and lost work hours because of not enough workers and extremely high amounts of training of the workers who follow the money back and forth.

No, it's not for a chunk of the immigrants vote that bush seems to be leaning against his base. We know it's not for humanitarian measures that bush is pushing for something less than complete return of all immigrants who lack their papers. It's the corporations, the military and the think tanks of both sides that know of the shock that 11 million people suddenly uprooted and forcibly deported. At least that is how I see it.

BTW, being brown, while not stated here or on the freeper site, IS a reason for the crap that is going on. Unfortunately, there is another reason that all this has given so many people a guttural feeling. You see, such a huge percentage of those 11 million that everyone is talking about is Catholic. The goddamn fundies see diluted voting results once all the immigrants receive voting privileges. Catholics may be somewhat conservative but they, as a group, are not insane like a certified fundie!

[Ksec]

421. No its racist to favor one over another like you are doing

You say its fine for one race to enter and destroy the lives of the already established race. (be it German, Scot ,Irish Americans who have been here for hundreds of years and built this country into what it is) Thats racist to deny the people that have been here a quality of life theyve built for themselves and their families.

[Old and In the Way]

467. I really find it odd that this is such a big issue with Republicans

just before the midterm elections. Why wasn't it a problem last year when they took money out of the budget to fund more border guards? Or the year before? Or the year before that? They surely could have passed any bill that would have put more assets guarding the border...but they didn't for 5 years.

So what's different now? They need an issue to run on, to supercharge their base. They've taken care of their wealthy patrons with lax enforcement for years, but they aren't enough votes there to keep Congress. So time to switch gears and play the rascist card against the bottom 3% who have no money or standing in our country.

No, I won't play into their political game. I will be happy to discuss the Immigration issue when Democrats take back control of Congress. That's when we'll see fair and meaningful legislation happen. I don't want to see government agents demanding to see the papers of all Hispanic-Americans in order to weed out some illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are here because it has benefited wealthy Republicans to have their cheap labor. They don't get to make political hay out of the problem they created.

[snappyturtle]

6. I don't think it's racist

I really have empathy for the Mexicans who come here to find work but, I have MORE empathy for people here earning less because of their immigration. If England were at our southern border, I'd feel the same way....has nothing to do with color.

Edit: noun verb agreement---yes, I passed the fourth grade!

[niyad]

8. I'm just wondering why so many of the people who are so alarmed by

the "flood" of immigrants aren't mentioning a word about the maquilidorasas--the companies sited in Mexico by various US companies that are too lazy, too cheap, and too indifferent to health and safety standards, to abide by US safety and wage standards. and I don't notice a whole lot of those same people being upset about all the american jobs that are being "outsourced" because american companies, again, are too f****** cheap to pay living wages and abide by health and safety regs.

[pnwmom]

11. I think you're wrong. Like most people who are concerned about

unrestricted immigration, I'm just as concerned about businesses who outsource jobs as a way to avoid American environmental, health and safety standards. Both tactics are promoted by big business as a way to increase their profits at the expense of American workers.

[Cybergata]

291. Whoooppieeee!

And Thank you for pointing this out.

[spag68]

12. immigration

Yes it is a serious problem, but it's the wrong question. the real question is why don't we enforce the law against the company's that break the law? How do you plan to move 12 million people anywhere? If you really want to do something urge the gov. to take a reasoned approach to the situation in it,s entirety, and not just throw bags of crap.

[pnwmom]

21. I agree that the root of the problem is the employers who choose

to employ illegals as a way to pay lower wages and benefits. And we should be enforcing those laws.

I'm not sure what bags of crap you're talking about, though.

[spag68]

27. bags of crap

that the rethugs throw at anyone who trys to make reasonable comments.

[Cleita]

15. Well for one thing, many of the accusations made about the

immigrants are basically untrue. Yet they are repeated even here on DU as if they were gospel. The allegations are race baiting any way you want to look at it. The RW wants us to scapegoat these people so we don't look too carefully at whom really is at fault here.

For instance illegal immigrants try to keep a low profile, so they are in fact very law abiding. They don't use our social services like it is alleged they do even though they pay taxes like everyone else because they don't want to draw attention to themselves.

They don't depress wages. Employers do. So why blame this on the immigrant? Legislatures have weakened the bargaining power of the unions starting with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1948. Also, legal immigrants also work for lower wages than Americans are willing to work for until they wise up and demand more, so it has nothing to do with illegal or legal immigrants.

I can remember when I was a young woman in the early sixties entering the work force and secretaries from Germany and England were resented by the American secretaries because they were willing to work for less than the American girls were. It's always been this way.

Depending on who you read at any given sometimes we are bursting at the seams and at other times we don't have enough workers to do the jobs. Basically, if there were no jobs for the immigrants they wouldn't come here. So who is telling the truth?

There is a simple solution. Raise the quotas to meet our need for workers and their need to work. But no one wants to look at this solution because they don't want to think of all those brown people coming here. I can't think of any other reason why everyone wouldn't want this solution, if they truly weren't thinking about race.

[pnwmom]

18. Why should "brown people" from Mexico be able to cut in front of

legal "black" immigrants from Africa? Or legal immigrants from anywhere?

"legal immigrants also work for lower wages than Americans are willing to work for until they wise up and demand more, so it has nothing to do with illegal or legal immigrants."

It has everything to do with illegal or legal immigrants. The government can use immigration LIMITS to prevent a market from being flooded with immigrants who are willing to work for less. Illegal immigration means unrestricted, limitless, unplanned immigration.

[Cleita]

23. Please explain how they are cutting in front of anyone?

If our country so desires to they can raise the quotas in Africa, Afghanistan and elsewhere to meet our need for low paid service workers, domestic help and seasonal farm labor. As a matter-of-fact all you immigrant whiners should insist on it if you resent the willing workers from our neighboring countries getting legal visas.

[pnwmom]

26. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with population statistics.

The guest worker program could leave us with a population of a half billion by 2050. (See post #17, above.)

When a person enters this country illegally, instead of waiting for an immigration VISA, they are entering this country in front of the person who is waiting to immigrate legally.

[High Plains]

40. You do realize that FAIR is a conservative anti-immigrant source?

And their half a billion people is a fever dream designed to scare people?

[pnwmom]

47. FAIR is nonpartisan. Immigration is not a liberal or conservative issue.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts a 400 million population by 2050 based on current trends alone. So a half a billion people hardly seems like a fever dream.

FAIR, a nonpartisan group, advocates:

that our immigration laws must be fairly and effectively enforced;
that the means exist to end illegal immigration by humane measures that are consistent with our democratic ideals and existing laws;
that immigration should not be permitted to undermine opportunities for America's poor and vulnerable citizens to improve their working conditions and wages;
there should be no favoritism toward or discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, or creed; that all admissions of immigrants come within a single, stable ceiling which is periodically reviewed on the basis of reasoned, explicit population goals for the United States;
that three criteria should guide selection of immigrants: (1) our fair share of refugees, with ultimate resettlement a key part of the program (2) our national manpower policy, and (3) concerns for reunification of nuclear families;
that the United States should not contribute to a brain drain that entices away the skilled and talented who are desperately needed in their homelands; we should meet our need for skilled professionals by training and retraining our own;
that the United States should make greater efforts to encourage population stabilization, economic development, and alleviation of poverty worldwide and especially in countries of great migration;
that the era of mass international migration to the United States as a solution to international problems must come to an end; problems of poverty and overpopulation must be vigorously confronted where people live, rather than postponing their solution by either the export or the importation of masses of people;
that determining its own immigration and population policy is the sovereign right and responsibility of every nation.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_aboutlist49f3

[High Plains]

141. FAIR is funded by ultra-rightists and racists!

Like the odious Scaife Foundation.

Here's what People for the American Way reported:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10844

And Public Eye, from Political Research Associates, lists them among the anti-immigrant groups.

http://www.publiceye.org/research/directories/immig_grp_undermine.html

They have lots of interesting buddies. Oh, and they were funded by the Pioneer Fund, those old eugenicist racists. Oops!

[pnwmom]

171. Ultra-rightists and racists like Sen. Eugene McCarthy?

As I said, concern about this issue crosses party lines. Being concerned about population growth, in the world and in the U.S., doesn't make you a racist. Looking at the Board members, I see people with backgrounds in population growth/Sierra club/Planned Parenthood, etc. Unchecked growth and the consequent damage to the environment is an issue for many Democrats AND Republicans.

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. You're kidding, right?

FAIR is as nonpartisan as Karl Rove is a decent human being.

FAIR has a large presence in Kansas. It is a VERY RW conservative organization.

[pnwmom]

401. It's the kind of RW org that's supported by people who ALSO

support Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club. And by reactionaries like Eugene McCarthy.

Yes, there are right wingers who support it, but that's because this is an issue that crosses party lines. People on the left and right are completely divided about it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

407. Your comparisons are not working for me

Sorry. FAIR is a VERY racist organization that has been repeatedly denounced here on DU. Your allegiance to FAIR, along with your thread title, speaks volumes.

[Cleita]

52. If you want real non-partisan statistics and reports on the issue

The Pew Hispanic Center is a better source, but you have to come to the table with an open mind, not just to validate your preconceived notions.

[pnwmom]

56. And who are you to judge my state of mind?

[Cleita]

60. Oh, I don't have to. Your own words pretty much

express your state of mind.

[pnwmom]

61. Which words show that I have more preconceived notions than you do?

[radwriter0555]

24. Because they're Native Americans. As the aboriginals to the American

hemisphere, they're entitled to certain privileges before more efforts are made to exterminate them, as has been done in the past.

They should be permitted a far more facilitated process to live, work and travel throughout the Americas.

[Cleita]

25. Yes, most of the immigrants are Native Americans and should

have rights as first people to live where they want to live.

[pnwmom]

28. They are natives of Mexico. The borders were set long before

they were born.

[Cleita]

49. You leave me speechless.n/t

[pnwmom]

53. Okay.

[radwriter0555]

68. They're no different than the native americans who still grace the north

american portion of the continent, except for the names of their tribes and their customs.

The native people of the Americas should be respected and revered and privileged and their rights should supercede those of the colonists who stole their lands, enslaved their people, slaughtered those people and forced them into tiny patches of land to live in poverty.

Now you want to deprive them of a means to further live and thrive.

[pnwmom]

71. Mexicans come from a mix of cultures, as U.S. citizens do.

[radwriter0555]

73. No. Mexicans are from Mexico and are aboriginal to the continent

unlike the colonists from other continents who arrived much, much later.

Mexicans are aboriginal just like the north American native Americans and as such should be endowed and entitled to migration privileges throughout the continent, since their people (until the european colonists arrived and installed their own borders) freely migrated throughout the hemisphere.

The Mexicans didn't have the luxury of advocates to install something like the Jay Treaty.

[pnwmom]

75. Spaniards colonized what is now "Mexico" and intermarried with Native

Americans and with Africans who were brought there. The Mexican population is a mix of these cultures and of those who have immigrated since then.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761576758

The people of Mexico reflect the country’s rich history. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire in the early 16th century soon led to widespread intermarriage and racial mixing between Spaniards and Native Americans. As late as the early 19th century, Native Americans accounted for nearly two-thirds of the population in the region. During that century, however, the racial composition of the country began to change from one that featured distinct European (Spanish) and indigenous populations, to one made up largely of mestizos—people of mixed Spanish and Native American descent. By the end of the 19th century, mestizos, who were discriminated against during three centuries of Spanish colonization, had become the largest population group in Mexico. Mestizos now account for about 60 percent of Mexicans.

During the colonial era, many Native Americans and mestizos adopted the Spanish language and were converted to Roman Catholicism, the religion of the Spanish colonizers. This has provided the country with a greater religious and cultural homogeneity than might have been present otherwise. The vast majority of Mexicans, about 90 percent, are Catholic and speak Spanish. Nearly 8 percent of Mexicans continue to speak one of many Native American languages, the most common of which is Nahuatl. In recent years, Mexicans have moved in large numbers from rural to urban settings; in 2003, 75 percent of Mexicans resided in urban areas, with half of those citizens living in cities of 100,000 or more.

SNIP


The history of Mexico revolves around the mixing of numerous cultural, ethnic, and political influences. These include contributions from several major indigenous civilizations, Spanish influences from the period of colonial rule, and a significant African heritage resulting from the slave trade of the early colonial era.

SNIP

[radwriter0555]

77. And?

I know the history of Mexico and the Americas quite well, hence my position that these are the aboriginal people to the Continent.

I choose to respect their heritage rather than attempting to find a way to diminish it.

The USA has plenty of room for a few people who want to try to make their lives better.

[pnwmom]

78. My children are also part Indian, but that doesn't make them entitled

to roam Mexico.

And illegal immigration each year is increasing by 50% the numbers allowed in by legal immigration -- an extra 500,000 added to the 1,000,000 we allow in yearly. Those aren't small numbers.

Unless you live someplace like North Dakota. Here in the Northwest, where one in five children is foreign born, we're feeling it.

[radwriter0555]

79. What are you feeling, exactly?

About all those immigrants?

[pnwmom]

80. The schools are feeling a great deal of pressure. Trying to educate

students who come here speaking 70 or 80 different languages is a challenge that many districts in western Washington face. Is your district facing that kind of challenge?

[radwriter0555]

82. Yes actually. My kid is in a public international school that's not

english only. The focus is on french, so her classes are in english and french; Next year she'll add italian to her class load... she's 13.

The school also teaches children who are german, spanish and italian, and teaches them in their native language as well as in french. The focus is on learning as many languages as possible to avoid limitations.

Learning to speak different languages is important in a society that can so easily migrate from one continent to the next inside of a few hours. The USA is bordered by spanish speaking people on the south and french speaking people to the north. Learning both languages is a very good idea.

[pnwmom]

85. Okay, but how many different languages are spoken in your district?

It has gotten harder here as more languages have been added. Operating an international school, with a focus on immersion in a few languages, is very different from trying to carry out a regular program with one in five students from families with scores of different languages. (We have a language immersion school in our district -- but the students who speak the "wrong" languages at home get shifted to other schools.) Not only do we have a challenge in the classroom -- we have a problem communicating with the one in five parents who lack English skills.

[radwriter0555]

86. Then increase funding for language studies in your schools. It's a global

world.

Offer free classes to teach the new parents english. The state / feds should pay for it. It's what other countries do, so that the people who immigrate to their nations can work and integrate.

Inclusion as opposed to exclusion.

Money? Who is going to pay for it? How about bush stops invading other countries, spending trillions of dollars on his oil co friends.

That's where you find your money.

[pnwmom]

88. Gee, why didn't we think of that? We should make Bush stop invading

other countries and give back the money we've spent in Iraq. That ought to solve the problems in our schools. In another twenty years or so.

But in the meantime, we're dealing with the challenge that the federal government has allowed to fall on the backs of the cities that are bearing the brunt of federal immigration policies.

I live in a "swing state" that is divided between mostly liberals in the west and mostly conservatives in the east, and can "go either way" come election time. We have a law that requires equalized funding across the state, with only small differences in school levies to account for higher costs in the urbanized areas. We can't just vote-in higher funding for our district -- no matter how many challenges we face -- the way residents of well-off cities in many states can do.

Something tells me that you live in one of those well-funded districts. Lucky for you.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

89. Her profile says she lives in France.

[pnwmom]

90. thanks, Starbucks. I just noticed that, too.

And France, as I understand it, isn't known for its liberal immigration policies.

I wonder what the average French person would think about this debate. Aren't most developed countries struggling with these issues?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

91. Here's what I found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5089744.stm

[pnwmom]

92. And there's the issue of the values at the heart of our culture.

This is a question that Europe is also struggling with. How do we maintain core "western" values in the face of continuing large-scale immigration, particularly from countries where women do not have the same rights that they are entitled to in the United States?

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-16T091908Z_01_ALL633524_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-EU-IMMIGRATION-20060616.XML

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Immigrants must adhere to European values if they want to settle in Europe, EU president Austria said on Thursday, stepping with tough language into a sensitive debate on how to treat the bloc's Muslim population.

"There are certain things that lie at the heart of Europe and if people want to be part of Europe they should sign up to these things. We all agreed on this," Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said after EU leaders discussed migration.

"It is very important for somebody who is coming to our countries to learn the language and sign up to the values, the human rights, the position of women, the rule of law. There is no compromise on this," Schuessel told a news conference.

SNIP

[radwriter0555]

93. You wanted to discuss if it's racist to deny mexicans opportunity

in the USA.

I have to say yes, the arguments you present are based on thinly veiled racism; racism and fear.

Your various arguments are based in fear; fear of other cultures, fear of competition, fear of not enough for you; fear of impact from language barriers and so on, and so forth. Every position you've taken is based on fear. I don't share those fears. I'm optimistic and open to new ideas.

I say that immigration policies should be based on inclusion and not exclusion, especially when the immigrants are your neighbors and when they're the natives to the continent.

It's a nice world out there... most of the people in it are nice, decent, kind, hard working people. I don't have a need to exclude anyone just because they're from someplace else.

[pnwmom]

113. I think you should be talking to your oh-so-open-minded friends in France

about this, rather than making judgements about people in the U.S. whom you don't even know.

[radwriter0555]

151. I lived in Los Angeles for more than 20 years up until July 7th, 2005.

My best neighbors in the world were the Real family, who I lived next door to for the last couple of years I was in LA. I cried when I told them I was selling my house. They cried too. My last favorite boyfriend before I married's last name was Gonzalez. My best friend who is coming to visit me in one month's last name is Villalobos. My best friend Jon's last name is Urquiza.

Just a small example of the culture I had the great privilege and joy to be exposed to while I lived in Los Angeles. I spent my time in the galleries seeking out the art of diego rivera and drinking up the wonderful day of the dead art that still thrives. I was also seeking out the antique oaxacan black pottery; I spent my weekends sitting for hours over taquitos down on Olivera Street with good friends, and out on Olympic at places most white people in LA don't know exist; Just wonderful restaurants filled with families and fantastic food. I know how California in its heart is part of the soul of Mexico, and I can't love Mexico enough. The jungles of the Yucatan near Puerto Morelos were my first choice when I was trying to decide where I wanted to spend the second half of my life. I decided against it simply because I don't do that well in the sun for long periods of time. I vomit when I'm in the sun too much, simple as that. Not pleasant. So, I decided on the french riviera, where we have a nice mild winter. After 20+ years of sun and heat 360 days a year, it's nice to have milder weather in the winter. Campeche, Merida, Villadolid, Playa del Carmen, Coba, they're all there for me to visit and vacation in, whenever I need my Mexico fix...

So if you want to compare notes it's pretty easy to tell who's spent more time with the Mexicans you're so scared of. I just spent about half my life with them, as friends, as family, as neighbors, as lovers, as sisters, as brothers. I have no quarrel with them. Every single family I ever knew has stories about their relatives who struggled to get to the USA just to make their lives a little better. They're all good, kind, decent people... they're the soul of mexico and a culture I'm very passionate about, because of their passion.

Veronica is a state lobbyist for private colleges. Her dad was a gardener. Her brother is doctor in Redding. Her brother is an architect. Her mom is a hairdresser. Her grandparents are still in Mexico.

Jon is an amazing artist who teaches college graphics at a design school. When I met him he was delivering pizzas, and kept bothering us for photographic work; His brothers are both architects. His mother made a fortune with Arco as an employee who used her stock options to buy LA real estate. Jon really doesn't have to work, you see. His mother left him 3 houses, paid for. But he likes teaching college kids. The family invited me to their mom's funeral when she died of cancer. I was the only non-family person there. We danced, sang songs, raised toasts and embraced the wonderful life she left behind.

Davie is a professional gambler. He makes his living playing poker, long before it was fashionable. His grandpa owned most of the san joaquin valley. They've been trying to declare his home a national monument because of the impact the original mexican owned ranch that was there.

My neighbors, the Real family... nice people. John is an xray technician at a local hospital. His wife works in the adminstration dept of a local LA bank. Their daughter is kind of retarded and is in a school for kids with special needs, but is as sweet and funny as the day is long in the summer. A LOVELY girl. Their parents live downstairs, the family lives upstairs. The parties they would throw would rock the whole nieghborhood and the food was to die for! They were awesome. John and I traded plants, gardening tips; he'd look after my house when I traveled. I couldn't ask for nicer, better neighbors. His nephew took my giant tortoise for me out to his farm when Boomer got too big for the yard, but I digress on good memories.

The bottom line is you're completely wrong.

[pnwmom]

176. While you spent your U.S. time in galleries, drinking up the art, and

attending parties and enjoying your wonderful friendships, other Californians were laboring in difficult jobs with salaries that were depressed because of illegal immigrants who were willing to work off the books with no benefits.

And now you sit there on the French Riviera, contemplating your travels and your upcoming vacations to Mexico, and tell Americans what we should do.

But you've never addressed the immigration issues in France. How many friends have you made among the Algerian immigrants? Do you meet many on the Riviera?

[Critters2]

201. As they say in France

Touche'!

[noamnety]

204. Hold on while I grab the ketchup.

Can't have a proper serving of Freedom Fries without that, can we?

God forbid someone should appreciate the arts, have friends, and travel outside of America.


(edit: directed at pnwmom)

[pnwmom]

212. All indications are that the poster has led a life of some privilege

while feeling free to criticize Americans who may be competing with illegal immigrants for jobs.

[noamnety]

225. Let's talk about privilege

The impression I'm getting is that you feel MORE entitled to have a decent job than someone else, because of some kind of birth right. You're entitled to live in a place with clean water, with decent jobs, etc. Other people who haven't been born into that sort of privilege shouldn't act like they are entitled to the same. They are supposed to stay in their own poverty stricken corner of the world, so it doesn't affect YOUR life.

To me, that looks ugly, and I hope I have it wrong in some way. I hope you feel like everyone's entitled to the same privileges you were born into.

I'm still very puzzled at your attempt to insult somebody by pointing out that they enjoy spending time with their friends, and I would love to hear what was your thought process behind throwing that out there.

*passes the ketchup*

[Critters2]

227. Those here who advocate tighter immigration regs

are concerned about working Americans, wage suppression, union-busting, etc. Hardly the vocie of privilege.

I believe everyone has the right to a decent job. But immigrants working for less than minimum wage make it difficult for anyone to have a decent job.

It's those who advocate loose immigration who seem out of touch with workers, and speaking from a position of privilege to me.

Do you have immigrants cleaning your pool, or watching your kids?

[noamnety]

261. "immigrants cleaning my pool?!!"

Why yes, because you know, when I think of immigrants, the first thing I imagine is "they should be my servants." Come on, are you serious? Please tell me that you are more capable than that of viewing immigrants as your equal, rather than somebody's servants. This is right up there with mocking someone for having friends, I can't even fathom the thought process.

To answer your question directly, I don't have a pool. I had immigrants watch my kid for me when I was in the Army Reserves when my husband had walked out on me and wouldn't pay child support. I couldn't afford a babysitter (I was on WIC coupons when she was young enough to qualify - always a sign of privilege!), my daughter was 3 years old, and if I hadn't shown up for work, I would have been AWOL. They weren't employees, though, they were just neighbors doing me a favor, as I would have done for them. No money involved - it was just the two days a month. And I reciprocated as best I could by watching their kids when they needed it, and running errands for them because I had a car that worked (sometimes). And they didn't rat me out to the landlord for living illegally in my apartment. (Once the husband walked out, I wasn't eligible to stay there, and any one of the neighbors knew it and had the power to turn me homeless overnight.) Does it make me someone you hate and resent? Should I have just gone AWOL and gone to jail rather than accept a favor I desperately needed from one of those "others" that talked with a funny accent? Try to understand this: we were equals, all of us struggling to survive on less than enough resources, and to get by we pulled together in solidarity with each other, regardless of nationality. Does that make me elite in your book?

That's the most ironic thing to me about sending our troops to guard against immigrants. If that had been my duty assignment, I wouldn't have been able to do it without the help of my immigrant friends.

At the time I was in the reserves, I lived in an area that was so completely filled with immigrants that when they did my 5 year update for my background check, they had to call me in to say they couldn't develop any references that were American citizens that knew me. The people in my courtyard spoke all different languages. I taught a Chinese woman how to drive, despite the language barrier. My daughter learned a little bit of Arabic (since forgotten) from the Jordanians who stole my heart. She was the little sister to the two Pakistani girls across the field.

I just don't get the anger over the language thing, because for me that's such an enriching experience, and it's one I have actively sought out for my daughter - even to the point of having a Deaf friend babysit her occasionally, because I wanted her to be exposed at a young age to sign language. Those who have kids in the public schools with foreign speaking students should be taking advantage of that and encouraging their own children to strike up friendships with those "others." Why wouldn't you want to expose your kids to other cultures and linguistics? Especially if you can't afford to travel to other countries yourself, don't deny your kids the opportunity to be exposed to their cultures. It will make them better people. Not everyone has that opportunity. People who are "privileged" enough to live in those all English-speaking neighborhoods you seem to long for don't have that opportunity. They're missing out.

So anyway, my daughter was raised for two years in Europe (family of 3 living on an E-4's salary - wooohoooo! again - privilege!), and then was raised for a few years in a neighborhood that was about 95% immigrants, and then (you may not want to read this next bit of ugliness) when I was still a single mom, we had a foreign exchange student, so my daughter was exposed to yet more foreigners with questionable English skills, living in her own house, no less.

My daughter is quite a mess from all this exposure to the wrong kind of people, as you can imagine. Her own English skills have suffered greatly because she was always being around people with substandard language skills. She barely squeaked by with a National Merit commendation. Poor girl had the roughest time auditing a college Spanish class when she was in 8th grade. Got stuck having to accept some award for her Italian skills by the local Italian cultural center in 10th grade. She's just finished up a year of Bengali lessons with a Fulbright scholar at her college. She's hoping to do an internship in Bengladesh next year.

Being afraid of immigrants is like being afraid of spices. It's like eating nothing but meatloaf and unseasoned mashed potatoes day in and day out. I love mashed potatoes, but good lord, sometimes a woman needs curry, you know?

[radwriter0555]

298. Ya know FERN, it's people like you that make me

proud to be a Liberal, Democrat, Feminist, Socialist.

Big hugs...

I have this recipe for chicken tikki masala that will make you WEEP! Lemme know if you want me to share!

[Critters2]

323. I'm not afraid of immigrants.

I am afraid of union-busting, which is the very purpose for immigrants to be in Iowa, Nebraska, and other areas where I've lived. How nice to know that a uniformed employee of the federal government--sworn to uphold the Constitution--thinks laws don't apply to her.

Show as much concern for American workers as you show for yourself and illegal immigrants. Then, I might be impressed.

[noamnety]

361. Veterans aren't American Workers?

The things I learn on this forum!

I have AS MUCH concern for American workers as I have for other workers. Your complaint is that I don't value American people ABOVE other people.

As to your other point, sometimes legal requirements conflict with providing for a family. I understand that firsthand. Anyone who didn't experience it firsthand should have figured it out from watching the Katrina survivors provide for themselves when FEMA would not. Unfortunately some people understood that when white people were "being resourceful" in getting supplies, but didn't understand it when black people were "looting." If a law conflicts with someone getting food and shelter, guess where my priorities are? Hence my feeling of solidarity with the immigrants, when they are doing what they need to do to take care of their families.

[stepnw1f]

427. Busted... Thank You.

I love DU.

[pnwmom]

236. Your utopian ideals are just that -- a fantasy. We can't solve the whole

world's problems, and everyone who wants to come here can't.

I agree with those who say that our government should take measures to prod/assist/support other governments to improve the lives of people in the places where they already live, so they don't feel the pressure to immigrate here.

[pnwmom]

253. Citizenship in the U.S. is my birthright, because I was born here.

I was fortunate in that respect, and I realize that. It was luck, not merit, that brought me here.

If I was born in France or Mexico, then French or Mexican citizenship would be my birthright.

As Jimmy Carter once put it, "Life is unfair."

Flame away.

[noamnety]

316. An acknowledgment of privilege is a good first step

Yes, for any of us born into the US, it was luck, not merit on our part, that we were born to parents that were living here. It's pure luck that we are born into whatever nationality or race we're born into (if you accept the use of race as an identifier. I would prefer to leave it out, but the OP asks why are they being called racists, so it's hard to avoid the term in the answer).

Jimmy Carter was being honest when he said "life is unfair." It is, of course it is. We aren't all born into the same circumstances. Some of those circumstances are physical things like birth defects, diseases, or being born into a village that has been environmentally ravaged by corporate policies that leave the residents living amongst carcinogenic toxins. And some of the circumstances are not physical, but socially constructed, like nationality and race.

I don't think there's anyone on DU or on right wing sites that would disagree with Carter's statement. The question is, what do you do with it? How does the knowledge that you were born into some element of privilege, and that's unfair, affect the ethics of your life? Do you just accept your privilege, knowing it's unfair, and that's where your morals are resolved? Do you use the statement "life is unfair" to justify treating people unfairly? Going back to the OP, I think that's why some people attribute some of the anti-immigration rhetoric as racist. If you are basing your ethics on privilege, or on birth right, rather than looking at all people as equal individuals entitled to the same rights that you have, it's unsettling - and not in a good way. To say that you deserve job opportunities that others don't, based on your race/nationality, is unsettling. Especially if you can recognize that it's unfair. Throughout so much of this thread I'm at a loss, honestly. This is another example of where you've lost me. I feel as if you're saying "My moral compass dictates that it is right and proper for me to have an unfair advantage over other people because I was born into it." And I don't know how to argue with that. Why isn't that racist? Is it because you acknowledge they have as much merit as people as you - even though you find that irrelevant to whatever rights and opportunities they deserve? Is it because it's more nationalistic than racist - and you don't see a connection between the two?

Personally, I'm more comfortable looking at who all the stakeholders are, and trying to assess what would be the ethical decision, if I rejected privilege/birth right as a factor in determining right from wrong. It's a very hard thing to do, as a person with some privilege, because it requires one to evaluate their ethics separate from the desires that stem from personal greed and fear.

On a purely philosophical level, immigration debate aside, I'd like to hear what your philosophy is when it comes to ethics. It doesn't seem to be the Golden Rule - do unto others isn't what you're operating under. Do you have a basic underlying foundation to your moral principles? Have you ever tried putting it into words?

[unlawflcombatnt]

366. My U.S. "Birthright."

I don't have any problem whatsoever with accepting my privilege and birthright of being born an American. There's nothing racist at all about that. Calling that racist simply defies logic.

We have an elected government that was elected to protect the interests and rights of Americans. That is their primary function. That's what we pay them for. I expect them to put my wellbeing, as well as that of my fellow countrymen, above those of the people of foreign nations, especially those who have broken the laws designed to protect American citizens.

Calling this "racist" is really a stretch. In case you've forgotten, this country is a mix of people of different races. We are united by our government, U.S. laws, and a desire to protect our own interests from those who are not Americans.

I'm really surprised at the level of anti-Americanism I'm seeing on this thread. Anyone who sticks up for the interests of American citizens is labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or white nationalist. Most of us here are not in favor of a One-World government as some of the amnesty/open borders advocates are, and as are most of the Right-Wing Corporatocrats. We're for protecting the American people first and foremost. And we're not for worsening the lives of Americans to benefit those illegally here, or to benefit Corporate America who exploits them.

I make no apologies for my "privilege" of being an American. It affords me certain privileges, as well as certain obligations. One of those obligations is to stick up for my fellow Americans when their economic interests are being threatened by Corporate greed, as well as to defend my fellow Americans for sticking up for their own rights themselves.

I still have no idea why the amnesty/open border advocates have so much sympathy for foreigners who are knowingly breaking our laws, and so little for their law-abiding fellow Americans who are being victimized.

I do put the interests of Americans above non-Americans. There's an old-fashioned, non-politically correct word for this.

It's called Patriotism.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[noamnety]

372. not Patriotism. Nationalism.

Patriotism is a willingness to sacrifice out of devotion to your country. You're not talking about personal sacrifice.

Nationalism is putting the interests of your own nation or culture above those of another.

Two very different things.

[Critters2]

218. Radwriter is French

This is all theory to him/her. S/he lives in a country with tighter immigration restrictions than this country--even if ours were enforced.

[radwriter0555]

274. I worked my ass off in los angeles as a stage hand for a good part of

those 20 years. After that I worked for a small local city overseeing the contracts which included landscaping, street tree trimming and maintenance, park maintenance, graffiti removal, and later on the street maintenance. I was out there every single day with one crew or another; The companies we contracted with were the best in the business and the proof is in the quality of work we were pleased to receive. Every single man on those crews was mexican or south american. In addition to that work for the city, I bought my own properties and rehabilitated them acting as a general contractor. I worked along side gardeners, landscapers, painters, laborers, masons, tile and brick layers and roofers and those guys all taught me the standards of their trades.

All of the contractors who worked for our city were union and we required them all to prove that all of their employees were legal. The stage and crew company I worked for paid union wages as well. In addition to all those jobs I was also a single mom.

I sit on the french riviera because I worked my ass off and destroyed my body with the physical aspects of the work I did. My joints are all riddled with arthritis, I've blown out my knees and my ankles. My hands are swollen with arthitic knots thanks to the hard labor I put in alongside good hard working people, who, like me, were just out trying to make a living. I wouldn't deny any of them a place alongside me, no matter where they were from, just as I wasn't denied a place because I am a woman.

I sit here on the french riviera because I earned it by working my ass off for almost 30 years and managed to figure out the right way to cash in and cash out. I would never, ever deny anyone from anywhere that same right. I dropped out of school and left home with $30 in my pocket.

As luck would have it, my best friend here is Rachel, originally from Tunisia. She's going to see her sister next week and invited me to go with, but I have that mexican friend of mine coming to visit... Is Tunisia close enough to Algeria? How about my friend Zora? She's hysterical and has a wicked sense of humor and she's from Morocco; she invited me to her sister's traditional muslim wedding in August in Cannes La Bocca... would you go?

Let's remember the focus of the dialogue here, it's about you. You're the one with the issues and the fears. You wanted to know if you're wrong.

And yes, you're still wrong.

[pnwmom]

285. Based on your posts, I'd have to say the focus is on you.

[radwriter0555]

297. You're wrongly judging me and making assumptions about me and being

quite rude towards me -- for reasons I'm not clear on. I have found however that rude people tend to be unhappy and for that, I'll excuse your behavior. I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

I've been on this board since it first began, and this is the first time in those 5+ years that anyone has ever, ever been so rude towards me and made a dialogue so very personal. I usually only encounter such behavior from republicans. Most people are much better behaved.

The only purpose I serve in responding to you is to negate the allegations you're making about my personal business. I don't allow negative innuendo about my personal character to stand unchallenged.

I've tried to re-focus the discussion back to your original premise, but since you've been soundly spanked on that it appears that your sole purpose at this point is to try to put me down.

Go ahead. say what you want, everyone is watching your actions; mine are just fine.

I've just finished up cooking off a custard base for a coffee flavored ice cream I'm developing for a friend of mine's restaurant, and it has to cool down until I can put it in the ice cream maker to continue processing. I'm going to go make a nice chicken salad sandwich with some fresh tomatoes off my own little vines on my terrace; relax, put my feet up and have a cool glass of rose wine.

I won't be asking anyone if I'm wrong about it either. I'm perfectly secure in who I am, what I believe in, and how I express it. I'm a liberal, democrat, feminist, socialist and I sleep real well at night representing those values. I don't need anyone to agree with me so that I feel better.

[High Plains]

317. Aren't there rules against personal attacks on DU?

This is pretty low stuff.

[Critters2]

325. What personal attack?

Saying, correctly, that someone lives in France is a personal attack? Sacre' bleu!

[guruoo]

242. Again, why can't "they" do these things in their own countries?

It's like my neighbor demanding to move in
with me because they let their own property
go all to hell.

[noamnety]

262. Yes, why CAN'T they do these things in their own country?

I'd love to see you give an HONEST answer to that. You're blaming them as individuals for the economic status of their entire country. If you're going to do that, you should blame yourself for the state of the economy here. Fix that, will you?

[guruoo]

267. I do blame myself, and my fellow Americans for the state of our economy...

But you won't see me running out on the problem,
or burdening the citizens of other countries with
my problems.

[guruoo]

271. If I knew the answer,

I wouldn't have raised the question.
Why can't they work to fix their own countries like
we're working to fix ours?
I know, it's a tough question, so you just take your time.

[unlawflcombatnt]

346. Concern About Wage Suppression from Illegal workers is legitimate

"Your various arguments are based in fear; fear of other cultures, fear of competition, fear of not enough for you; fear of impact from language barriers and so on, and so forth."

Fear of "competition" and fear of "not enough for you" are completely legitimate. There is no reason American workers should have to compete with illegal workers for wages. It reduces what American workers make, while increasing what their affluent employers make in profits.

This country has laws designed to protect Americans from just such competition. There is no defense for not enforcing those laws and protecting American workers from wage suppression caused by the illegal labor supply increase resulting from illegal immigration.

I, too, grew up in Southern California. And I've had extensive contact with Hispanic Americans. My first wife was a (legal) Hispanic American. I have many friends who are Hispanic. I have no problem whatsoever with Hispanics who are legally here. I don't "fear" them or despise them.

In contrast, I do not approve of those who have broken our laws and illegally taken jobs from Americans. They have illegally suppressed wages and illegally reduced American employment. They have allowed employers to pay less than the market rate for labor, forcing Americans to work for less than they otherwise would have.

I mainly fault the illegal employers for breaking the law , and our Corporatist government for not enforcing the law. Though I sympathize with the plight of the illegal immigrants, I do not condone their activity either. Though the comment that "they are only trying to better their lives by coming here" is true, it is also true that they are worsening the lives of Americans who must compete with them for jobs.

I suspect your attitude is consistent with being a socialist. But it certainly is not consistent with being an advocate for the American worker. Your position amounts to encouraging illegal immigrants to come here to better their lives, while worsening the lives of our fellow Americans. With this I strongly disagree. The function of a country's government is to protect the citizens of that country, not those of a foreign country. And American workers have every right to expect the American government to protect them from wage suppression resulting from competition with every other worker on the planet.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

347. Tell it to the French government

who, you may have noticed, just tightened immigration laws there.
So, dites-moi...what's it like, living in a glass house?

[radwriter0555]

390. The french government is still part of the EU which allows migration of

fellow EU citizens between their various EU states. While still a new concept and growing and evolving it works very well for the people. It's changed everything for the irish economy, nation that opposed it the most. The migration of the polish laborers has effected a big, big economic change that they're very pleased over.

A north american union comprised of the USA, Canada and Mexico is something I have advocated for many years now.

And yes, I know france hasn't signed the UN constitution yet. That's not part of the discussion.

[Critters2]

409. The new law, as I understand it,

and I've looked at both French and international info sources, would keep out immigrants from countries which are former French COLONIES!! It seems to me that France has an obligation to help those nations whose resources it plundered and in whose social structures it interfered.

But you're glad the Polish can go to France and get work, while the Algerians are kept out.

Who's racist now?

[radwriter0555]

413. Well you should go to a discussion board on french politics and bring

that up then.

The topic here however is the racism and fear so many of you have of the aboriginals to the north american continent.

That American culture deserves all the protection that can be rallied.

[Critters2]

416. "You"?

So you admit you aren't part of "us". You're just here to accuse "us" of racism which you have not been able to document.


Besides, it's no more appropriate for me to tell the French how to run their country than it is for you to tell us how to run ours.

But, I do want to thank you for the proud statement of how your kid goes to a school that doesn't teach only in English--IN FRANCE. I'm still laughing about that! Just precious! Thanks again!

[radwriter0555]

420. I am an American. I'm not french. I know little to nothing about french

politics at this point; I've only been here a year. You see, I'm an immigrant from the USA; I married a frenchman.

I can discuss US politics because I am an American; I don't know what makes you think I'm not.
I was born and raised in the USA. I still do some business in the USA. I don't like doing business there, I encounter far too many racists, homophobes, xenophobes, hypocrites and republicans for my taste, but business is business and I restrict what I do there as much as I can until I become more versed in international finances.

I don't make any pretense to know much about french politics. I am pretty well versed in US politics, however and I sure do know a lot about republicans. They don't seem to be very honest, or smart, or ethical or honest. They tend to be mean, bullying, condescending, snarky and racist. They're also not very good at staying focused on issues or perhaps they just intend to divide people and create problems among people who would normally be united on important domestic issues. I know I sure don't like republicans for a lot of reasons, which is why *hello* I participate Democratic Underground. Republicans are a big reason I elected to leave the USA for the time being.

I didn't bring up french politics and I haven't discussed french politics with you or anyone else. I don't discuss things I know nothing about. You seem to know a lot more about french politics than I do, and apparently my suggestion that you, as an individual participate in a discussion about it with someone else or someplace else was completely misunderstood. I hope you understand it much better now.

The school we go to doesn't teach only in english and french. It teaches in italian, german and russian as well and it's a public school. The US could learn a lot from the french... their social network is really good; the nationalized health care has been very accessible and easy to manage. The people are nice, the food is great and our business is doing really well.

I don't know what your problem is, but I hope you work it out. Good luck.

[Critters2]

425. I still say it's the height of hypocrisy to boast about how great

the French are in their treatment of immigrants, while compaining about the USA on this score. You have chosen to live in a country where it is ILLEGAL for a Muslim schoolgirl to wear a hijab to that public school you send your kid to. When riots broke out among French-born young people last year, the government blamed it on their nationality--most were second or third generation French, thus not REAL French in the eyes of your government. They were, however, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from former French colonies.

I know of no public school district here where children of any religious tradition are not allowed to wear the symbols of their faith. Such discrimination is certainly not federal law, as it is in your country.

Please don't tell me how much we have to learn from France. I studied in both Grenoble and on the Rive Gauche. I went to France to get to know the French, to live in their culture. I speak French. I know France. Someone said you live on the Cote D'Azur? Is that right? If so, I challenge you to visit areas of France with fewer tourists, places like the suburbs of Paris where the riots took place. I also challenge you to learn about French politics. You've chosen to live there, so really live there. Don't just stick a toe in, jump in and really familiarize yourself. Until you do, you are in no position to talk about how much better it is than the states. Try this little experiment....put a scarf on your little girl and send her to that good, liberal public school. Let me know how that goes.

Finally, I defy you to link to a single post where I have said anything about protecting American culture. I'm concerned about the effect of illegal immigration on union jobs, minority workers, and others who simply can't bear to have their standard of living lowered any further. I worked hard against Iowa's English only bill. I chose to stay and fight the REpublicans, and their corporatist labor tactics. You've chose to leave. You are in no position to lecture me.

But, if you can find one post that I've made stating that I want to protect American culture against the aboriginals, please post it. If not, fermez ta bouche!! Need me to translate that for ya?

[radwriter0555]

438. You're terribly rude and need to mind your manners. Please stop stalking

me, attacking me and saying such nasty things.

You're just not a very nice person.

Ick.

[Critters2]

446. Ah, oui. Mais pouvez-vous dire ca en Francais?

At least I haven't left my country, and then, from afar, advocated policies that will cost American workers jobs and a decent standard of living. How nice is that?

And I'm not stalking you. I keep opening "My DU" to find responses from YOU! Qui suit qui ici?

[Critters2]

426. The school we go to doesn't teach only in english and french.

"The school we go to doesn't teach only in english and french. It teaches in italian, german and russian as well and it's a public school"

But no Arabic or African languages, huh? Don't you find that, umm, interesting? And by interesting I mean racist.

[radwriter0555]

437. They aren't part of the local population. Should they hold classes in

empty class rooms?

The overwhelming majority of the people that this school serves are english, french, italian, german and russian.

The arabs and africans that are in the school speak english and or french as their primary language, and there are a lot of them... my daughter's best friend is from Africa. She'll be going to Africa in august with her friend for part of the holiday.

Where's the racism?

[greiner3]

221. I go to a community college here in Columbus Ohio;

And the college advertises that there are students from over 100 countries in attendence. I'm not sure of the number of languages, however I've met students from the other 5 continents so far and while I'm terrible in linguistics (right-brained) I can make out their accents and help withunknown words. Heck, I'm 49 and I'm learning Spanish. I wish I could have learned other languages when I was a teen or younger. It is my impression, from reading, talking to senior citizens and observing life, that these immigrants may not learn the English language. BUT their children will and these new citicens will be the best damn Americans that they can be. Bigots be damned!

[Critters2]

223. Okay, this makes me laugh until it hurts...

"My kid is in a public international school that's not English only" The kid is in a public school in FRANCE!!! And it's not English only! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

468. We spend a billion a week in Iraq. That's why we can't educate our kids

properly. The allocation of money and the Republican agenda are creating class conflicts. Lets blame the 3% poorest in our society for why our education budgets are getting busted.

[Critters2]

216. Cortez was Mexican?

I don't think so.

[guruoo]

240. Why can't "they" work to better their lives..

in their own countries? You know, like
we've been struggling to do here in the US?

[Critters2]

222. Pourquoi ont-ils ces noms Espagnols?

For those who are not Radwriter...How'd they get those Spanish names?

[unlawflcombatnt]

251. Yes, they are different

They live South of the U.S. border, where they are free to live and do as they please.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[misanthrope]

360. Be careful with this line of thought...

...Pre-Columbian Americans didn't enjoy nearly the mobility we do now. If you left your tribal lands and wandered onto those of another tribe, there was always a decent chance you wouldn't make it out alive. Resources were protected fiercely then.

[proud2BlibKansan]

143. And African Americans were slaves long before the ones living today

were born. So let's make them all be slaves again!

[Critters2]

202. Please post a link to any place where a DU'er has advocated

what you're accusing people of with this post.

Thanks!

[guruoo]

133. So it's whatever works, right?

:sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

247. Cool! I'm a'gonna exert my rights as 'first people' to live in Ireland.

It may not seem fair to some, but when a country is created, the people on this side of the border belong to this country, while those on that side of the border belong to that country.

The fact that the countries prospered to differing degrees does not mitigate this.

BESIDES, in my area, the demographic group which suffers the most from unlimited cheap labor are native americans.

[Critters2]

249. Here's my plan

First, I get Poland to give Pomerania back to Germany, then I tell the Germans that I want the part of it that my ancestors used to own.

They'll be cool with that. I'm a "first person".

[Cleita]

260. Actually, Ireland would take you back.

Haven't you heard there is a reverse immigration going on? Decendents of those Irish who left during the potato famine are going back to Ireland to live and work as there are more opportunities now.

[pnwmom]

272. Actually, Ireland wouldn't.

The reverse migration consists primarily of people who actually came themselves to the U.S. and are now going back home. Not descendants of those who left during the potato famine.

Ireland used to have a program where it was relatively easy to become a citizen if you had a grandparent who was a citizen, but the program is much more limited now.

[radwriter0555]

322. The italians and french are doing it too. If you can show heritage, you

have the right to become a citizen of that country under the EU... which then allows you to live and work anywhere in the EU.

It's very, very civilized.

[jerry611]

30. What alternate reality are you living in?

I don't care whose land this was 600 years ago. Wars were fought and they lost. Whether they were just or not is moot at this point an irrelevant. This is how civilization has worked for 6,000 years. We and the Mexicans signed a treaty in 1848 that establishes the current US-Mexican border.

They have no right or any claim to any land that is part of the United States. And no, they do not get special privileges. They should be treated like anyone else that wants entry into the US. Everyone is equal.

[radwriter0555]

70. Some are more equal than others.

In the new alternate reality.

[Critters2]

219. You mean France?

[Critters2]

333. You mean like this new immigration law in your own country?

I trust you're bitching about this with your government....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2342863#top

[Starbucks Anarchist]

74. Exactly.

You can't claim discrimination and then turn around and advocate it.

[Critters2]

226. The alternate reality where radwriter lives is called "France" n/t

[Binka]

296. You Sound Jealous

<ignore>

[datasuspect]

it's actually kind of retarded and very rw sounding

why in the name of zod would someone rag on a person for living in france? it's not that funny of a joke, unless you're one of the limbaugh crowd types.

[Critters2]

326. What I'm ragging on

is that this person makes herself sound so righteous, complains about Americans who are working to protect union jobs, all the wile living by choice in a country which just last week passed one of the most restrictive immigration laws in the world.

I'm ragging on a person who bragged that her kids attend a school which doesn't do all of tis instruction in English, while failing to mention that that school is in France!

I'm ragging on hypocrisy.

[radwriter0555]

405. You also use the slam that the "french don't take showers...."

...

[Critters2]

411. They don't

A fact is a fact.

[radwriter0555]

412. No sweetie, it's not a fact. It's a right wing hate radio belch of gas.

..

[Critters2]

430. How would you know?

You keep claiming you don't know many French. Even the French laugh about this. And I don't listen to right wing hate radio, so I have no idea what they say. I listen to French language radio via my shortwave. You see, I speak French.

[pnwmom]

357. If you read the posts it might be clearer.

[Critters2]

324. I've been to France several times

I prefer neighbors who take showers. But that's me.

[noamnety]

408. What's with all the French bashing?

It's an interesting choice of debating tactics in a thread where you're trying to convince us you aren't xenophobic.

[Name removed]

410. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

414. Do you think it's xenophobic

to say that French people don't shower?

I'm obviously too "stupid" to see the clear connection between immigration policy and your opinion on whether the French are dirty or smelly. Enlighten me.

[Critters2]

415. I take it you've never been to France

And no, I don't think it's xenophobic. Even my French friends--and I have quite a few--complain about it.

And then there's this...*ignore*

[noamnety]

418. So saying foreigners smell bad isn't xenophobic?

Alrighty, then.

And you brought the issue up because it relates to immigration policy ... how?

[Critters2]

447. Again, and try to pay attention this time..

I find it hypocritical to leave a country because you're wealthy enough that you can, and, from that safe distance, advocate polcies that will hurt working class and minority Americans. All the while not learning the language or culture of the country you're in.

Hypocrisy is just a concept you're not familiar with, is that it?

And again, my undergrad degree is in French language and literature, and European history. Funny choices for a xenophobe, n'est-ce pas?

[stepnw1f]

429. You Notice the word "french"

being used to attack rad?

[Igel]

145. That's being rather arbitrary.

Should Inuktitut have rights to land or citizenship in Mexico?

Cree to land in Brazil?

Aymara to territory in the Navajo Nation?

Or even Yemenis to citizenship in S. Korea?

And do they have the rights as a consequence of domination by people of mostly European-origin, or did they have the rights in 1491?

Your answers must be 'yes, yes, yes, yes, and "obviously in 1491".' I'd like to see the arguments for that. They'd be amusing.

"Western hemisphere" isn't the appropriate division. We could just as easily argue that the aboriginal San have rights to live in Saami territory based on that: Both in the same hemisphere, after all. Or decide that European aboriginals have a right to N. America because both Europe and N. America are in the northern hemisphere.

They have rights to their homeland, which I'll rather arbitrarily take as 'the territory they inhabited when all the internal warfare and migrations were squelched by outside domination, as modified by later fair treaties'. It seems to be the rational used by most people, and it's reasonable.

[guruoo]

116. No, the ultimate answer is for the standard

of living, and/or civil rights to be raised in the immigrant's home countries.

[pitohui]

29. it's a cheap way to shout down people they disagree with

i don't think any reasonable person can dispute what you say

unfortunately, the GOP profits by having an endless supply of slave labor and cheap labor, and they have been very successful at getting extremely naive "liberals" to parrot their party line

never forget, it is reagan/bush policy to undercut labor by having an endless flow of mexican immigrants, it is NOT a good sound pro-labor or democratic policy

don't buy the idea that is a DU or democratic platform to promote this nonsense

it is a GOP plank not a democratic plank

i do not think all posts or memes on this topic are well-intentioned either, there would be a better balance between those who are just naive and those older folks who remember the democrats as the party for labor if it were -- i honestly believe we are seeing some astroturfing going on

be v. critical of anyone who tries to shut you up by calling you a racist

[Cleita]

54. If if looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,

chances are it is a duck. No amount of protesting that it isn't a duck isn't going to change the fact.

[pnwmom]

57. A meaningless cliche, in this context.

[Critters2]

228. So you're calling DU'ers racists?

I just want to be clear.

[Cleita]

239. To be absolutely clear,

The DUers who follow the liberal and progressive path are NOT racist.

[Critters2]

245. To be absolutely clear

how do you define "the liberal and progressive path" in regards to immigration?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

417. Gee--no response. What a surprise.

Simplistic minds with narrow views...It's sad that so many extremists believe their stance on this issue has anything to do with Progressivism or holds the key to "progress" in this country...

[Critters2]

436. I noticed that.

I'm still not clear what the progressive path is.

[greyl]

387. I recommend that you chill out a little bit.

You are being hypocritical to complain about people jumping to the "racism!" conclusion while doing a similar thing yourself. I think you're jumping to unwarranted "accusation of racism!" conclusions.

[The_Casual_Observer]

32. How about this, it's been going on of 100 years and all of a sudden

it's a crisis. It a crisis because Nov 06 is right around the corner. I couldn't give a shit about it.

[jerry611]

33. It has been a crisis for for many years, it has been ignored too long

And it keeps getting worse...

[pnwmom]

39. More than 1/3 of ALL American immigrants EVER came since 1970.

This IS a flood.

"Since 1970, more than 30 million legal and illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S., representing more than one-third of all people ever to come to America's shores."

http://www.cis.org/topics/currentnumbers.html

During the 1990s, an average of more than 1.3 million immigrants — legal and illegal — settled in the United States each year. Between January 2000 and March 2002, 3.3 million additional immigrants have arrived. In less than 50 years, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will cause the population of the United States to increase from its present 288 million to more than 400 million.

The foreign-born population of the United States is currently 33.1 million, equal to 11.5 percent of the U.S. population. Of this total, the Census Bureau estimates 8-9 million are illegal immigrants. Other estimates indicate a considerably higher number of illegal immigrants.

Approximately 1 million people receive permanent residency annually. In addition, the Census Bureau estimates a net increase of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually.

The present level of immigration is significantly higher than the average historical level of immigration. This flow may be attributed, in part, to the extraordinary broadening of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. Since 1970, more than 30 million legal and illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S., representing more than one-third of all people ever to come to America's shores. . . .The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth.

[noamnety]

263. I thought you didn't have a problem with legal immigrants

but now you're talking as if the legal ones are part of the problem. (The problem being that EVERYONE wants a job that supports their families.)

So which is it? You oppose all immigration? Or you welcome the 24 million (or so) legal immigrants that came since 1970?

[pnwmom]

286. Immigration is 50% higher than planned for because of illegal

immigrants. I don't oppose all immigration -- our birth rates are low enough that we can accomodate a significant amount of legal immigration. But we don't have unlimited resources and it should be up to our government -- after careful study -- to decide how many more people we allow in.

[WinkyDink]

109. Exactly. Another Republican red herring non-issue.

How about this one as a referendum: "Should gay illegal immigrants be allowed to stay here and marry?"

[pnwmom]

120. It may be an non-issue to people in Bethlehem, PA,

which is not exactly a hotbed of immigration.

It is an issue to people living in the cities that are heavily impacted by it.

[High Plains]

138. Are you profiling everyone who disagrees with you?

And you have the moral authority to speak to this issue because...you live in Seattle?

Do you even know what the immigrant population of Bethlehem, PA, is?

[pnwmom]

179. I guessed that it is easier for people who live in places with practically

no immigration to think that it is a non-issue. And so I profiled you and . . . in your case my guess was right.

I have no moral authority because of being from Seattle. But I do have EXPERIENCE. One in five of the children here come from families where English isn't spoken at home. It's a challenge that schools in Bethlehem do not face.

And yes, before I said anything, I checked the Bethlehem demographics. As you probably know, your population is overwhelmingly white and native born.

[proud2BlibKansan]

144. Only if they speak English

and sign abstinence pledges. :)

[PsycheCC]

231. Talking about red herrings, this common attempt at linkage between

opponents of illegal immigration and opponents of gay marriage is complete nonsense.

[Klukie]

306. Even if it is a Republican red herring non-issue........

choosing to ignore it allows them to define it. Are you okay with that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

258. In 1990, there were 4.9 million mexican born residents in the US

In 2003 there were 9.2 million. Today there are 12 million. That's exponential growth.

In 1970, 4.8% of the population were foreign-born, today it's 11.7%.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf

[The_Casual_Observer]

280. Population growth is generally exponential, so what?

[pnwmom]

284. Our country and the planet can't support exponential growth forever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

314. You said that the problem is of no greater magnitude than it ever was

This is untrue.

The US population as a whole does not double every decade, but the foreign born population is - it is a (the?) primary contributor to US population growth, and has caused havoc with the earning prospects of low income americans.

[Patsy Stone]

35. This mostly about working here

not immigrating here. There are long and legal ways for people to immigrate, and some easier than others if you are a professional with a job waiting.

There is an economic crisis in Mexico, which causes the common man to get up each morning, run across the border in the dark, and return to the wife and kids at night. If their situation in Mexico could be made better, they could wait for the visa to come, working at a good job in Mexico, and move legally when their time came. There would be no need to them to risk the Minutemen everyday to get to work in a field picking something.

Case and point: Canada. Where is the problem of hoardes of Canadians crossing the border each day, risking life and limb?

How many people are trying to get out of Mexico legally and have applied through Mexico's visa system? I don't know the answer, nor do I know how many immigrants (and from where) we allow in by lottery each year.

The problem needs to be tackled by dealing with the economy of Mexico. In the interim, however, I don't think it's wrong to be concerned with "unrestricted" immigration, but this is not unrestricted. They're coming for one thing, and most don't care to stay.

This, then, creates problems with the economy here because the economy is tanking and there are few new jobs. This is when the president takes notice. As Carlos Mencia said on Countdown after *'s little immigration speech:

CARLOS MENCIA, COMEDY CENTRAL: Thanks, I'm here in the eye of the storm! The immigrants are crossing behind me. I feel like I just watched a magic show where all this really important stuff is going on that's really more important than what we're going to talk about and the president was like, don't look at the elephant. Look at the immigrants. Ignore all that stuff. Look at the immigrants. It was amazing.

[AndyTiedye]

41. Raise The Minimum Wage and Organize the Workers

Don't help the Rethugs play one set of workers off against another.

Having all of these "illegal" workers is what is destroying our labor movement.
Not the fact that the workers are here, the fact that they are "illegal", which
means that their employers can get away with violating every labor law in employing
them. The minimum wage should be much higher than it is, and nobody should be getting
paid less than that. There should be unions protecting those workers who fear losing
their jobs to immigrants.

The measures that are proposed to deal with illegal immigration are repugnant.
Walls on our borders. Walls make me nervous with a government like this one in power.
They are trying to force teachers and health care workers to inform on illegal immigrants.
That will only keep them away from education and health care. The measures proposed
against employers of illegals will result in discrimination against people who look Mexican.

Meanwhile employers STILL get a tax credit for shipping American jobs offshore.

[jerry611]

58. Then how will you deal with the inflation?

Reality of the economy is that if you pay everyone a few extra dollars, everything will start to cost a few extra dollars.

[AndyTiedye]

106. Things Are Already Costing (at Least) a Few Extra Dollars

It hardly seems fair that all of the onus of fighting inflation should fall on the poor.

[pnwmom]

59. I don't support walls, or tax credits for outsourcing.

I do support measures that penalize employers for hiring illegals.

[mdmc]

43. I'm all for open , legal immigration

America is the greatest country on earth. We can handle all that want to come here to improve their life through hard work and faith.

[pnwmom]

48. Show me the statistics to prove that one.

[mdmc]

66. damn lies and statistics

have faith... we can do it.
if we can't, no harm done... we are all humans, our fate is collective.

[pnwmom]

69. Unfortunately, I'm one of those "reality based" people.

Faith alone doesn't do it for me. We're supposed to use our brains, too.

Or maybe you were kidding?

[mdmc]

105. not really kidding

but I do think that all people are created equal. All people deserve the same chance to make it here as my family received.

I know that we could feed the world, educate the word, and house the entire human population, if only we had the political will to do so.

Peace to you...

[pnwmom]

121. WE could feed and house the entire human population? HERE?

Do you even know what the size of the world's population is? Do you know how small our landmass is on the planet? How can you make a statement like that?

[mdmc]

153. where there is a will, there is a way

what i am sayin is that hunger and poverty could be eliminated if there was a sincere desire to do so.

IMAGINE

[guruoo]

244. Why here?

[mdmc]

359. We're number One! We're # 1!

:patriot:

[unlawflcombatnt]

203. That sounds kind of like something I wrote

on my blog.

We need to have "faith" in the wellbeing of our economy, since there are no "facts" to support it.

We need to have "faith" that we can accommodate every person on the planet in our country, because the "facts" do not support that assertion.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

210. In other words,

there are no statistics to prove your point. Thought so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

248. That is a fantasy that causes suffering.

The job pool is not infinitely elastic, nor is our social fabric.

[Critters2]

252. What do you do for a living?

I'm guessing you're not worried about losing your job to someone who is here "to improve their life through hard work and faith" and working at less than the minimum wage.

[Joanne98]

433. America is bankrupt, if you haven't noticed........

[sandnsea]

46. Nobody complains about illegal Irish immigrants

and there are a lot of them here, that's why. That and some of us are honest enough to admit what we hear white people say when they're out of the earshot of minorities.

[pnwmom]

51. We don't have a large number of Mexican immigrants in my area, and

I don't hear any comments about them, racist or otherwise. We do have a large number of immigrants, but they're spread across many nationalities. (Across the country, the number of Irish illegals is far below the number of Mexicans -- and the Irish migration has been reversing itself in recent years.)

The government is allowing in about 1 million legal immigrants each year. Illegal immigrants account for an additional 500,000, by most estimates -- which raises the total by 50%. Together, this is having a large impact on many communities along the coasts.

[Gormy Cuss]

100. Nobody complained about the illegal immigrants from Asia or Africa

Why? because regardless of the sizable local communities from some countries, the overall count is trivial. Mexicans get the attention because they comprise more than half of the the illegal immigrant population and all Latinos combined comprise about 3/4 of the undocumented population.

Bigger target.

By the way, there are not that many illegal Irish immigrants in the U.S. anymore -- the current estimate is about 25,000 - 40,000. The tide has turned because the Irish are finding more economic opportunities at home. As another poster, rman, noted the dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from Mexico has happened since NAFTA was put in place. The 'free' trade has its price.

[Critters2]

207. I do

There are many here, too. And people do complain about them. And Polish illegal immigrants, too.

You're not hanging with the right white people, I guess.

[Bridget Burke]

365. When the white people you "hang with" slag the Poles..

Do you correct them? Surely, you point out that you're concerned for the American Worker--but ethnic slurs only hurt your cause.

They do, you know.

[Critters2]

368. What ethnic slur?

"Polish" is an adjective, not a slur.

[lumberjack_jeff]

255. How many is a lot?

If there are 12 million illegal aliens from Ireland then they should return home too.

Lots more jobs for us.

[nealmhughes]

50. It is a two-edged sword.

It is hard for many progressives to view those who lack papers in too negative light, when they are in economic (and in the case of many in Central America, political) exile.
There is no reason except for the racism and imperialist collaborators inside Mexican society itself that prevents that portion of North America to be on par economically with Canada and the US.
Mexico has had several incarnations: a nonintegrated Mexico of various indigenous nationalities with varying degrees of confederation, a Mexico that was Mayan dominated in the south and Olmec/Aztec dominated in the central parts; the old conquistador colonial Mexico;
the various Mexican Empires and Republics...
The only thing Mexico has had in common is that since Cortez, Spanish has been the language of government and church and the more Spanish-looking/acting one is, the greater one has been on the economic totem pole.
Unlike the U.S., where we killed our "savages" and rounded up the survivors into West Buttholeastan, Mexico chose to use them as peons (these savages, by the way made Mexico City the largest city in the world when Cortez entered it).
Now, of course, the majority of the Mexican people are urbanized, mestizo, Spanish speaking and at least as tech savvy as anyone off the street in the US. What remains, though is the colonial legacy, only with the US subbing for Europe nowadays.
I love Mexico. I love the people of Chiapas, especially those Mayan refugees from Guat. in rural villages where the women don't speak Spanish and the men are away in Mexico City or another large city working so that the schoolkids had rather practice their English on me than me my Spanish on them.
What I hate is Mexico's horrid government, which like the U.S. and any stan, is the best at the local and federal level that money can buy.
On paper Mexico is a very liberal secular democratic country, like Voltaire imagined. In reality, there are POCKETS of what Europeans and other North Americans envision by an Enlightened society.
NAFTA drop-kicked the South's textile industry, even though we are basicly nothing but white and black people who speak a semi-intelligible version of English to our own colonial masters and their underlings. Right to work laws, racism institutionalized as that old Habsburg and English trick of divide and conquer working so well.
It's as much the US's fault as Mexico's for their poverty.
But Mexico's isn't as poor as your garden variety hellhole as say Haiti, Somalia, or Burkina Faso (note these are all former colonies with ethnic divides fostered by their former masters). In fact, in the large cities, in certain neighborhoods, it's only as foreign as Montreal is in that one hears a different language.
But where it isn't Montreal, it's Santo Tegulcimanagua City.
Until we (North and Central America) have renounced our imperialism, the light will triumph over the dark. Fabricas replace maquiladoras, and people will get tired of seeing the MTV version of the US and want a share of it, even if they share a bed.
Remember that the Irish were said to be unassimilable, then it was the Italians and the Jews and the Slavs...
In short, there is no short answer. No law is going to change anything nor any fence until Mexico gets its act together and we stop being the big boss man.
Maybe the Mexico/US/Canada threeway is in the midst of a new creation with the playing field levelled and history being swept aside? One can only wish.

[LaPera]

62. Laura says the undocumented worker problem is a cinch...

But please... Don't mention a decent living wage, or UNIONS! Heavens, we fascist have traveled too far for that kind of gibberish...Georgie has a better idea... a more efficient way to deal with immigration...




www.bartcop.com

[pnwmom]

63. I'm wondering if many of the DU'ers who support unrestricted immigration

live in parts of the country that feel most of immigration's effects. Here in Seattle, for instance, we're approaching one in five residents being foreign born. Here are the statistics as of the 2000 census.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:N1qpwbtilqAJ:www.ci.seattle.wa.us/DCLU/demographics/snapshots/immigrants_july2003.pdf+Seattle+percent+population+immigrants&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

"An unprecedented 95,000 people living in Seattle in 2000—nearly 17
percent of the population—were born abroad. This figure is 40 percent
higher than a decade earlier and more than four times higher than the
city’s overall growth during the 1990s,which was nine percent.
Despite higher rates of growth during the 1990s among people
from Africa (320 percent), the Americas (74 percent), and Oceania (63
percent),Asia still remains the birthplace of more than half the city’s
foreign-born (see graph below). The number of Seattle residents from
Asia increased only 34 percent during the 1990s.
The top sending countries of Seattle’sforeign-born population are
shown in the table at right. Together these 14 countries account for
seven of every ten foreign-born people in Seattle.

Number
Philippines
12,361
Vietnam
11,305
China
11,239
Mexico
7,902
Korea
4,432
Japan
3,250
Ethiopia
2,777
Germany
2,567
United Kingdom
2,565
Cambodia
1,968
Laos
1,885
India
1,416
Thailand
1,411
Russia
1,199
TOTAL of above countries 65,977
TOTAL from all countries 94,952
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000,

[High Plains]

137. All of those foreign-born people make Seattle an interesting place.

I have no problem with them. In fact, I marched with the immigrants in Seattle a few weeks ago. Very impressive, very powerful, very heart-warming.

Some people spend all their energy talking up the negative impact of immigration, but I see plenty of benefits for our society: New cultures, new entrepreneurial energy, hard working people, and an opportunity to reinvigorate the labor movement.

I'm not buying in to the overpopulation thesis, especially when you look at comparative population densities for, say, the North America and Europe, or Asia, or Africa.

And I don't see the US economy as a zero-sum game. More people equals more economic activity and more economic opportunity. If there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, that's 12 million people buying food, shoes, clothes, cars, houses. And more workers with full labor rights could act as a counterweight to downward wage pressure through the only non-market means I know of: union power.

So...what is it, you just don't like foreigners?

[pnwmom]

184. I love Seattle. And I have no problem with legal immigration.

My husband's grandparents were legal immigrants. So was my son-in-law's mother.

But unrestricted immigration and population growth isn't something this area, or the U.S., can support.

[proud2BlibKansan]

147. Sounds like a wonderful diverse community

and a great place to live.

[Erika]

65. They come here because they are hungry

Why should they be turned away? If you're Christian, did Christ say "You will be judged as to how you treat the least amongst you (with an exception of people of color?)

[pnwmom]

67. There are other ways to help them. Like working with Mexico to

change oppressive conditions that are keeping the country from developing.

Why is Canada doing so much better than Mexico? Could it be that the government there is more effectively serving its people?

[IndyJones]

275. And they need to tax their wealthy, who only pay about 14% in tax.

But why should they increase their taxes, when they can simply outsource their poor to the US so that US taxpayers can pay for them? Illegal immigration is the symptom. Mexico can fix their problems, but has no incentive to do so because the US is picking up their tab.

[pnwmom]

358. Is that their top tax rate?

[IndyJones]

376. Mexio has the LOWEST tax rates of any country. See links...

http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/resources_library_tax_trivia.asp

Here is an interesting read about the wealthy in Mexico and how little the wealthy pay in taxes... http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2006/05/mexico-is-rich-mexican-wealthy-play.html

• Sure Things in Mexico: Death, Taxes and Evasion According the recent rankings released from the IMD International, the Switzerland-based International Institute for Management Development placed Mexico at 56 out of 60 economies examined, largely because of a dearth of investment in everything from infrastructure to education. Due to its pathetic tax collection, Mexico cannot even buy schoolbooks or pay its police enough to live on, much less invest in its future.

• Lou Dobbs Tonight Transcript (12/16/04) The CNN news show shines a light on Mexican wealth. Particularly noteworthy is Prof. Grayson's remark: "There is a small economic elite who live like maharajas, and there's a political elite that protects them. Our border provides an escape valve which really lets the Mexican political and economic elite off the hook in terms of providing opportunities for their own people."

• While US Focuses on Iraq, Mexico is Collapsing June, 2005, and the symptoms of Mexico's failure as a state are accumulating. The recent takeover of border city Nuevo Laredo by the Mexican army because of the breakdown in law and order was so obvious.


For more, read "Mexico's Rich Don't Like To Pay Taxes — They Think You Should."

[pnwmom]

386. So we're the safety valve that keeps Mexico's despicable system going.

And the Bushies, of course, are busy trying to turn the U.S. into the same thing -- a country where the rich live in all their privatized, untaxed glory, and everyone else is struggling.

Thanks for the link, IndyJones. I hadn't realized how strong the Mexican economy actually was.

Learned something new.

[kevinbgoode]

72. I am still advocating that our nation start a one-to-one trade with Latin

America. . .we offer them one lazy, cowardly, whiny Freeper for each willing immigrant worker.

[pnwmom]

76. Sounds good to me.

:hi:

[IndyJones]

276. Can we pick one to go first? Please? LOL.

[BonjourUSA]

81. Can our countries host all the world misery without risk for themselves ?

Is it racist to answer : no ?

[rman]

83. The problem is not with the concern, it is with the solution,

and the ignoring of the causes.


Illegal immigration. Cause: NAFTA. Solution:
build 700 mile fence along the 2000 mile US-Mexican border at a cost of $3 million per mile.

So the border stays open, and some contractor will make out like a bandit.

Which problem does it solve exactly?

WHO BENEFITS?


======

How NAFTA is the (main) cause of illegal immigration:

Post Gazette, Pittsburgh
Forum: Illegal immigration -- the missing link
Revise NAFTA, says LEO W. GERARD, to stop giving millions of Mexicans the incentive to cross the border
Sunday, April 23, 2006
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06113/684154-109.stm

Leo W. Gerard is international president of the United Steelworkers.

As the national debate on immigration rages on, it becomes apparent that our political leaders are increasingly hamstrung by their penchant for focusing on the symptoms of the problem rather than its underlying causes.

So-called "conservatives" in the House of Representatives want to wall off our southern border, deport anybody without papers and turn nuns into felons if they so much as provide a meal to an undocumented immigrant.

"Compassionate" conservatives in the Senate and the White House advocate a kinder, gentler transformation -- granting second-class, "guest worker" status to the undocumented work force.

Some liberals, meanwhile, profess allegiance to a romanticized view of circumstances that fails to address the strain on domestic social programs, labor markets and the rule of law being created by the flood tide of illegal immigration.

<snip>

Few in Congress or in the major media, however, have examined why some 15 million Mexican immigrants have crossed the border in the past two decades, why experts expect another 15 million over the next 20 years, or why 80 to 85 percent of that migration has been illegal in recent years.

<more>


=======

Notes on NAFTA
---

Immigration Flood Unleashed by NAFTA's Disastrous Impact on Mexican Economy
Published on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm

The recent ferment on immigration policy has been so narrow that it has excluded the real issue: family-sustaining wages for workers both north and south of the border. The role of the North American Free Trade Agreement and misnamed 'free trade' has been scarcely mentioned in the increasingly bitter debate over the fate of America's 11 to 12 million illegal aliens.

NAFTA was sold to the American public as the magic formula that would improve the American economy at the same time it would raise up the impoverished Mexican economy. The time has come to look at the failures of this type of trade agreement before we engage in more and lower the economic prospects of all workers affected.

While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

* NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'
* NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
* Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

<more>

======

July 20, 2005 | Issue Brief #214
NAFTA's cautionary tale
Recent history suggests CAFTA could lead to further U.S. job displacement
by Robert E. Scott and David Ratner
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib214

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries. The proposed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) duplicates the most important elements of NAFTA, and it will only worsen conditions for workers in the United States and throughout the hemisphere (Faux, Campbell, Salas, and Scott 2001). Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs.

Before adopting an agreement such as DR-CAFTA, it is important to understand the following about NAFTA's effect on U.S. jobs:

* The 1 million job opportunities lost nationwide are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Those affected most in terms of total jobs displaced include: California (-123,995), Texas (-72,257), Michigan (-63,148), New York (-51,582), Ohio (-49,886), Illinois ( -47,701), Pennsylvania ( -44,173), Florida (-39,987), Indiana (-35,157), North Carolina ( -34,150), and Georgia (-30,464) (see Appendix Table A-1).

* The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: Michigan (-63,148, -1.44%), Indiana (-35,157, -1.19%), Mississippi (-11,630, -1.03%), Tennessee (-25,588, -0.94%), Ohio (-49,886, -0.92%), Rhode Island (-4,482, -0.91%), Wisconsin (-25,403, -0.90%), Arkansas (-10,321, -0.89%), North Carolina (-34,150, -0.89%), and New Hampshire (-5,502, -0.87%) (see Appendix Table A-2).

<more>

======

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147
November 17, 2003 | EPI Briefing Paper #147
The high price of 'free' trade
NAFTA's failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation
by Robert E. Scott

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

False promises

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. When the Senate recently approved President Bush's request for fast-track trade negotiating authority1 for an FTAA, Bush called the bill's passage a "historic moment" that would lead to the creation of more jobs and more sales of U.S. products abroad. Two weeks later at his economic forum in Texas, the president argued, "it is essential that we move aggressively , because trade means jobs. More trade means higher incomes for American workers."

The problem with these statements is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

President Bush's statements—and similar remarks from others in his administration and from members of both major parties in Congress—are based only on the positive effects of exports, ignoring the negative effects of imports. Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals, in order to boost the reported benefits. These are effectively the same tactics that led to the bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom, and several other major corporations.

The impact on employment of any change in trade is determined by its effect on the trade balance, the difference between exports and imports. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals. The many officials, policy analysts, and business leaders who ignore the negative effects of imports and talk only about the benefits of exports are engaging in false accounting.

NAFTA supporters frequently tout the benefits of exports while remaining silent on the effects of rapid import growth (Scott 2000). Former President George H.W. Bush, whose administration negotiated NAFTA, recently claimed that "two million NAFTA-related jobs have been created in the United States since 1993" (Bush 2002). But any evaluation of the impact of trade on the domestic economy must include the impact of both imports and exports. If the United States exports 1,000 cars to Mexico, many American workers are employed in their production. If, however, the United States imports 1,000 cars from Mexico rather than building them domestically, then a similar number of Americans who would have otherwise been employed in the auto industry will have to find other work.

Another critically important promise made by the promoters of NAFTA was that the United States would benefit because of increased exports to a large and growing consumer market in Mexico. This market, in turn, was to be based on an expansion of the middle class that, it was claimed, would grow rapidly due to the wealth created in Mexico by NAFTA. Thus, most U.S. exports were predicted to be consumer products destined for consumption in Mexico.

In fact, most U.S. exports to Mexico are parts and components that are shipped to Mexico and assembled into final products that are then returned to the United States. The number of products that Mexico assembles and exports—such as refrigerators, TVs, automobiles, and computers—has mushroomed under the NAFTA agreement. Many of these products are produced in the Maquiladora export processing zones in Mexico, where parts enter duty free and are re-exported to the United States in assembled products, with duties paid only on the value added in Mexico. The share of total U.S. exports to Mexico that is represented by Maquiladora imports has risen from 39% of U.S. exports in 1993 to 61% in 2002.2 The number of such plants increased from 2,114 in 1993 to 3,251 in 2002 (INEGI 2003a, 2003b).

Growing trade deficits and job losses

NAFTA's impact in the United States, however, has been often obscured by the "boom-and-bust" cycle that drove domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.4 million jobs were lost in the domestic economy between March 2001 and October 2003 (BLS 2003). These job losses have been primarily concentrated in the manufacturing sector, which has experienced a total decline of 2.4 million jobs since March 2001. As job growth has dried up in the economy, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

<more>


=========

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199401--.htm
The Clinton Vision: Update
Noam Chomsky
Z Magazine, January, 1994

1. Clinton's Bottom Line

November 17 was a grand day in the career of Bill Clinton, the day when he proved that he is a man of firm principle, and that his "vision" -- the term has become a journalistic reflex -- has real substance. "President Emerges As a Tough Fighter," the New York Times announced on the front page the next day. Washington correspondent R.W. Apple wrote that Clinton had now silenced his detractors, who had scorned him for his apparent willingness to back down on everything he claimed to stand for:

"Mr. Clinton retreated early on Bosnia, on Haiti, on homosexuals in the military, on important elements of his economic plan ; he seemed ready to compromise on all but the most basic elements of his health-care reforms. Critics asked whether he had a bottom line on anything.

On NAFTA, he did, and that question won't be asked much for a while."1

In short, on unimportant matters, involving nothing more than millions of lives, Clinton is a "pragmatist," ready to retreat. But when it comes to responding to the calls of the big money, our hero showed that he has backbone after all.

The importance that the corporate world saw in the NAFTA issue was revealed with some clarity in the final stages. Usually, both the President and the media try to keep their class loyalties somewhat in the background. This time, all bars were down. Particularly striking was the bitter attack on labor for daring to interfere in the political process, understood to be the domain of business power in a well-ordered democracy.

The logic is familiar. When ordinary people enter the political arena, we have a "crisis of democracy"; things are OK, however, when the President is able to "govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers," as the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government at Harvard (Samuel Huntington) has explained, articulating the vision of democracy propounded by elite opinion for hundreds of years.

Accordingly, corporate lobbying was considered unworthy of mention -- a reasonable decision; one also doesn't report the air we breathe.

President Clinton denounced the "naked pressure" and "real roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" of organized labor, "the raw muscle, the sort of naked pressure that the labor forces have put on." They even resorted to "pleading...based on friendship" and "threatening...based on money and work in the campaign" when they approached their elected representatives. Never would a corporate lobbyist sink that low; those who believe otherwise merely reveal themselves to be "Marxists" or "conspiracy theorists," terms that are the cultivated equivalent of four-letter words or a punch in the nose, a last resort when you can't think of an argument. Front-page stories featured the President's call to Congress "to resist the hardball politics" of the "powerful labor interests." Business was reeling from the onslaught, unable to face the terror of the mob. At the outer limits of dissent, Anthony Lewis berated the "backward, unenlightened" labor movement for the "crude threatening tactics" it employed to influence Congress, motivated by "fear of change and fear of foreigners."

<more>

======

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9303-nation-nafta.html
The Masters of Man
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, March 1993

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces.

The masters of mankind in Smith's day were the "merchants and manufacturers," who were the "principal architects" of state policy, using their power to bring "dreadful misfortunes" to the vast realms they subjugated and to harm the people of England as well, though their own interests were "most peculiarly attended to." In our day the masters are, increasingly, the supranational corporations and financial institutions that dominate the world economy, including international trade -- a dubious term for a system in which some 40 percent of U.S. trade takes place within companies, centrally managed by the same highly visible hands that control planning, production and investment.

The World Bank reports that protectionist measures of the industrialized countries reduce national income in the South by about twice the amount of official aid to the region -- aid that is itself largely export promotion, most of it directed to richer sectors (less needy, but better consumers). In the past decade, most of the rich countries have increased protectionism, with the Reaganites often leading the way in the crusade against economic liberalism. These practices, along with the programs dictated by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, have helped double the gap between rich and poor countries since 1960. Resource transfers from the poor to the rich amounted to more than $400 billion from 1982 to 1990, "the equivalent in today's dollars of some six Marshall Plans provided by the South to the North," observes Susan George of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam; she notes also that commercial banks were protected by transfer of their bad debts to the public sector. As in the case of the S&Ls, and advanced industry generally, "free-market capitalism" is to be risk free for the masters, as fully as can be achieved.

The international class war is reflected in the United States, where real wages have fallen to the level of the mid-1960s. Wage stagnation, extending to the college-educated, changed to sharp decline in the mid-1980s, in part a consequence of the decline in "defense spending," our euphemism for the state industrial policy that allows "private enterprise" to feed at the public trough. More than 17 million workers were unemployed or underemployed by mid-1992, Economic Policy Institute economists Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein report -- a rise of 8 million during the Bush years. Some 75 percent of that is permanent loss of jobs. Of the limited gain in total wealth in the eighties, "70% accrued to the top 1% of income earners, while the bottom lost absolutely," according to M.I.T. economist Rudiger Dornbusch.

Structures of governance have tended to coalesce around economic power. The process continues. In the London Financial Times, James Morgan describes the "de facto world government" that is taking shape in the "new imperial age": the I.M.F., World Bank, Group of 7 industrialized nations, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and other institutions designed to serve the interests of transnational corporations, banks and investment firms.

<more>

=======

The Zapatista Uprising
excerpted from the book Profit Over People
by Noam Chomsky
Seven Stories Press, 1999
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ProfitsOverPeople_Chom.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ZapatistaPOP_Chom.html

The New Year's Day uprising of Indian peasants in Chiapas readily be understood in this general context. The uprising coincided with the enactment of NAFTA, which the Zapatista army called a "death sentence" for Indians, a gift to the rich that will deepen the divide between narrowly concentrated wealth and mass misery, and destroy what remains of the indigenous society.
The NAFTA connection is partly symbolic; the problems are far deeper. "We are the product of 500 years of struggle," the Zapatistas' declaration of war stated. The struggle today is "for work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace." "The real background," the vicar-general of the Chiapas diocese added, "is complete marginalization and poverty and the frustration of many years trying to improve the situation."
The Indian peasants are the most aggrieved victims of Mexican government policies. But their distress is widely shared. "Anyone who has the opportunity to be in contact with the millions of Mexicans who live in extreme poverty knows that we are living with a time bomb," Mexican columnist Pilar Valdes observed.
In the past decade of economic reform, the number of people living in extreme poverty in rural areas increased by almost a third. Half the total population lacks resources to meet basic needs, a dramatic increase since 1980. Following International Monetary Fund (IMF)-World Bank prescriptions, agricultural production was shifted to export and animal feeds, benefiting agribusiness, foreign consumers, and affluent sectors in Mexico while malnutrition became a major health problem, agricultural employment declined, productive lands were abandoned, and Mexico began to import massive amounts of food. Real wages in manufacturing fell sharply. Labor's share in gross domestic product, which had risen until the mid- I 970s, has since declined by well over a third. These are standard concomitants of neoliberal reforms. IMF studies show "a strong and consistent pattern of reduction of labor share of income" under the impact of its "stabilization programs" in Latin America, economist Manuel Pastor observes.

<more>


=======

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/NAFTA@7/mx.html
April 2001 | EPI Briefing Paper
NAFTA AT SEVEN
Its impact on workers in all three nations

Jump to a specific report:

* Introduction
* NAFTA’s Hidden Costs: Trade agreement results in job losses, growing inequality, and wage suppression for the United States
* False Promise: Canada in the Free Trade Era
* Online supplement to the U.S. report: NAFTA's impact on the states

The impact of NAFTA on wages and incomes
in Mexico

by Carlos Salas, La Red de Investigadores y Sindicalistas Para Estudios Laborales (RISEL)

Mexico is much changed in the seven years since NAFTA was implemented in 1994. Although Mexico now has a large trade surplus with the U.S., Mexico has also developed a large and growing overall trade deficit with the rest of the world. In fact, Mexico’s net imports from the rest of the world now substantially exceed its net exports to the United States. Official unemployment levels in Mexico are lower now than before NAFTA, but this decline in the official rate simply reflects the absence of unemployment insurance in Mexico. In fact, underemployment and work in low-pay, low-productivity jobs (e.g., unpaid work in family enterprises) actually has grown rapidly since the early 1990s. Furthermore, the normal process of rural-to-urban migration that is typical of developing economies has reversed since the adoption of NAFTA. The rural share of the population increased slightly between 1991 and 1997, as living and working conditions in the cities deteriorated.

Between 1991 and 1998, the share of workers in salaried<1> jobs with benefits fell sharply in Mexico. The compensation of the remaining self-employed workers, who include unpaid family workers as well as small business owners, was well above those of the salaried sector in 1991. By 1998, the incomes of salaried workers had fallen 25%, while those of the self-employed had declined 40%. At that point, the average income of the self-employed was substantially lower than that of the salaried labor force. This reflects the growth of low-income employment such as street vending and unpaid family work (for example, in shops and restaurants). After seven years, NAFTA has not delivered the promised benefits to workers in Mexico, and few if any of the agreement’s stated goals has been attained.

Running hard but falling behind
Despite a quick recovery from the 1995 peso crisis and a peak 7% gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate in 2000 (Figure 2-A), NAFTA still has failed to help most workers in Mexico.

<more>

========

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/10/mm1092_10.html
Economics
The NAFTA Nightmare
by Bill Day

AMID A STORM OF PROTEST, the leaders of the United States , Mexico and Canada announced on August 12 the conclusion of negotiations over a free trade agreement encompassing the vastly different countries of North America. The Bush administration released a summary of the North American Free Trade Agreement , but declined to release the actual text until it is translated into legal language. The agreement faces perfunctory approval in the Mexican and Canadian legislatures, which are controlled by the same parties which hold those countriesÆ executive positions. In the United States, however, the agreement must be ratified by the Democratic controlled Congress, where it is sure to be the subject of heated debate.

While the administration and industry groups boast that NAFTA will create jobs and prosperity, unions, environmental groups and consumer advocates predict it could result in increased pollution, lost jobs, lower wages and contaminated food. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader says that NAFTA was created "of the Du Ponts, for the General Motors, and by the Exxons," benefitting multinational corporations at the expense of labor, health, safety and environmental standards in all three signatory countries.

"We oppose it," says Burnie Bond, a spokesperson for the AFL-CIO. "The agreement does not have adequate protection for labor rights, worker health and safety or the environment." The AFL-CIO estimates that if Congress approves NAFTA, 73 percent of U.S. workers will suffer annual wage losses of approximately $1,000 and 500,000 to 600,000 workers will lose their jobs to lower-paid Mexican workers over 10 years.

In sharp contrast, industry representatives express enthusiasm for the proposed agreement. Howard Lewis, a spokesperson for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), says, "From what we know about it, it appears to be an impressive agreement that will be beneficial to many U.S. companies."

Costing jobs

The central element in the congressional debate over NAFTA is likely to be its effect on employment. Critics of the agreement contend it will cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, as U.S. businesses shift production from the United States to low-wage Mexico. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) concedes that some U.S. workers will be displaced as a result of the agreement, but estimates that between 600,000 and one million new jobs will be created by exports to Mexico. The Washington, D.C.- based Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in a recent report authored by Jeff Faux and Thea Lee, estimates NAFTA will cost half a million U.S. jobs.

The authors further predict that NAFTA will encourage U.S. industry to move production to Mexico to take advantage of low wage rates and lax industry regulation. As a result, the report says, U.S. workers will lose jobs, or be forced to accept lower wages to compete with cheap Mexican labor. Faux and Lee cite 1990 Department of Labor statistics which list the hourly wage for manufacturing workers as $14.83 in the United States, $15.94 in Canada and $1.85 in Mexico.

"I think that this version of NAFTA will be very hard on working class people," Lee says. She predicts that U.S. workers in several types of industry will suffer: those in industries already moving to Mexico, such as automobiles and auto parts, consumer electronics and apparel, who will be subjected to both job and wage losses; workers employed at small- and medium-sized businesses that cannot relocate and will become unable to compete with corporations in Mexico; and workers in small service businesses, like restaurants, which will undergo hardship when large plants move out of their neighborhoods. Finally, Lee argues, growers of products currently protected by high tariffs, such as winter fruits and vegetables, cotton and peanuts, will suffer when the tariffs are removed by NAFTA.

Faux and Lee point out that blue-collar workers who lose their jobs are unlikely to gain access to the high-skill, high-wage jobs that might be created by increased exports to Mexico.

Lewis counters that U.S. labor must adjust to inevitable changes in the job market. "The era of the low-skill, high-pay job is over," he says, "and weÆd better adjust to it. ThatÆs not the way the competition is going at this point in the game." Lewis recommends that the way to "adjust" is not to regulate trade, but to invest in education and training.

Faux and Lee assert that CanadaÆs loss of 461,000 manufacturing jobs from June 1989 to October 1991 after adoption of the U.S.-Canada trade agreement is a portent of the likely outcome of the expanded free trade agreement with Mexico. But Malcolm McKechnie, press attache at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, attributes the loss of jobs to the recession, noting that both exports and the Canadian trade balance have increased since the agreement.

Critics of the agreement argue that corporate flight to Mexico will not benefit Mexico or Mexican workers, since corporations will be moving South precisely to take advantage of the countryÆs low wages, worker rights, safety and environmental standards. NAFTA-induced investments will replicate the record of the string of maquiladoras (foreign-owned plants in Mexico which export to the United States) on the U.S.-Mexican border, where "there is no floor on how low you push wages and no limit on how badly you abuse the environment."

"NAFTA is an extension of the maquiladora production system to the entire Mexican economy," Lee says. "The point of the maquiladora is to import parts from the United States, assemble them with Mexican labor and export them to the United States." According to Lee, because goods produced in the maquiladoras are sold in the United States, corporations have no incentive to pay a living wage. "Very few firms producing in the maquiladoras have any intention of selling their goods to the workers who work there. So it doesnÆt matter if you pay 60 cents an hour, because you know that person isnÆt going to buy the automobile or refrigerator or bra that youÆre producing. YouÆve ruptured the connection between production and consumption."

Bond agrees that NAFTA will only further the maltreatment of Mexican workers. "The agreement doesnÆt do anything to encourage Mexican wage levels to rise. ... If anything, investments of hundreds of millions of dollars along the border has lowered the standard of living," she says. "There is nothing in this agreement, such as adequate labor standards, to offset the tendency of American corporations to exploit Mexican workers."

<more>

=======

http://www.siliconv.com/trade/tradepapers/naftaafta.html
NAFTA 3 1/2 Years Afta
by Jim Callis & Valli Sharpe-Geisler

The Bush administration promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". The Clinton administration promised improved environmental and working standards. Now, after three and a half years of NAFTA the people of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. suffer from the broken promises, while the self-interested proponents of NAFTA, who invested millions in campaign contributions, reap the benefits.

NAFTA Overview:

The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has been portrayed as a simple agreement to lower tariffs and increase trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. In fact, the main features of NAFTA establish a comprehensive set of rules that guarantees to multinational manufacturers that their plants in these countries will be protected and that they will have unlimited, free access to the U.S. retail markets for their products. NAFTA guarantees an investors private right of action against a country, state or locality. These rules are enforced by a multinational Secretariat with authority to impose large financial sanctions to force member countries to comply even when federal or state laws differ. It is ironic that this supernational regulation of U.S. commerce has been introduced in the name of "Free Trade". NAFTA has led to a sharply increased flight of manufacturing from the U.S. to Mexico where there is an abundance of capable workers who learn very rapidly and whose wages were only one-seventh of the wages of American workers doing the same job.


NAFTA Results:

The effects of NAFTA on the U.S. have been almost totally negative. The results include a significant loss in U.S. manufacturing capability and tax base. Manufacturers have also been able to negotiate give - backs in both direct wages and benefits from U.S. workers under the threat of expatriating their plant to Mexico. Today, a high school graduate with 5 years experience earns 27% less than his counterpart did in 1979. When experienced manufacturing workers making $17/hr loose their job, they typically are only able to get a service industry job at $11/hr. Since this isn't enough to keep a household afloat a second job is then needed. While in 1975 the compensation of U.S production workers was the highest in the world, today the average U.S. total compensation of about $17/hr is lower than that of Germany, Japan and others. The first major result of the so- called "Free Trade" movement has been to drive down wages even in a period in which productivity and corporate profits have risen greatly.


Summary of NAFTA's Impact on the United States

* MANUFACTURING LOSSES Since its passage an average of one manufacturing plant per day has closed due to NAFTA. * LOWER WAGES -- Since the FTA with Canada in 1988, the average real wages in all three NAFTA countries has declined.

* LOST U.S. JOBS: As of February 19, 1997, the Labor Department has certified that 109,384 workers have qualified for assistance under the one narrow NAFTA unemployment program, NAFTA-TAA. Total NAFTA job loss is estimated at over 600,000.

* FOOD SAFETY STANDARDS: In theory the US could be fined for enforcing our own food safety federal law, if in direct conflict with NAFTA's rules. After about 150 Michigan school children come down with symptoms of the hepatitis A mild liver infection from Mexican-grown strawberries, the impact of not having the freedom to set and enforce our own food safety standard became obvious.

* MERCHANDISE TRADE DEFICIT: The U.S. Bureau of the Census published trade figures* show the combined projected 1996 Canada/Mexico trade deficit to be $41 billion. Under NAFTA, a 1993 $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico turned into a massive trade deficit, while at the same time Japan and the European Union have maintained a trade surplus with Mexico.

* PESO BAILOUT: When the strains associated with NAFTA resulted in the collapse in the exchange value of the peso, this rate went to 1/10th of the wages of their U.S. counterparts.

* ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to the U.S. from Mexico has soared since NAFTA. In 1994 the Border Patrol reported an increase of 30% in illegal entry activity. In 1995 many border areas reported an additional 30% in illegal entries. The principal cause of the increase is the economic dislocations in Mexico due to NAFTA.

* ENVIRONMENTAL: Dramatically worse environmental conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border where recent statistics show the number of children born with birth defects is at 3 times the national average.

* TRUCKING: Over-weighted and poorly maintained trucks make our highways less safe.

* DRUGS: Mexico is now regarded as the drug capital of the Western world. Many of the companies privatized by Salinas were purchased by Mexican drug lords. Mexican gangs now control the cocaine trade and also produce and distribute to the U.S. the methamphetamines which are replacing cocaine in many American areas.


U-Turn Exports:

The NAFTA Lobby points to the strong increase in goods exported to Mexico as proof of the benefits of NAFTA to the U.S. The facts are that only 7% of the goods imported by Mexico in 1995 were consumer goods purchased by Mexicans.These were more than 20% below the pre-NAFTA levels. In fact, 81% of all Mexican 1995 imports were "intermediate goods" the bulk of which were exported after further processing. The balance of Mexican imports were capital goods being used to expand Mexican production capability. These of course will lead to further trade losses in future years. Thus the surge in exports to Mexico are not the beneficial consumer sales the NAFTA Lobby promised, but rather the flow of "U-Turn" parts and plant equipment which was formerly the substance of U.S. based manufacturing. That is, the great export surge represents not an increased in our cash sales, but a loss of U.S. jobs and manufacturing capability. We have a phrase describing this type of surge in exports; ..... " A GIANT SUCKING SOUND ".


NAFTA and Mexico:

While the effects of NAFTA on the United States seem drastic, the effects on Mexico have actually been much more severe. The strains placed on Mexico's monetary system by the need to borrow money for NAFTA's industrial expansion and the political necessity to maintain the illusion of a bustling Mexican economy prior to the GATT vote in the U.S. Congress led to the peso debacle. The results have been devastating to the Mexican people.


Summary of NAFTA's Impact on Mexico

* ECONOMIC DEPRESSION: Since NAFTA, Mexico has fallen into its worst depression since the 1930s. Domestic business loans have prohibitive interests rates exceeding 50% in many cases.

* UNEMPLOYMENT: Since NAFTA, Mexican unemployment has grown by two million.

* BUSINESS FAILURES: Over 28,000 Mexican business have failed since NAFTA.

* LOWER WAGES: The real wages of Mexican workers have fallen by over 1/3 since the passage of NAFTA.

* EXTREME POVERTY: The number of Mexicans considered to be extremely poor has increased from 31% in 1993 to 50% in 1996.

* AGRICULTURE: The huge imports of grains from the U.S. and Canada have driven close to a million Mexican farmers from their lands. NAFTA's passage triggered the revolt in Chiapas.

* EXTERNAL DEBT: The total external debt of Mexico, which must be repaid in hard currencies, has grown from $163 Billion to over $175 Billion in spite of harsh economic measures. Independent economists in both Mexico and other countries believe that Mexico will be forced to "restructure" this debt with at least partial default.

* BORDER REGION POLLUTION: The pollution of the Border region produced by the growth in the number of maquiladora factories spawned by NAFTA has become dangerously worse. The incidence of birth defects and polluted water borne diseases such as dysentery, cholera and hepatitis is the highest in North America.


Summary of NAFTA's Impact on Mexico

During the 1992 election, Clinton pledged to implement NAFTA only after amending the agreement to ensure the protection of the environment and labor standards. However, these were implemented in the form of sham Secretariats which had no enforcement powers and whose objectives are routinely ignored by both corporations and government officials. Clinton's assurances to the contrary, the Maquiladoras continue to be supplied with a labor force which averages less in wages than their counterparts in domestic Mexican factories and who are prevented from joining independent unions.

The NADBank was touted as the means of providing leveraged funding for several of the $20 billions the environmentalists estimated were required to bring water and air quality to minimum health standards in the Border region. While originally adopted as a means of bartering for the votes of Hispanic and environmentalist legislators, the NADbank was then touted as the key mechanism for funding a desparately needed border cleanup that never happened. In fact not until the specter of the 1997 Congressional votes approached did NADbank make any loans at all.

April Fools Day Announcement NO Joke:

In April about 150 Michigan schoolchildren come down with symptoms of the hepatitis A mild liver infection. Officials said that schoolchildren in six states may have been exposed after being served Mexican-grown berries believed tainted with the virus. A food processor in San Diego bought strawberries from Mexico and sold them to the school districts.

Federal law prohibits any school district from buying any food not produced in the U.S. The interesting thing is that this law is in direct conflict with NAFTA's rules. In theory the US could be fined for enforcing our own food safety federal law.

Who are the beneficiaries of NAFTA?:

The most notable are the multinational corporations of all three NAFTA countries whose profits and stock values have soared while the cross border production has cut costs. These members of the U.S. Business Roundtable were the same multi-national corporations who formed USA*NAFTA who, working with the group of Mexican corporations called COECE, were the main business groups funding the NAFTA lobbying effort.

The benefits of NAFTA are not limited to North American companies. The number of Maquiladoras owned by Asian companies has tripled since the passage of NAFTA. Thus Mexico, while having no domestic TV industry, has become the world's largest exporter of TV sets, courtesy of the Japanese plants many of which are centered near Tijuana.

Conclusions:

The problems which NAFTA has inflicted on the people of both the United States and Mexico are severe and traceable to basic flaws in the agreement itself. The major flaws involve the guarantees protecting multinational plant operators (including "National Treatment") in a Mexico in which wages are controlled by government "Pacts" to levels far below those of U.S. workers. Maquiladora wages as low as $5 per day are rationalized as "necessary" to prevent manufacturing flight to even lower wage Central America countries and to control inflation. This in turn helps to drag down U.S. wages and further accelerates the transfer of U.S. plants to Mexico where the number of workers in all Maquiladoras now exceeds one million. We must resolve not to form the close economic associations (of the type that are in NAFTA) with other countries until the labor standards of those countries have been raised. Our trade policy should be aimed at raising the labor standards of our trading partners, not degrading our own. In the formation of the European Union, strict requirements for comparable standards for new members were imposed. These included a prescription that new members must first achieve a GDP per capita equal to at least half that of the average of the existing members. This and similar conditions on infrastructure meant that the entry of countries such as Spain and Greece was delayed for more than a decade while the requirements were met. In the end, the goal of our trade policy must be to improve the condition of all of the people, not to drag our labor standards down in a "race to the bottom". If this means that we must put additional trade constraints on imports from other low wage countries until they too raise their labor standards, then that is our indicated course.

The Clinton Adminstration gave Americans their assurances that NAFTA would include multinational Secretariats which provided for the "upward harmonization" of Labor and Environmental standards of the member countries. In addition, the NADBank was touted as providing funding for the critically needed cleanup of the poisoned Border water systems. All three of these promises have been revealed as transparent shams. "Dirty" U.S. industries charged with toxic waste violations in the U.S.have simply fled to Mexico where the enforcement of these regulations was sporadic or non-existent. NADBank provided no funding at all for badly needed water treatment projects through the first two years of its existence. The Labor Secretariat dismissed two clear cases of Maquiladora owners violating labor standards by claiming it had no jurisdiction. An unmistakable signal that they would do nothing to relieve the suppression of labor standards in Mexico.

It is no longer possible to believe in promises to correct the serious failings of NAFTA after the people's representatives have approved them. We must demand that the corrections be made before the FTAs are approved. At a minimum we should demand that no further extensions of NAFTA to new regions are approved until the flaws which have produced such disastrous consequences are proven to have been fixed.

Stop "Fast Track"! Don't expand NAFTA, Fix it! (Click here to see Action Plan)
http://www2.siliconv.com/siliconv/trade/actionplan.html


========

AlterNet
Blame NAFTA
By David Morris, AlterNet
Posted on April 13, 2006, Printed on May 28, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/34768/

The debate about illegal immigration rarely mentions NAFTA. That's regrettable, since the flood of undocumented Mexicans in 2006 empirically challenges the economic philosophy that guided NAFTA's design.

The slogan of those who championed a North American Free Trade Agreement was, "Trade, not aid." NAFTA would solve our problems, they insisted, with little or no transfer of funds from richer Canadians and Americans to poorer Mexicans. By raising Mexican living standards and wage levels, Attorney General Janet Reno predicted NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration by up to two-thirds in six years. "NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal migration in the long haul," Reno declared in 1994. "If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible."

Well, NAFTA succeeded, at least on its own terms. As Jaime Serra Puche, Mexico's former trade minister and chief NAFTA negotiator maintained in 2004, "When you look at NAFTA in terms of what NAFTA was made for, which were trade flows, investment flows, and in general technological transfer and so on, you can say that NAFTA has been a successful enterprise."

Trade volume has soared, from about 30 percent of Mexico's Gross Domestic Product in 1990, to about 55 percent in 2005. Foreign investment has increased by over 225 percent. Yes. When you look at NAFTA in terms of what NAFTA was intended to do, based on what those who wrote it said it was intended to do, it has been a smashing success.

At this point bringing up an old medical adage might be appropriate: "The surgery was successful, but the patient died." NAFTA achieved its intended goals. But the flood of illegal immigration is up, and the standard of living of the average Mexican is down.

Real wages for most Mexicans are lower than when NAFTA took effect. And Mexican wages are diverging from, rather than converging with U.S. wages, despite the fact that Mexican worker productivity has increased dramatically. From 1993 to 2003, worker productivity rose by 60 percent. In the same period, real wages declined by 5 percent.

As NAFTA intended, Mexico has become an export-dependent economy. But this has not benefited most Mexicans. Sandra Polaski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out that Mexican manufacturing is increasingly based on a production model in which component parts are imported, then processed or assembled and then reexported. In the maquiladora sector, which accounts for most exports, 97 percent of components are imported; only 3 percent are produced in Mexico. The spillover effect of such operations on the broader economy is very limited.

Ironically, one could argue that illegal migration is the only thing saving Mexico from the ravages of NAFTA and preventing it from collapsing into economic and social chaos.

Illegal migration serves as an important safety valve. In the past 10 years, Mexico's working age population increased by a little over 1 million per year, but the number of jobs expanded by only half as much. The annual exodus of 500,000 to 1 million Mexicans keeps unemployment to at least manageable levels.

Migration serves another even more important salutary function: national financial safety net. In 2005, Mexicans in the United States remitted some $20 billion home, about 3 percent of Mexico's national income. Remittances now exceed tourism, oil and the maquiladoras as the country's top single source of foreign exchange.

NAFTA boasted that trade, not aid, would boost the lot of Mexico and Mexicans. But the only thing that has kept the wolf from Mexico's door is aid from Mexicans living in the United States, not trade.

It didn't have to be this way. The European Union approached economic integration from a very different philosophical orientation and has produced dramatically different results. "The EU realized from the beginning that you can't have a community unless you lift the poorest up," notes Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington and President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor.

Europeans realized that the flow of migrants increases when the income gap between countries widens. As it moved toward a common market, the European Union invested hundred of billions of dollars in its poorer countries to improve their economies, reduce intra-European tensions between farmers and workers, and decrease internal migration. This massive investment enabled the EU's four poorest members -- Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain -- to boost their per capita GDP from 65 percent of the overall EU average in l986 to 78 percent in l999 and even higher today.

Raul Hinojosa, director of the North American Immigration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, instructively notes that 40 years ago Mexico and Spain were at the same economic level. He estimates the EU's special funds added 2 percent to Spain's annual GDP growth.

Unlike Americans, Europeans knew that both trade and aid are needed to make economic integration work. I would add only one further ingredient to this recipe for success: internally generated development. Sustainable economic development comes from within, from expanding internal markets and internal production that can satisfy those markets. Sustainable economic development comes from strengthening, not weakening, local and regional trade networks. And this in turn depends on strengthening and not weakening, local and regional social networks. People don't leave their communities, their friends, their families and their cultures because they want to. They leave when they have to.

NAFTA's designers promised it would keep Mexicans at home. Yet its very objectives undermined that possibility. Now leaders in all three countries are trying to pick up the pieces. One hopes they will use this opportunity to revisit their original premise and model as well.

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/34768/

[pnwmom]

87. Interesting articles about effects of NAFTA. Thanks, rman.

[Demit]

96. whoah. If you're going to post the entire contents of the Internet in one

post, at least stick to DU's four paragraph rule.

[cynatnite]

84. I'm concerned about businesses who exploit these people...

they get off scott free while immigrants looking for a better life are demonized.

[lynne]

97. What's wrong with -

- the USA employing the same immigration rules, regs, standards as Mexico does? A sort of "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" approach.

Does anyone think that we would be given the same treatment as illegal immigrants in Mexico as Mexican illegal immigrants are given here?

[noamnety]

277. straw man alert

The individuals you'd be punishing aren't the ones who made Mexico's immigration policies, so it's not a case of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Aside from that logical fallacy, do you really want over a hundred different immigration policies, one for each nationality? You really want to set up seperate rules so immigrants have to meet different standards based on what country they're coming from?

[1932]

98. I keep hearing "unrestricted immigration." We may not keep 100% of people

out, but we certainly don't have unrestricted immigration.

[pnwmom]

117. Illegal immigration adds another half million immigrants yearly --

another 50% -- to the million legal immigrants that the government officially approves.

"We may not keep 100% of people out" -- we're not even close.

Illegal immigrants arrive here having skirted the normal limits or restrictions. With completely ineffective immigration laws we end up with unrestricted immigration. The numbers are restricted in actuality only by immigrants' determination and ingenuity in getting here.

[1932]

119. That number would be much higher if we actually had unrestricted imm.

We don't have it. It's a straw man argument.

[Minnesota Libra]

99. Apparently it's only racist to suggest Mexican illegal aliens abide.......

....by our immigration laws. Apparently it's also racist to suggest that the US adopt the same rules Mexico practices along their southern border toward anyone and everyone coming into their country illegally. Vincente Fox is not very nice toward his illegal aliens.:rofl: Everyone else coming to this country illegal has to follow the rules, just not illegal Mexicans.

My American Latino husband thinks "There is a huge difference between American Latinos and illegal Mexicans. We're Americans, they aren't."

[LoZoccolo]

101. Because they're acting insecure and cowardly.

The ones who accuse their opponents of racism, that is.

[Critters2]

334. Exactly n/t

[Yollam]

103. Of course it's not racist.

There are a lot of progressive reasons for strong controls on immigration, assuming that we all want the US to continue to have a middle class and a relatively decent standard of living.

Pro-immigration people like to go on about how much illegals contribute - and they do. The problem is that they are often paid less than minimum wage. Having a pool of people who will work for peanuts creates downward pressure on wages for all people in service jobs where illegals are able to work. It is unfair that poor Americans who live in apartments with a normal number of residents, have to compete for falling wages with people who are accustomed to poverty, and who will live stacked up 10 in one apartment. It's unfair to the illegals, and unfair to Americans.

[Terran1212]

110. Racism is part of it as is Classism

They become elements of what is happening. Why do you hate groups are well-documented to be rising in numbers since the immigration debate reignited?

[pnwmom]

123. People who support the working class in this country are concerned

about illegal immigration and outsourcing. It isn't elitist to be concerned about the effects of uncontrolled immigration on jobs and services. Despite what some people on these boards think, we can't actually employ and house every person who may want to come here.

[Terran1212]

160. The victims of an extremely unfair economic system fighting eachother

Our NAFTA destroyed their workers and ours.

[Jed Dilligan]

111. "I see people here

They look different from the people I'm used to seeing. They must be stealing from me. Something must be done about it!"

At base that's what all the anti-immigrant arguments boil down to. I want to see the evidence that they have damaged my own life or prospects in any way. I have more friends who are illegal aliens than friends who are mainstream white Americans.

You talk about "floods," "impacts," "planning," and "limits," all those words make me want to

:puke:

[unlawflcombatnt]

174. No

What it boils down to is suppressing wages and taking jobs from Americans. The result of adding 7 million illegal immigrants to our labor force is less Americans employed and lower wages for those still employed. It has nothing to do with whether their "different," and everything to do with shear numbers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[DistressedAmerican]

115. How About We Expand LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

That is the solution here. We need the labor. They need the jobs. But, uptight wingers keep the legal quotas so damn low that if FORCED illegal immigration. If we made it easier to get in legally, we would know who we had here as it stands, we do not have a clue.

For the record, I find Lou Dobbs' constant obsession with the issue rather racist. Especially when he runs stories like one I saw recently where he talks about Illigal Immigrants being rpaists (in general) because 1 of 50 guys they rounded up were part of the group. Wonder why he didn't point out how many of those racists rounded up were legal Anerican citizens or how many of them were white. The debate CAN cross that line. However, there is nothing inherently racist about the discussion of the issue.

[pnwmom]

125. With current rates, the U.S. census bureau is predicting a population

of 400 million by 2050. Do you think it should be higher than that?

[DistressedAmerican]

246. Apparently It Needs To Be. The facts speak for themselves.

Thre are approximately 12 millon that did not fit into those quotas that are here doing work and contributing to our economy.

Tell me that those numbers are adequate given the large number still coming in and the large number that employ them. They aren't. The facts speak for themselves. Current quotas are TOO LOW to meet the demands of our current economy. Hence, the huge number of illegal workers being employed.

When they can fill all of those jobs with legal workers (large enough quotas to meet demand from the labor market), the system is back in balance and we do not have vigilante freaks manning the border.

When you start getting all freaky about the number you quote, you should consider looking at the projected US population growth in the same time period. There is no problem absorbing that many immigrants nation wide over that many years.

4 specific questions for you:
Just how many latinos are you willing to allow into the country over that period?

Why that number?

Is it based on the factors described above?

Why not more than that number?

[pnwmom]

269. "When they can fill all of those jobs with legal workers. . . the system

is back in balance."

The reason they're not filling more of those jobs is because employers would rather not pay the wages that would be required to fill the jobs. Many employers would rather employ people who will work off the books, for less money, and with no benefits. It is not that our economy requires all of them: it's the employers drive for profit that is at the bottom of this.

It's not up to me to decide how many immigrants of any group to let in. And it's not a decision for the potential immigrants themselves to make. It's up to Congress, working together, and in consultation with economists and others, to make this decision and then to enforce the laws.

[DistressedAmerican]

364. That Is A Totally Weak Dodge Of My Questions.

This whole thread is about how many should be let in. We all have an opinion. Why do you refuse to share yours?

Come answer my questions. Don't wuss out just when it is getting down to the details. You asked me a question about the number I thought was appropriate. I answered that question. Your turn.

[TriMetFan]

118. I'm just sick of this BULLSHIT!

We call our-selfs Democrats and as Democrats I thought that we stood for the little guy. Hell I should have just stayed in the Republican Party, if I knew that The Democratic party believes in stepping on the poor just like my old party the Republicans. Shame on every one here that keeps on blaming these undocumented works, because it is not their fault for what NAFTA has done to their farms and that our own American Companies are willing to hire them illegally or send our jobs over seas. If every State in our Nation put pressure on our Federal Government to apply the laws that are on the books already, which include fining the Tyson's and Walmart's of the world this would stop or slow down. But to blame a group of people that are trying to feed their hungry kids is not the way to go. Also I'm sick that it is easy to say that these people are Mexicans. As a American Mexican I can tell you that not all of these people are from Mexico!!!!


:grr: :grr: :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr:

[pnwmom]

126. Who do you see blaming the workers? Most of the posters who

are concerned about illegal immigration are talking about doing what you suggest -- going after the employers. There are also a number of posts here about the negative effects of NAFTA and of outsourcing.

[TriMetFan]

130. There have been post that do.

And if you have not seen them then that is your own fault. I made a promise to my-self that I would not stand by and let this kind of crap go un-answer. Call your Senators and Congressmen and women and explain to them that NAFTA has to be repealed and that the laws on the books to be enforced against the Companies that hire undocumented works. But I will also tell you that just last night I had a passenger on my bus tell me to speak English. Like I posed I'm a American Mexican. I just looked at the guy and his wife and said in a very clear voice that I just didn't understand "REDNECK". So you see I have to deal with the fall out of this bullshit! Americans are being used like a cheap whore by Rove. Again I thought that The Democratic Party stood for the little guy. I'm about ready to walk away from this party and never vote again, because I'm just seeing the line between the two parties merging.

[pnwmom]

134. On this issue, I don't think there IS a clear party line.

Both parties are struggling with division on the issue.

But are many other issues that strongly distinguish the two parties.

[TriMetFan]

135. I'm seeing the same stuff I

saw back in the early 80's with in the republican party that are happening in the Democratic Party. If this party can't stand on its principle's then it will just be like the republican. Been there and done that and no thank for a second hand. Also I see that you have the Gay Flag. Now do you like it when Gay and Lesbians are used as the punching bag for the republican party? Now put yourself in my place. Not only am I a Brown skin American but also a Lesbian.

Again the ones to blame for no jobs are the American Companies and the Federal Government for not enforcing the laws. Its that simple.

[Critters2]

206. I keep asking this, and getting no response

Please post a link to anywhere on DU where a DU'er has made the kind of racist comments you're accusing them of.

Or shut up!

:mad:

[TriMetFan]

292. Don't you ever tell me to shut up!!!!!!!!!

My people have been told to shut up way to much! And when i say my people I mean like my mother and father for just speaking in Spanish. So don't you every tell me to shut up! Got it!
I can't even go to work with out some freaking so called white person telling me to go back to Mexico, when I'm not even from there! So again don't tell to shut up!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Critters2]

328. Silly argument

I didn't tell you to shut up because you're Latino. I didn't even know you were Latino, and knowing it doesn't make any difference to me.

I told you to shut up because you called DU'ers racist, without making any attempt to document that racism. I do think a person who makes such an accusation but can't support it should shut up--that is STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!

It's a violation of DU's rules.

So, put up or shut up.

[TriMetFan]

311. I don't need to post any links.....

just read some of what is said. Its the underlining tone to some of the post. Again I have posted that this issue would hurt American Hispanics because of our skin color. The more people blame these undocumented works for the failing of our system and not the ones that do the hiring, Federal Government or even our-selfs for letting this happen to us, then why blame these undocumented works? Also don't think that I'm for having undocumented people here in my Country, but don't ever tell me to shut up! Because I will not ever let any one push me around.

[Critters2]

329. So, you can't demonstrate that there are ANY DU'ers

who hold the attitudes you're accusing them of.

If that's not what you're doing, you do need to post links to support your argument.

[TriMetFan]

335. Like I said I don't need to show you links!

I guess you are white so you just don't understand. People don't need to be flat out in your face for people of color to know when some one is being or meaning something racial. Like when some one says those illegal Mexicans or making it out that all illegals are from Mexico, what do you call that? But like you said you didn't even know I was a American Hispanic, because you justed jumped the gun. :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Scout]

338. Then no one will take your complaints seriously....

if all you can do is post rants and smileys....

If you're going to come out and accuse fellow DUers and fellow Dems, fellow liberals, of blatant racism then you DO need to post some links.

I'm certainly not inclined, at this point, to take you seriously. :shrug:

[TriMetFan]

339. o.k. you win.....

pnwmom (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-17-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #15

18. Why should "brown people" from Mexico be able to cut in front of legal "black" immigrants from Africa? Or legal immigrants from anywhere?
"legal immigrants also work for lower wages than Americans are willing to work for until they wise up and demand more, so it has nothing to do with illegal or legal immigrants."
It has everything to do with illegal or legal immigrants. The government can use immigration LIMITS to prevent a market from being flooded with immigrants who are willing to work for less. Illegal immigration means unrestricted, limitless, unplanned immigration.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1452446

[Scout]

340. you call THAT racist?

you have some serious comprehension issues then.

This poster has been talking about LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL immigrants. Race is incidental to their complaints.

[TriMetFan]

341. What ever.

I was just waiting to see when one of you would post that it doesn't matter. That it is this or that, but the fact is that the post is there. There was no need to put "Brown People", was there. But again what ever.

[Scout]

342. the "brown" people was put in there as a reply, they also noted

"black" people ... the whole point was why should a person of any color who is an ILLEGAL immigrant be given preference of someone who is a LEGAL immigrant.

That's why I say you have comprehension problems..., you totally missed the whole point of the post in your excitement to call another DUer a racist.

[Critters2]

345. The post was about how illegal immigration pits

"brown people" against "black people". It was speaking in favor of policies in which race is NOT an issue--in which all workers are treated equally.

How do you not get that?

[TriMetFan]

349. Again what ever.

Because no matter how you twist and turn it it was there. Even in post 15. There is no need to call any Hispanic "Brown People" or to make it out that all illegals are from Mexico. Again and again it is time to blame the right group and that is our selfs for letting this happen. We the American people let this happen to us. We have let the American Companies and our Government to get away with this, but to blame a group of poor people that yes are braking the law when they cross the boarder, because what we have help happen in their nation is wrong. It is also wrong that you and others don't want to understand what is happening to us American Hispanics because of this issue. But again what ever. From "A BROWN PERSON"

[Critters2]

350. The "brown people" meme was started by the open borders

advocates. If it bothers you, and I'm not saying it shouldn't, talk to them.

I agree that American companies and the Bush admin are to blame. I have never blamed the immigrants for the problems that bring them here.

And I haven't seen other DU'ers blame them either. Falsely accusing people of racism doesn't further your argument or your cause.

[TriMetFan]

351. Go check your e-mail.

Like I said go and report me. From "A BROWN PERSON"

[Critters2]

353. I did

Calling me a racist in private doesn't further your argument any better than calling people racist in public. Again, cite examples.

[TriMetFan]

354. Hey mycritters2

were did I call you a racist?????????????
From mycitters2
>>If you continue to accuse DU'ers of being racist, without
>>giving any examples of said racism, I will start alerting on
>>your posts. Personal attacks and broadbrush statements are
>>violations of the discussion board rules, and work to quash
>>constructive discussion.
>>
>>Accusations of racism on a progressive board are attempts to
>>silence the variety of opinions here. It's wrong, and I
>will
>>both call you on it, and report it.
>>
>>Have a good day!
>
>
From TriMetFan
>Hey don't worry I don't plan on staying with DU any longer. So
>go ahead and report all you want. From "A BROWN PERSON"

[Critters2]

355. Posting private e-mails publicly

What are you, the NSA?

If you were going to do that, you should have posted the full correspondence.

*ignore*

[TriMetFan]

356. You are the one that is that is saying that I called

you a racist. So How am I going to prove that I didn't!!!!!!! So please why don't you try and show the rest of us were I called you a racist!!!!!!

[Critters2]

344. Where did a DU'er say that?

If it happens as often as you say, it should be easy to document. I'm asking for one example. You obviously can't provide one. And my ethnic background--which you don't actually know--is not relevant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

250. The little guys who suffer from unrestricted immigration are sick too

At one time people who called themselves democrats felt that sticking up for working americans was a worthwhile enterprise.

[Critters2]

330. Now, those who do are called "racist"

How sad is that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. Moving towards equilibrium

I love it when people try to sneak in the economic logic, thusly: "Shouldn't the number of immigrants allowed in each year be based on the number our economy needs -- without depressing wages and benefits..." The economy handles all that it gets under a market system. If that drives down wages and benefits, that's just a result of supply and demand. It's funny to watch the "economists" - usually so gaga over the virtues of the free market - cry uncle and beg for a control economy on this issue. The very contortion of economic logic tells us that there is, indeed, something else at work. It's very easy for people to understand that capital will move out of industries that are stagnant or saturated, and into endeavors that are not. It is also easy to see the theoretical point that such movement will lead to more competition in the newly emerging industries, barring exorbitant barriers to entry, and the ideology of capitalism tells us that this is, indeed, a good result in general, though it may hurt those already staked out in that emerging industry. One wonders, then, why it is so hard for the ideological capitalists to understand that labor will work in the same way. What are borders, then, after all, from an economic perspective? They are non-market barriers to entry, with all the legitimacy of a guild system from a market perspective. Labor will flow from stagnating economies to booming economies. That is a FACT OF CAPITALISM. Will the booming economies see more competition? Yes, of course, just as the businesses in a particular industry will see more competition when new capital flows start moving in to fill the void: the movement is towards equilibrium in theory. It's just that Americans don't want to be equal, and so fight to sustain their advantage with all the ferocity of the most vile monopolies. But we should trust in capitalism on this point, if we love it so much. If you don't like it, retreat to the control economies.

There's no more comical spectacle today than Lou Dobbs, decked out in Brooks Brothers, essentially arguing for a control economy against the genius of capitalist markets. It truly is amazing.

[pooja]

132. I think it is just harder to be American these day

the gov't doesn't listen, the middle class are slowly slipping into the lower class, the rich seem to get richer, the poor seem to become poorer, school systems are dumbing down because of lack of funding and stupid federal mandated testing programs--throw on top of that teaching children who don't understand you. If we weren't wasting 1/2 of every tax dollar on some stupid war... we would be better prepared to handle education.

I suppose being of a younger generation, I don't see the American way of life slipping away. My wages are already depressed because I am competing with a slew of "experienced" old farts who are costing us too much in health care because they have sat on their asses eating mcdonald's, buying more junk at cheaper rates from places like China, and I am competing with those who will work for less and are biligual. Now all of a sudden their good ole jobs are being threatened by globalization. All of a sudden they are worried about retirement and who's going to pay for it. Well I'm realistic... there will be no s.s. by the time I reach retirement and I will still have to pay for others.

Until the UN signs a treaty with all nations who want to participate in globalization to set the same working standards for all these nations, we are going to be continually screwed because we cost too much... maybe in 100 yrs we'll be flooding Mexico's gates.

[Maestro]

148. Because most anti-immigration rhetoric focuses on those

entering when the problem lies with people who hire them plus he just gives racists more power in the media. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=62

[unlawflcombatnt]

180. Wrong

Another straw man argument. Most "anti-immigration rhetoric" focuses on those employing the illegal immigrants, not the immigrants themselves.

Of the 15 threads I've seen posted on this subject, every single one of them has stressed employer prosecution over illegal immigrant prosecution.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Maestro]

243. So you are one in how many?

I don't recognize your name from any of the debates that I have been in.

[Critters2]

331. Are you kidding?

Unlawflcombatant shows up in every immigration conversation here--always advocating for American workers.

[High Plains]

150. Methinks they doth protest too much.

[SoCalDem]

155. Immigration would be/could be self-limiting IF laws were enforced

and if we had a TRULY representative minimum wage. THAT'S what needs to happen, but lawmakers prefer to sit on their hands, look the other way and chant "tax-cut,tax-cut,tax-cut"..

If the minimum wage was $12.00 an hour, and we had nationalized healthcare, you would probably see waves of employers actually preferring to hire "legal" employees ...

Hiring sub-minimum wage workers "off the books" or "day laborers" would be a thing of the past, and word would soon spread..IF owners of businesses had to go to jail for a year or so AND forfeit their property/businesses if they were caught hiring "illegals"..

The real reason that so many hate/fear "immigration" is pure unadulterated racism, spun into a monetary fairy tale.

if the "immigrants" were eunuch orphans, they would have no problem with it, but what they fear most is the encroachment of family members of immigrants who actually want to be with the ones who make it here first...and of course they want families.. The fierce anti-immigrant folks do not want the races to "mingle", and they always do.. Young people are not reluctant to get to know people different from themselves..

[unlawflcombatnt]

185. Prosecute Employers

"Hiring sub-minimum wage workers "off the books" or "day laborers" would be a thing of the past, and word would soon spread..IF owners of businesses had to go to jail for a year or so AND forfeit their property/businesses if they were caught hiring "illegals".."

I agree with you on this part.

However, I completely disagree with you that opposition to illegal immigration is all about racism. It is not. It's mainly about competing with illegal immigrants for jobs, and having wages suppressed by the oversupply of labor created by illegal immigration.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[gollygee]

172. I think the concern is that current immigration laws might be

racially inequitable. A certain number of people can come in from each country a year (that is people who aren't coming in on a visa related to marriage or being transferred by their work or whatever). So there is some question as to how fair those numbers are.

I don't think we should have unrestricted immigration because working people here would be terribly hurt. But it would certainly be fair to look at our immigration laws to see if they're fair.

[PsycheCC]

178. A lot of DU'ers agree with you, and according to ZOGBY, so do

most Americans, including Democrats.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

Great post! You get my vote for best page, pnwmom.

[Radical Activist]

181. Either you care equally about all people in all nations

or you don't. I don't know how to describe those who don't as anything other than nationalists or racists.

If you're concerned about infrastructure, them I'm sure a government works project to improve the infrastructure would provide jobs for many, many immigrants.

[pnwmom]

188. Caring about people in all nations and being ABLE to CARE FOR people

in all nations are two different things. We can't care for the needs of the whole world.

[Radical Activist]

224. Why not?

We're all too willing to economically and militarily dominate the whole world to enrich ourselves. Maybe its time we start giving back.

[pnwmom]

238. We shouldn't be trying to dominate the world either.

What DU'er would argue that we should?

[LincolnMcGrath]

186. I was called a White Bigot by one of DU's finest flunkies.

For simply stating a fact.

[unlawflcombatnt]

194. I know the feeling

I've been called a racist, bigot, xenophobe, white nationalist, and a white supremacist.

Oh, and also a "hater of brown people."

Just for posting facts.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

208. Me, too

I've started alerting on posts that make blanket statements referring to DU'ers as racists, xenophobes, etc. And then they go away.

I'm fed up.

[unlawflcombatnt]

213. That's exactly what you should do

Pro-Amnesty supporters hit the "alert" button on every thread they see that doesn't support their point of view. It's time to turn the tables.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Robert Oak]

190. DeFazio gets it

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/05/26/44772a7c0a997

My choice was between the House bill, which contained strong and necessary border security improvements and employer sanctions, or maintaining the status quo. Annually, more than one million immigrants are captured trying to enter the U.S., 500,000 or more annually elude capture and make it into the U.S. illegally, and 10 to 12 million already live here illegally. In my opinion, the status quo is not sustainable.

Now DUers, DeFazio is one of the best extreme left liberals we have in the house. He is awesome and he cannot be "bought" by lobbyists.

He knows what's going on with the cheap labor agenda and trade.

This really isn't a conservative issue or a racist issue...and the corporations are the ones who want you to think that it is..
so they get their cheap labor.

If anyone believes DeFazio is a racist when he is trying to protect your jobs the US economy and US labor..you're really grasping at straws.

[CanSocDem]

230. The link helped.....

...as I was still having trouble with your views on this. I think you've explained it to me before somewhere else.....

You know I believe EVERYTHING you write. Best regards!!

[Robert Oak]

308. Thx

I do my best to parse through this and on this one, there is so many potholes to watch out for.

I honestly believe the race card is being played to the maximum to avoid looking at labor economics, rights as a nation-state
and what that means economically and what that will do to American workers as a whole.
I find it a full time job to parse through all of the proposals/legislation, look for injustice, find the labor arbitrage agenda, make sure one isn't endorsing discrimination in disguise, supporting domestic labor markets and so on.

[Pharaoh]

195. yes,

they are flooding the market with cheap labor to bust unions and destroy the middle class................

This is class warfare, Wake up America!

But I fear it may be too late :-(

[Critters2]

211. You know you're about to be called a racist,

right?

[smoogatz]

199. The solution to the latino immigration "problem" is simple.

Enforce the existing labor laws as they apply to employers, increasing the penalties for larger companies if necessary to give them real bite. Problem is, employers in the agriculture, construction and food processing industries in particular don't see latino immigration as a problem--they see it as the best thing since sliced freaking bread. Not only do they get to pay sub-minimum wages, they don't have to worry about benefits or unemployment or workman's comp or unionization--because their undocumented workers don't exist--at least not on paper. The other problem is, the ag, construction and food processing industries have enormous political clout, locally, regionally and nationally--and they'll spend a lot of money to see to it that nothing is done to actually slow or stop the flow of latino immigrants into the US. Should the US have a reasonable, responsible policy on immigration? Sure--but let's not start by victimizing a lot of poor people who are willing to take great risks and work crappy jobs to make better lives for their families. Start with those who would (and do) exploit them. Labor-intensive American industry is like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking cheap workers over the border. If you want to stop the flow of immigrants (and there are reasonable arguments that we should at least slow it down some), then you have to shut off the vacuum.

[msongs]

205. che gueverra murdered lots of latinos. that of course has nothing to

do with immigration to the USA.

why do you claim it to be a "latino immigration problem"?

just curious. otherwise immigration does not bother me.

global warming is earth's way of purging itself anyway : _)

Msongs

can you sing?
www.msongs.com/vocalistwanted.htm

[smoogatz]

232. Sorry--no idea what you're talking about.

Care to try again?

[unlawflcombatnt]

209. Well Put

The only thing that will stop the flow is employer prosecution. Enforcement of laws against the hiring of illegal immigrants needs to be the centerpiece of any plan to reduce illegal immigration. Without true employer prosecution, no plan will work.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[quickesst]

234. From another post...

in another thread by unlawfulcombat. "The only specific of this debate I will vocalize is my desire to see those who have taken advantage of paying human beings near slave wages for profit pay for their inhumanity."


From unlawfulcombat's post.
It's pretty well accepted by ALL sources that there are at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. at present. That comes out to 4% of our population of 298 million. (And that 298 million number really does come from the Census Bureau) The New York Times puts the number of illegal immigrants working at 7 million.

Illegal immigrants do cost America money. They suppress wages 4% annually, or about $1700/year per worker. This comes out to an aggregate worker income loss of $243 billion per year. This is the equivalent of 63% of our 2005 GDP growth of $382 billion. Obviously this wage reduction reduces consumer spending, demand for production, and demand for labor to provide that production. This reduction in "demand" for labor adds an additional reduction in wages to that caused by the increased "supply" of labor.

Illegal immigration causes a reduction in aggregate labor income by suppressing wages. That suppresses consumer spending, production demand, and labor demand by itself. Any money sent out of the country by illegal immigrants even further reduces consumer spending, further reducing production demand and labor demand, causing still further declines in wages.

unlawflcombatnt

My words: This is all any one needs to understand. Most Americans do. The problem is, the policy is being dictated by two extreme, but vocal factions. On one end we have the extremely benevolent, only they cannot see the true cost of such an extreme ideology. It shouldn't make you feel good to do something for one group of people and the expense of another. And on the other end we have the predictable, but dangerous haters, those who truly think a man is less than a man if their skin is not white. The majority of Americans, Dem, Repub, or Indy understand that there is a middle ground that has to be reached, and that the desires of those who would use this for political or financial gain should not be considered in forming a fair immigration policy. There are a lot of people in Little Rock who are in the country by breaking immigration laws and entering without following the proper procedures as dictated by those laws established by the American government, which represents the will of the American people. Of those who broke laws to be there, a large number install sheetrock for a living. That's what I do also. I have done it by starting at $8.00 an hour, and through hard work, dependability, and a desire for a decent life for my family, I have been able to do that. But, I am home now while any day of the week, I can show you a job where the wages are paid in cash for piece-work, which is accomplished by overloading the job with people, knocking it out in quick fashion, and moving on to the next. When I return to work, hopefully next week, I will undoubtedly be faced with the familiar position of transforming unacceptable work, done too fast, by inexperienced workers into something acceptable. My last day on the job was spent performing that very work. Having said that and bled all over everyone, I fully realize that the only practical solution to such a complicated problem is compromise and sacrifice on both sides of the issue. That the majority of people involved in this issue are from Mexico is an unchangeable fact, and one that cannot be an all encompassing answer to the problem.
If I have not made my views clear enough to understand, I apologize, but I am beginning to waver a little in concentration dept. and would like to reserve what little I have left to indulge in a small treat. Deadwood.:shrug: What can I say. I'm a selfish bastard. Thanks.
quickesst

[unlawflcombatnt]

428. I think you've been VERY clear

I think your story is an excellent example of the kind of wage suppression and job displacement that's been caused by the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants, as well the consequences of replacing more skilled Americans with lesser-skilled, but much less-paid illegal labor. Thanks for sharing an example of what's really happening out there.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[doc03]

217. Because they can't justify illegal immigration

so they try to put you on the defensive by calling anybody that disagrees with them a racist. It's like the old trick big business has used for decades calling labor unions communists, or the Republicans always screaming class warfare and socialism.

[Cleita]

241. So what do you think about our illegal invasion of Iraq?

Nothing I presume, which is the way the WH wants it. If you are going to talk about breaking laws let's start with war crimes and treason being committed right here at home in the people's White House by our leaders.

Let those who are without illegal incidents in their lives then cast the first stones. It's the Christian thing to do. Didn't Jesus say something like that? But picking on a ragged bunch of people who are only trying to survive is pretty hypocritical IMHO.

[pnwmom]

256. Your logic is faulty, Cleita. But you probably know that.

That was just a rhetorical device, wasn't it -- pretending that anyone who had concerns about the effects of illegal immigration on the economy couldn't have any other concerns at all -- and certainly, not about the war in Iraq.

Just in case you actually were serious, my two biggest issues right now are honest elections and the war in Iraq (and any other war GWB dreams up). But I have a host of other concerns as well, and the impact on jobs -- due to immigration and out-sourcing -- is one of them.

[doc03]

363. No am totally against the illegal

invasion of Iraq. I think the outing of Valarie Plame was treason and abuse and murder of POWs is a war crime. But the subject was whenever someone is against illegal immigration you are labeled a racist. I am also against illegal immigration because of (illegal) not race.

[izzybeans]

235. It's not what they say that makes them racist it is who they choose

to define as a "problem" or "concern".

[Critters2]

237. Who's "they"? n/t

[izzybeans]

302. read the op and figure it out.

[unlawflcombatnt]

268. who they've chosen

Most of us have "chosen" the illegal employers to go after, and the American worker to defend.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[izzybeans]

301. most of us on the left anyway

Except some of us on the left see two groups of workers being pitted against each other in a vile campaign by these same employers. So yes workers, no matter their nationality or skin color, are not the "problem".

[Hippo_Tron]

254. No, but immigration is an over-hyped problem

Whenever someone says that immigration hurts the middle class, I reply that the Bush Administration hurts the middle class a lot more. Lets deal with the more important problems first.

[pnwmom]

257. It actually hurts the people on the lowest rung of the ladder the most.

And there's no reason we can't deal with more than one problem at a time.

[Hippo_Tron]

259. And the lack of a national healthcare system hurts them more

Not to mention that minimum wage isn't adjusted for inflation and gas prices are higher than ever. Yes illegal immigrants take some jobs away from Americans who want them and yes I am admantly against Bush's guest worker (read: permanent slave labor) program but again, the problem is over-hyped. Illegal immigrants are the scapegoat for everything these days.

[pnwmom]

264. Do you live in an area that is impacted, as I do? When one out of five

school kids comes from an ESL family, the schools face a huge challenge. I think it's easy for people in other areas to dismiss this.

[Hippo_Tron]

273. I live in New Orleans

Most of our public schools aren't up and running after Katrina.

Let me ask you this, though? Are non native English speaking kids the biggest problem facing the schools in your area or are there bigger problems?

[pnwmom]

282. All the districts around here are facing the problem

of the testing requirements due to the No Child Left Behind Act, which apply to every subsection in a school, including ESL. Recently, only half of the high school students passed the required math test for graduation, which is largely a written test (heavy on "story" problems).

The Seattle school district is also facing huge budget problems and consequent closure of schools because of a financial mess left by the last superintendent.

There is no money available for extra support for the districts impacted by ESL students because of the funding situation in this state. One of the good things, or bad things, depending on your perspective, about education in our state is that local districts cannot just vote themselves higher taxes -- even if they want to. The state is supposed to pay for an "adequate education" -- and the funds are the same for both high cost and low cost areas -- and money above that amount is strictly limited. So the good part is that we do not have the huge disparities in funding across richer and poorer districts that some states have. The bad part is that we can't meet special needs on a local level, even when we want to.

[IndyJones]

279. They don't see it or feel it, so they don't believe the problems exist.

[Cybergata]

290. I teach in a district with lots of ESL students...

and in the long run it has been a great experience for kids. A lot of the kids in the ESL program pick up English very fast. I love being in my classroom with all sorts of different kids coming from Mexico, China, Iran, etc. as well as the wonderful mixture of the kids from diverse backgrounds. I'm sorry you are finding it a negative situation because it has opened the horizons for all students at my school. I also would expect that Seattle, just like Albuquerque, New Mexico, gets money from the federal government for their ESL programs.

Again, if we put the money we put into our weapons programs into Education, we could educate everyone. If this country did give its welfare to the rich, schools would have plenty of money. I would much rather have my taxes pay for the education of thousands illegal aliens than pay for more weapons or to pay for a war which will enable the oil companies to make more money than they already do. Anyway, all my ancestors have been in the present day U.S. either prior to Columbus, or others came on the Mayflower, some came with Oñate to settle New Mexico in 1598, and the rest were here before the mid 1700s. I about as American can you can get and I would say that with ever wave of newcomer who came after my ancestors, came people who worked hard and were often exploited by the people who were already here. Immigrants add to a country far more than they subtract from it. This is a country made of immigrants. How dare we say that once we are in, that others have no right to the chance to improve their lives and especially the lives of their children. Anyway, the whole immigration problem is minuscule compared to what this government is doing to screw up the economy for generations to come.

[pnwmom]

295. And so you don't think there's a problem when 500,000 illegal

immigrants come in annually on top of the million or so legal immigrants? You think we can sustain those kinds of numbers for . . . how long?

[Cybergata]

313. They are going to come no matter what we do!

Honestly, knowing many of the Mexico immigrants and even illegals, I have to say I enjoy many of their company far more than a lot of people whose ancestors immigrated in the past. They are a hard working people. They are the ones who have courage and resolve because that's what it takes to come to a country that treats people of color who are poor as lesser beings & know at any moment they can be kicked out of the country. They don't whine all the time like people in the U.S. whine, and they don't believe that they deserve everything like a lot of people born in the U.S. do. I know and love Mexican culture. These people bring a strong sense of family.

Again, now is no different than before. People will always try to immigrate to the U.S. They have in large numbers before. The people already here will use the same arguments they did since the 1800s, and politicians will use the issue to divert attention away from their scandals or corruption. People of color are always a target at times such as these. It happens over and over again. We need to pay less attention to those who have no power, and put our attention on those who abuse their power.

Anyway, many of the new immigrants I deal with are children. As a teacher, I never draw a line and place one group of kids on one side as kids who I will deny my love to because they are immigrants. All people on this earth deserve a better life.

As far as sustaining the number of immigrants I'd like to ask how long the earth can sustain the U.S.'s over consumption of resources. This country uses a large percent of the resources of the world. We have exploited the resources and the people of other countries, especially those of Latin America. How long until the earth can no longer sustain our consumerism and consumption society?

Another question. Companies and corporations from the United States have gotten rich exploiting the land and people of Latin America. Our government supported dictators and governments that made it easy for them to do so, no matter what the cost was for the people of that country. Guatemala is a great example. When the people of the country democratically elected a leader who promised to take back the land for the people of the country of Guatemala, the U.S. literally overthrew this leader. Dictators followed, and thousands of people were massacred. Don't we owe these people a little bit more than the fear of deportation?

[IndyJones]

375. Especially when 75% of them stay in California. Yes, there is a huge

problem.

[quickesst]

278. you're trying...

to separate two issues that are bound together. When Bush is gone, and if the policy he and apparently some here is implemented, the middle class will continue to disappear. That is why it is important not to let Bushco have their way. Their goal is not in the spirit of helping those less fortunate. Even if amnesty were granted, and the low wages were outlawed, the second and more important part of their agenda will continue. That is the decline of the middle class in this country. How can anyone not understand that the basic goal here in this country is simple for them. Two classes of people. The haves, and the have-nots. I would think most aware people could feel that slapping them in the face a long time ago. Ask me how it still aids the bushbunch if near slave wages are outlawed? Simple, the new citizens will be paid the "minimum" required by law. The only logical course that can take is for a person such as myself, having worked many years to achieve the wages and quality of life for my family that lets us get by without too much difficulty, will be for me to accept lower wages in order to compete with the influx of workers who will gladly work for what they percieve to be excellent wages. You have to understand that the "doing only the jobs American's won't do is not only wrong, but a bona-fide pile of horse-shit. And I would venture a wager that the majority of the amnesty/open border crowd espouse their views from perches not directly affected by the problem, while the majority of Americans who understand the dangers are those who perform blue collar jobs, and are afraid theirs will become one of those mythical "jobs Americans won't do". Thanks.
quickesst

[pnwmom]

283. I happen to have heard some very intelligent immigrants

recently argue your point. They said that previous administrations were motivated to support a strong middle class to act as a counterweight to those who advocated communism. With the threat of communism out of the way, leaders like Bush have no reason any longer to support a strong middle class. We're on our way toward a two-tier economy.

[Cybergata]

287. With the 2 tiers greatly...

out to proportion, and a huge chunk on the wealth in the hand of the few on the top tier. Maybe Michael Moore was wrong to take Communism on its last tour. (From one of his TV Nation segments) Place enough people in poverty, and it won't take them long to start seeing Red. FDR understood this. Revolution was stirring in the Nation, and if the government didn't do something to help people, the so called "republic" would be overthrown.

[Cybergata]

288. With the 2 tiers greatly...

out to proportion, and a huge chunk on the wealth in the hand of the few on the top tier. Maybe Michael Moore was wrong to take Communism on its last tour. (From one of his TV Nation segments) Place enough people in poverty, and it won't take them long to start seeing Red. FDR understood this. Revolution was stirring in the Nation, and if the government didn't do something to help people, the so called "republic" would be overthrown.

[Hippo_Tron]

289. First of all, I'm adamantly against Bush's guest worker program

Because I fear that is truly what will create a legalized slave labor class in this country. I would rather we do nothing at all than have a guest worker program so at least we can address this in the future.

I think that the first thing that we need to do is prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants. While beefing up border security may help somewhat, this is the only measure that is really going to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into the country. I think we should also increase the quota for legal immigration.

As far as amnesty goes, I'm still not sure about it. If we give amnesty and grant citizenship to all of the immigrants here they will have to be paid minimum wage just like everybody else and that will certainly eliminate the problem of the slave labor class. On the other hand, it's hard to enforce immigration laws when we reward those who have broken them. Amnesty without automatic citizenship would definitely be something that I couldn't support. That would just be rewarding people for breaking laws AND still keeping a slave labor class.

[Evoman]

293. Because, to a large extent, it is rascist.

Most people don't like to think of themselves as rascist. Most people like to believe that they are just concerned about the rule of law, or the decrease in resources, or language issues etc. But the fact is, when it comes down to it, most people are just damn scared...scared of brown people, scared of black people, scared of THEM. Again, we convince ourselves otherwise...

Language issues are stupid. Most immigrants take about a generation to adjust to language differences. Most immigrants really want to learn the language, and they do so quickly.

Resources issues are stupid. The only reason that Americans have resources and live lifes of comparitive luxuries is because they exploit other countries. Canada is no different. We exploit the resources and the people of other countries...basically, we take away their standard of life, so we can live in luxury. And then we get upset when they just want to survive. I find it ironic, actually, that people here complain that the mexicans should "fix their countries" when the single biggest menace in the world right now is the United States. Its a lot easier to "fix your country" when your not starving to death, and despite that, all of you millions of liberals, with all your resources, are basically unable to do anything in your own country. Lol...imagine if you will...your literally starving, you have no jobs apart from sweat shops where you have to work 18 hours or more just to survive. Your kids are emaciated..and they are working at the same shop you are. Your trying to make ends meet, while fat people from a neighbouring country are partying away and seeing parts of your own country you never will. Doesn't leave a lot of time to go to rallies and wave signs does it?

Ah, but life is not fair. My parents fucked, and I was lucky enough to be squirted out on American soil. Too bad the Mexicans weren't. I deserve to exploit them and other countries because I was born in the good ol' U S of A. Why should anyone get a piece of the pie I'm stuffing my face with.

But life is not fair. And I'm guessing, someday, despite whatever you try to do, your kids and your kids kids will be indistinguishable from those hungry mexicans. The world is going down the tubes, and there is nothing you can do about it, especially if you hide in your own little box and let the rest of the world go to hell. If outsourcing doesn't cause our downfall, global warming or peak oil will.But your going to have to suck it up. Cause life ain't fair babe.

Evoman

[pnwmom]

294. And your better solution is . . . ?

[IndyJones]

378. So is it racist for the wealthy in Mexico to not pay decent taxes

and the government of Mexico to not support their own citizens or is it just racist for Americans to think they should?:shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

435. The economic impact in my area mostly affects African Americans

So am I racist to worry about undocumented workers (of any color, race, religion, creed or nationality) and the resulting nosedive of wages? Or would I be a racist if I refused to worry about the unemployment situation of African Americans in my part of the world? :shrug:


Though I do agree that we're likely all going to hell in a handbasket economically. But in the short run, there are real adverse economic realities which occur in a market with an overabundance of labor. And the crowd that favors such an unregulated immigration scheme has yet to even acknowledge those economic realities, or how they disproportionately impact minorities (inlcuding Hispanics and Latinos) who are citizens/legal residents of this country.


I admit that most of the America First types who shout so loudly about "illegals" are racists. That doesn't mean that everyone, or even a majority, of the people who are concerned about the impact of unregulated immigration are racists.

[treestar]

299. Because none of the arguments hold water

The trouble it would take to enforce it against these Mexicans is so much that you have to wonder why it is so important to people they not come.

The answer is give them visas to come, they will be legal and that will raise wages generally.

Mexicans and Canadians are different from Somalians because they are from bordering countries.

These migrations take place all over the earth and they help the economy. Someday Americans might have better opportunities somewhere else and you can bet they'll whine and cry about THAT country's immigration restrictions.

It only helps open up markets for people to go where they are needed.

So excessive concern with everybody staying on this or that corner of the earth seems to have no other explanation.

Maybe it's not racist for some people. Some people just have to have everything be in order and everything and everyone in their proper place. But that's just not possible.

The Mexicans can be deported at great expense and then just come back the next day. Really not everything must be fought tooth and nail and treated with zero tolerance and expected to be kept in order to perfection. We could easily change the laws to accomodate this and make it legal, so insisting on keeping unrealistic laws would seem to have some other reasoning behind it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

300. Because they have no argument.

Being against illegal immigration is common sense. We do not have the resources or infrastructure to sustain uncontrolled growth. We need to heavily fine/jail employers for hiring illegal immigrants -- stop the problem at the source.

Of course, many people on this board will attack you for being on the "wrong" side of this issue -- even tying in their mistaken assumptions into a slew of non sequiturs, some of which include on this very thread, your evident hatred of "brown people," your lack of exposure to other cultures, etc., as if you spend your day burning crosses or something.

[bleedingheart]

303. You bring up valid concerns and personally I think that the GOP

is twisting the argument more than Democrats because they want to control immigration but keep those immigrants under their thumb...

My view is that I would rather people immigrate legally so that they won't get screwed and neither will Americans ...

What keeps wages depressed is the fact that when a person is here illegally they can be taken advantage of...I worked with a guy from China (very intelligent materials engineer) and the plant manager had taken his passport....when I told the guy it was illegal to do that he didn't follow through so I knew then that he was probably in the country illegally and was a virtual prisoner of the plant manager but to turn him in....that would mean back to China he would go...

[Klukie]

305. Great question........

I suspect that many Du'ers don't speak out on this issue for fear of being labeled a racist. One of the worst insults to many Du'ers is to challenge their level of tolerance. As another poster stated above, some of the problem lies with the fact that many who oppose illegal immigration are huge racists. This confuses the issue because some on the left can't seperate race and national interest. This issue has nothing to do with mexicans as a race or people. It is a numbers issue. I don't need a ton of facts or statistics to tell me that our country can't sustain the levels of illegal immigrants coming across our borders. I can't help the fact that the overwhelming majority of the folks who cross illegally are mexican. If Canadians where coming here at the same rate I would be as equally alarmed. It is not racist to want to preserve the living standards that the generations before us worked so hard to build. How many folks are going to want to immigrate here when we have no middle class left?

[Critters2]

332. Thank you

Well said!

[RDU Socialist]

309. i don't think it's "so many" duers

just this Leninist hippie crowd that believes in the destruction of the nation state and elimination of borders because it "creates differences" and stupidity like that. It's not racist to say "people should come here legally", just common fucking sense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

312. As I have said before, there are two groups on both sides of the issue.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that there is no problem as things stand. However, there is a problem when ALL problems are blamed in immigration.

As to the two groups. There are those that are, as you say, genuinely concerned about economic issues. And then there are those that latch onto that group and are of a decidedly different sort. They worry that "mexicans are taking over" or they claim that "mexicans don't want to assimilate". This has nothing to do with econimic factors.

The other side has people who feel, as I do, that this is a nation of immigrants. The process to become a legal immigrant is very very difficult. I went through it with my husband (he's English). He told me how they would keep the asian and mexicans in one room, where they couldn't even sit down, and he and two other immigrants were in another room, all by themselves with plenty of empty chairs. Now, when we look at WHY the process became so difficult in the 1930s, there are certainly questionable reasons about that. I don't feel that things need to stay as they are. I feel that something must be done. However, I find the hatred against Mexicans (by that second group, I mentioned) deplorable. People act as though they are the same sort of criminals as murderers. They are desperate people. Who could sit and do nothing as their child starved to death? DU criticizes those who turn away refugees across the sea. DUers have said that Mexicans need to stay in their own country and fix it. Aside from that taking more time than they have as desperate people, why doesn't anyone tell DUers who say they are moving to Canada or Europe that? People claim Mexicans don't want to learn English, and that isn't true either. THAT is what I hate. However, things as they are isn't fair either. Illegal immigrants are taken advantage of because they can't say anything or risk getting deported.

Now, clinging to this side are the corporations who care only about profits and see the Mexicans as fodder for cheap labor. However, just as the racists clinging to the first side don't nullify that side, neither should the corporatists clinging to this side nullify their thoughts.

Clearly, something needs to be done. But we need to look at the issue from many different facets. People SHOULD know that CIS and FAIR are right wing sources. If they choose to believe them after that, that is fine. They are making an informed decision. They SHOULD know that Lou Dobbs has lied (see media matters and fairness and accuracy in reporting) and if they still want to love him, at least they made an informed decision.

[pooja]

318. I replied earlier, but with this burning hot flame.. you need to

start a new thread. Like I have said many times, examine the reason for immigration.. Why give up your national identity, your culture and etc to immigrate to another country. Why because yours sucks so badly.

Its time to enforce every nation involved in globalization to account for ethical working practises... and if they do not, those not entering into the pact would not be allowed to sell in the US or Europe or Canada. but that would really hurt capitalistic pigs bottom line.

If you are entering the job force and are in your 20's, you are most likely trying to work your way up. You are competing for jobs at lower wages with less benefits (say I were to become pregnant, I would use 1 wk vacationan and be back at work or be forced to accept welfare to stay home with my child for a month or std 6wks. Since I oppose the general practise of welfare all together, I have not had a child from my own body). Also, I am now competing with people who are bilingual. In a company that operates with public functions this is a necessity.. it actually pays more to speak english and spanish at some work places.

So, I do not doubt that in 50yrs... the US will no longer be the coveted spot to live.. maybe china or india.. who knows

[transeo]

319. Because it's targeted at a particular ethnic group

All the conversation seems to be about Mexican immigrants. People aren't discussing British, Canadian, German or other European groups. Only Mexicans. That's why it comes off as racist. It also seems that people are proposing different standards for the certain groups that aren't white. Until the dialogue is oppened up and ALL immigrants are being treated with the same policies and standards, it is a racist conversation.

Someone needs to please explain to me how the current situation is any different than when the Irish, Italians and other groups settled in the US. We're hearing the same tired old arguments and BS bigotry my ancestors (Irish) faced when they immigrated. Someone please show me the hard proof that it is the immigrants that are actually causing our economic woes. Until someone does that, I call BS on the whole debate. Mexican immigrants are the scapegoats in what is increasingly obvious to me as just plain piss poor economic policy and job development.

[Critters2]

327. Please link to ne post where a DU'er has proposed different

standards for Mexican workers than for other immigrants.

Or stop posting such broadbrush statements. They're a violation of the rules.

[Ksec]

336. Most are too cowardly to even post about their true feelings

Du silent majority.

Ive seen the polls. Most Duers along with most of the country are against open borders and illegals being given immunity.

Hell, they wouldnt even comment on the crime rates for fear of looking like illegal bashers.

[PsycheCC]

362. You have it right pnw, we just can't handle these levels of immigration.

Despite all the arguing that surrounds this issue, I can say that I appreciate the pro-immigration group's genuine desire to care for the immigrants who have certainly suffered their fair share. I think Democrats in general have a desire to help those in need. We like to think in terms of uniting with others who share our problems to fight for better conditions for all. This is, of course, a great testament to the kind of people Democrats are. But we need to remember that there are also plenty of Americans in need too.

The problem here is that there just aren't enough jobs and resources to go around. The wage depression and stress on government and health care services that PNWMOM cites in the OP are the issue. I've seen people on DU who oppose illegal immigration say something like "It would be different if we had the jobs to sustain everyone." It seems to me that finally it comes down to a need to choose, in a time of limited jobs and resources, between our own citizens and illegal immigrants. No one likes to have to make the choice.

Immediately then, we are blamed for falling prey to the "divide and conquer" strategy of the rich. If they can just pit the workers against each other, we'll be too busy fighting amongst ourselves to worry about all the ways they're abusing us. Well, I'm sure this is true. But since the American people have seen fit to continually re-elect politicians who refuse to represent their interests, we are faced with three branches of government that are actively aiding a corporate power grab and massive re-distribution of wealth from workers to the already obscenely rich.

In this current political and economic climate where no one speaks for the middle class, I see NO CHANCE of affecting change through the usual legislative process, except on this one issue of immigration, which for reasons we all understand, has created strange bed-fellows. To be honest, I hold little hope that any immigration legislation is forthcoming after all the saber-rattling ceases. Most of us agree that the whole issue has been orchestrated for political reasons in an election year, but since it has been raised, and just might be voted on, I want to have my say on it.

If those who are busy calling me racist could take a moment to really explain how they plan to do anything to improve real wages, short of controlling the borders and sanctioning employers of illegals, I'd be happy to hear about it. But time and again in these debates it seems to come down to this point of having to chose how to spend our energy and resources. I won't apologize for putting my own people first. Mexico should fix Mexico, maybe with some help from us and some activism of their own citizens who have come here rather than fight for what is theirs in their own country.

[Klukie]

373. Thanks for the great post!

I really think we (democrats) miss opportunities to contribute to legislation because we want to take the high road on issues that the administration whips out in an election year for political purposes. I have seen so many folks post that the Immigration issue is a non-issue and we should ignore it. I think that is exactly what makes us weak as a party. If we ignore all of these non-issues we allow the other side to define them. We need to attack these issues head on. If we sit back and ignore things we have no right to complain when they don't go our way.

[PsycheCC]

381. Exactly, Klukie.

The Republicans want to come out of this one saying they tried to get control of the borders, but the Dems wouldn't compromise. (Or something similar). They actually read the polls, like Zogby's recent one, which shows the overwhelming desire for immigration control by people all across the country, including Democrats. Republicans will not only keep control of the Congress, but they'll gain seats because of this issue unless Democrats wake up.

Here's one question from the Zogby poll:




And here's the link to the rest of the poll:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

[inthebrain]

394. What does Kluckie mean?

[PsycheCC]

459. Again, that would be Klukie....

[IndyJones]

379. Great post!

[PsycheCC]

393. Thanks Indy.

[pnwmom]

388. Thanks for your thoughtful post, PsycheCC

[PsycheCC]

392. Thank you PNW, for having the courage to say what so many

think but won't say because of responses like firestorm above.

[unlawflcombatnt]

439. Great Post

I completely agree. I'm not going to apologize for putting Americans first, either.

[PsycheCC]

471. Thanks Unlawful.

Doesn't compare to the well-supported arguments you make routinely, but I appreciate the compliment.

[pnwmom]

370. Europe is engulfed in its own immigration debate

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/06/immigration_politics_european.html

"Just as President Bush sent National Guard troops to reinforce the U.S.-Mexican border last month, so the European Union last month dispatched military units to Spain's Canary Islands to head off a growing numbers of Africans trying to enter Europe through the islands, which lie about 100 kilometers off the coasts of Morocco and Western Sahara. (See Post reporter Kevin Sullivan's recent piece on Africans attempting to reach the Canary Islands via Mauritania.)

"As with pending U.S. legislation to legalize some undocumented residents, recent proposals for amnesties in Britain and Italy have provoked criticism.

"While the U.S. Senate recently took a largely symbolic step to make English the national language, Dutch lawmakers established civic-integration tests that require new residents to speak Dutch and know Dutch customs. In Germany, the Bundestag is debating proposals to require immigrants to learn German or face penalties.

"But there's one big difference between the immigration problems of the United States and Europe. While the heart of the U.S debate concerns what to do about illegal immigration of Hispanics, the European debate centers on the integration and assimilation of Muslims."

SNIP

[Joanne98]

432. Another DUer gets jumped on for making a perfectly.........

REASONABLE observation. Out come "The Chanters" (racist, sexist, anti-gay) determined to SHUT DOWN anyone who thinks it's a bad idea to let in the entire fucking country of Mexico. Because, they have brown skin, the laws of supply and demand don't apply. And MATH doesn't matter either. The numbers, 11 to 20 million PLUS family reunification (chain immigration) which could bring to numbers to 90 million easily but it doesn't matter because they are brown skinned people so they're SPECIAL! WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? I thought global warming was an important issue. What about over-development? What about the maxed-out public school system, already under attack by the fucking Christians, is now under attack by fucking Mexico too. I grew up on the Mexican border, I went to school with Latinos, I lived in LA for twenty years and I know first hand that massive immigration takes a huge toll! The "racist" defense is dead. Talk to black people. They HATE the idea so much they might not even come out to vote in November. I believe this immigration bill was a Karl Rove set-up. If the SENATE Democrats think that caring about people in OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST is a winner than just we can just get ready to stay in the minority forever. I'd like to say "wake up" but it's already too late. The RNC already has tons of footage of Democrats defending everybody's right to a job EXCEPT the people who live here. They're going to kill us with campaign commerials. Which really pisses me off because I was really looking forward to impeaching ASSHOLE!

[PsycheCC]

454. Right again Joanne. Impeaching Bush would have been sweet, but

a Democratic majority in the House would have been pretty great too. But as you said:

"I believe this immigration bill was a Karl Rove set-up. If the SENATE Democrats think that caring about people in OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST is a winner than just we can just get ready to stay in the minority forever. I'd like to say "wake up" but it's already too late. The RNC already has tons of footage of Democrats defending everybody's right to a job EXCEPT the people who live here. They're going to kill us with campaign commercials. Which really pisses me off because I was really looking forward to impeaching ASSHOLE!"

I hope we're both wrong, but I think in November there'll be plenty of polling to indicate that people voted Republican because Dems didn't listen to their constituents on immigration.

Great post Joanne! :bounce:

[MaraJade]

458. You are correct. Black people HATE illegal immigration.

There are numerous myths going about that illegals take jobs that blacks will not do. The truth is more like
this.

If a black person takes a job and complains about the wages or the poor working conditions or the lack of
benefits, they are FIRED and illegals are hired. Illegals will take the job, no matter how dangerous the
conditions or how poor the wages or no matter that there is no worker's compensation or other benefits. This is
what happened in the meat packing industry. Most of the jobs that used to be done by blacks and other people
at 19.00 an hour plus benefits are now being done by illegals for about 8.00 an hour with no benefits.

Black people are generally angry because the jobs they once held or could get are not being bettered, but are
being given to illegals who are "more docile" and "obedient."

This is a function of the greed of corporate leaders. They want to make a profit on the backs of the workers
but do not want to pay reasonable wages or provide safe conditions. This benefits NO ONE. By continuing to
support illegal immigation, Dems risk losing the black vote. This is something to think about.

[Solon]

445. self delete n/t

[Marie26]

449. Most can't get visas

That's the one thing that the anti-immigrant crowd consistently ignores. People will get mad at illegal immigrants for demonstrating & ask why they don't just come legally. But for the vast majority, there is no legal way to immigrate to the US. The immigration laws are very strict & complex & you need time, money & patience to even file an application. Even if you can hire an immigration att., you basically need to be a relative of a US citizen, a student or a specialized professional in order to even qualify for a visa. There's no lottery for Mexican residents. If a poor Mexican wants to work in the US, the choices are basically to come illegally or don't come at all. This is in stark contrast to many of our ancestors, who also came to the US in order to work & achieve a better life, but didn't face the same restrictions. IMO, we need to reform the law to give more workers a legal pathway to immigration.

[pnwmom]

451. Can you tell me more about that Marie26?

Are you saying that Mexicans are barred from applying for a VISA the way that people from other countries can do? Is it harder for them to apply here than for someone from Canada, or Cambodia, or Afghanistan, or Somalia?

Which countries are eligible for the lottery? If Mexico isn't, maybe that's something we should be pushing for.

[pnwmom]

452. Never mind. I answered my own question.

The lottery is for countries that don't produce many immigrants to the U.S. Clearly, Mexico wouldn't fall into that category.

Otherwise, it looks like Mexicans are eligible under the same categories that everyone else is -- through family members, jobs, or refugee status.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/19/MNG48JGFJT1.DTL

[Marie26]

453. Sure

Yep. The way it works is completely backward, IMO. There's a "diversity lottery" of about 55,000 visas that are available for people who wish to immigrate to the US. But the lottery is only to increase the "diversity" of immigrants; if a country already has a high number of immigrants to the US, residents from that country can't apply. So, someone from Somalia or Sweden can apply, but someone from Mexico, or Canada, cannot. What this means is that Mexicans, who are the most able to immigrate to the US, are less able to do so legally. W/o a "lottery" visa, you'd have to rely on the specialized, very narrow criteria to obtain a visa for other reasons. And there's no visa available for people who simply want to work in this country, unless you're a super-valuable professional. The process is so complicated & expensive, many people can't afford to apply. And even if you do qualify for a visa, there's a huge backlog & people often wait for years for their visa.

The "diversity lottery" is extremely small anyway compared to the number of people who apply; & you'd probably have a better chance of winning the real lottery. I think that immigration laws should be reformed to expand the diversity lottery, & remove the bar against countries like Mexico. IMO, visas should also be available for people who simply want to work in the US. The process should also be streamlined so that normal people are able to actually apply for & receive a visa. IMO, there's no question that people are going to come to the US, legally, or illegally if no legal avenues are available. Immigration laws should be less restrictive, not more restrictive, so that more people can find that legal avenue of immigration.

Immigration Diversity Lottery - http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/divvisa.htm

Immigration visa categories (Very narrow categories) - http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/imm_visas.htm

[unlawflcombatnt]

455. Not enough impediments

Regardless of how "difficult" it is to legally immigrate to the U.S., we have a much higher number of immigrants per year than any other country in the world. What's worse is that our population growth, despite a well-controlled birth rate, is over 1% per year. This is a much higher growth rate than any other industrialized country in the world, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and even China.

We simply cannot continue with this rate of population growth, especially when it contributes so greatly to our labor force growth. The labor force is growing faster than jobs are created. The end result is that wages have declined over the entire duration of the Bush dictatorship.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Marie26]

462. Too many impediments

America has always had a higher rate of immigration than other countries; we are a nation of immigrants. It is very difficult today to obtain a legal visa, no need for the quote marks. Historically, immigrants just needed a ticket & a health check at arrival. America had basically open borders until the first major immigration laws were passed in 1910's. Most immigrants came from Europe in order to work & find a better life. The same thing is true today. The difference is that the immigration laws have become so complex & restricted that it is very difficult to do so legally. If these impediments are removed, or at least streamlined, immigrants can come legally instead of entering w/o documentation. So what if there's population growth? There's always been population growth, as well, and the nation has still been able to absorb immigrants from generation to generation. The fact is, the laws of supply & demand belie your claim that there aren't enough jobs. If there weren't enough jobs, immigrants wouldn't be coming here. There is a demand for labor, that creates a supply. It's that simple.

It seems like, if people have a problem w/illegal immigration, they should support loosening the immigration visa criteria. The basic complaints seem to be that illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes, supress wages, & aren't part of the American society. If people can immigrate legally, they DO pay full income taxes, they are protected from exploitative wages, & are able to become part of American society. Indeed, this is what most immigrants want. It seems like removing the impediments to legal immigration would remove most of the concerns people have about illegal immigration. Unless those concerns really spring from a dislike of any immigration - which I suspect is often the real motivation.

[PsycheCC]

456. Lots of good reading here.

:kick:

[MaraJade]

457. No. . .it's not racist. It's the best thing for the US. . .

As I have repeatedly stated, my husband is an immigrant. We were married in September of 1986, but
due to filing the proper papers and due to his "queue time," he did not enter the US until 1988.
However, he did enter LEGALLY.

Yes, we had to wait. Yes, fees had to be paid and examinations had to be taken. Yes, our sex life was
put on hold for most of the time, and we had to postpone starting a family. But despite all,
both of us understood that all of that was necessary in order to have him enter LEGALLY and obtain a
"green card" so that he could work here legally.

Two years ago, in 2004, I and our teenage daughter had the privilege of seeing him sworn in as a Naturalized
Citizen of the United States. His Naturalization went through without a hitch in about 60 days all
because we took the time to get LEGAL at the beginning.

We DO NEED some limits and some planning when it comes to immigration. The United States is a great
Melting Pot of People, not some strung together group of ethnic "Little-This-And-Thats." Those entering
need to assimilate into the American Culture. Yes, people should not forget where they come from, but this
is not Chad or Nigeria, or Liberia, or Haiti, or Cuba, or Dominica, or Mexico, or China, or England, or Ireland, or
Germany, or Italy. This is the United States of America, with its own UNIQUE native culture that is a
comglomeration of cultures, not the imitation of others. One of the rules of immigration is that those entering must
become Americans with an American outlook and attitude. One of the problems that you get with uncontrolled
immigration is an influx of people who don't bother to assimilate, but rather, who bring their own culture here
and set up shop as expatriots not immigrants. This is why we have thousands who cannot speak a word of English and who
will not try, thus being unable to communicate with their neighbors and peers here.
This is why we have ethnic gangs taking over whole sections of the country, and enforcing the rule of criminal elements
from other countries (as if we don't have enough problems with the domestic ones). This is why the culture is being under-
mined by an influx of persons who are illerate in ANY LANGUAGE, since it has been proven that many entering illegally
have little or no education and many such ones are unable to read and write. This is why we have people who are
willing to undercut the American standard of living by accepting sub-minimum wages and no benefits, resulting in "occupation
collapse" that threatens the American Middle Class and the very way of life here. Uncontrolled immigration allows the
worst from other nations easy entry, thus dragging standards here to the bottom instead of raising them to the top.

Allowing unfettered entry is destroying the culture here. Look at other first world nations. They do not allow this.
They want to allow the entry of people who have something to contribute other than uneducated labor.

And for those of you who want to call me racist, don't bother. I am Black. My forfathers fought in the Revolutionary and Civil
Wars for the freedom of this nation. My roots go way back here, even though at some point my mothers and fathers were
taken in chains from the holds of slave ships. This has nothing to do with racism. I say let all come to the "Golden Door,"
but let them obey the laws currently in existance. Let them enter legally.

[unlawflcombatnt]

463. Great Post

You should consider posting this as an OP. It's very good and very convincing.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

466. Great Post

You should consider posting this as an OP. It's very good and very convincing.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[KoKo]

464. After "Dot Com" Implosion the next Bubble was Housing...and who Built

the houses? Who built the roads to the houses.... And, who staffs your Convience Stores? (in my area of the South it's Kenyans).

I know exactly what you say. I think many of us Dems are "torn" on this issue. When I go into stores in my area of the South the shoppers are Pakistanis or Indians (not Native) and Hispanics. They seem to have money to spend...the absence of our Southern Farm Families and others is becoming Noticeable and I live in a BOOM AREA where there are so many wealthy I wonder how they can afford the million and up homes they live in.

Yet..the shoppers are all immigrants.

Maybe I shop in places that folks would think are "Dollar Store" kind of places but our new SHINING MALLS filled with "Upscale Stores" have immigrant shoppers....:shrug: Somethings going on...but I hate to go after immigrants and not the people who bring them here for "cheap wages" who take jobs away from the rest of us...

But....WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS WHO WERE Treated very badly when we came to America...unless one arrived on the Mayflower..but even then the "native Americans" weren't too keen on these "interlopers" once they found they were about "colonizing and taking over."

I don't know what we do...but I think the Bushies are afraid of the Housing Bubble Bursting and want these "immigrants out pronto." They don't want to pay their SS and other costs. Bushies feel "Use 'Em and Throw 'Em Out.... :shrug:

[Raydawg1234]

465. Rather than talk about Illegal Immigration, I think we should talk about

how we can solve the problem of poverty in Mexico. That, after all, is the root problem of this whole mess.

[Clarkie1]

470. How about talking about overpopulation, the root of poverty? nt

[Raydawg1234]

472. Well, the solution to that one is simple

get people to stop fucking.......................




(Good luck with that one)

[Clarkie1]

473. How about get people to use more birth control? nt

[yurbud]

474. Dems see this issue more dispassionately, GOP driven by racism

I don't think we should have unrestricted immigration, but my blood doesn't boil when I hear someone speak Spanish or see day laborers standing outside a hardware store.

Economic forces brought them here, and if employers weren't allowed to hire them, they would be gone.

As soon as some agri-business or Walmart exec spends one night in jail for hiring illegals, the problem will go away. Which means it won't.

[ausus]

476. It's not Walmart, Agri-Business who hire illegals. It's the "little guy"

Whatever faults Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Archer Daniesl, Du Pont, Apple, Kohls, Universial, Anheuser Bush, Kaiser Permanente, etc..... have, they are not the ones hiring illegal aliens. It is the "little guy" who is hiring the illegals. The "little guy" who wants to cut corners, get rich quick, hide his assets in cash, who doesn't want to pay taxes, pay benefits, pay insurance, care for the environment, etc. Sorry. These are the facts. OK, occassionally a contractor who performs a service for one of these behmoths is found to be hiring illegals, but when they are discovered their contracts are usually cancelled and the message is sent out loud and clear: you wish to do business with us, follow the rules.

I have no love for big business, but they are not the ones at fault here. The ones at fault are the landscaper who does our lawn, the cut-rate contractor who works on our house, the restaurant we go to for our dinner, etc.. You don't like the flood of illegals coming into our country competing for our jobs, driving down our wages, then take it up with the "little guy" and ultimately with yourself, because you are the one who can tell the "little guy" that you won't hire him or patronize his business if he hires illegals.

[yurbud]

477. Have you ever driven by a farm in California? Or seen stories on

Walmart getting caught recruiting illegals as janitors in Eastern Europe?

Or for that matter, when Bush suspended Davis-Bacon in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, exactly who did you think could afford to take those low wage jobs?

There should be a penalty for the "little guy" hiring illegals, but if you ignore the bulk users, it's a little like saying you are going to clean up street crime by cracking down on unlicensed mimes.

[ausus]

478. Oh, and criticize the "family farmer". My point stands.....

It is largely the "little guy" and his employment practices who is driving illegal hiring and immigration.

I am no defender of Walmart or any of the other hamlet busting big retail chains, but the fact is they are not employing illegal aliens. It is their policy to prohibit that. If Walmart was recruiting workers in Eastern Europe then I am certain that it was bringing them in under H1-B visas (I oppose almost all H1-B visas. I don't think any corporation, school district or university should be able to bypass the readily available pool of American workers who wish to compete for those jobs.). Sorry, you are wrong on the facts.

Suspending Davis-Bacon (which I oppose) also has nothing to do with illegal aliens. If not for the ready pool of illegal labor, suspending Davis-Bacon would have little effect on wages because contractors would have to deal with the American worker who could simply refuse to accept these low wages. The illegal worker enables the contractor to suppress wages.

The bulk users are the "little guy". Do you really think that GM, Ford, 3M, ExxonMobil, Walmart, etc.. are getting away with hiring illegal workers? Well they aren't. 100's or thousands of smalll businesses across this country are using illegal labor so that they don't have to pay taxes, social security, insurance, benefits, etc. It's the friggin "little guy" who is driving this phenomena, and whenever anybody does get the courage to speak out about illegal immigration you can be sure there are 10 politicians at the ready to come in on behalf of the "little guy". "He can't stay in business without the illegal labor", they say. The problem is our toleration of this bull, and our patronage of the business of the "little guy" who is crying all the way to the bank.

[yurbud]

479. I have no objection to throwing farmers and beverly hills yentas in jail

for their illegal help, but the practice is spreading geographically and up the employment food chain.

You are right about one thing though. Big business is more likely to pay to change the law than wait and pay the fine.

[Sapere aude]

481. Have you ever driven by a field in CA and seen a white middle class

person doing stoop labor? The problem with your logic is that you say the immigrants are taking low wage jobs and that is hurting citizens when in reality it is the low wage jobs that the citizens won't take that is the magnet bringing immigrants here. If they raised the wages in the field to $20 an hour would you say that the stoop labor would be done by non immigrants? Well I will tell you this for sure. If the cost of labor ever reaches the cost of mechanization there will be no labor jobs. No one is taking away jobs they are taking jobs that are not wanted. There is 4.9% unemployment and 12 million illegal immigrants. Where are you being hurt? You can't tell me can you. You only have racist phony statements to repeat and repeat just as those in the South had about Blacks.

[ausus]

482. 4.9% of a 200 million labor force is 9.8 million people out of work!!

I love it when you throw the truth at my face because it vindicates my point. By your own estimation 9.8 million Americans are out of work (hmm. pretty close to the number of illegal immigrants we have in the labor force). Additionally, the endless supply of illegal labor enables employers to hold wages down.

Is it any wonder that Cesar Chavez, head of the farmworkers union, was VEHMENTLY opposed to illegal labor? Chavez understood that it was the endless supply of illegal labor that enabled growers (and other employers, btw) to keep wages down and exploit workers.

My assertion is that agricultural laborers, working in the fields, should command a wage level that is enought to afford a minimally decent standard of living; how about $20-25 hr. Yeah, I know the consumer is going to have to pay more. So what. He/she should pay more. The consumer should not have an easy time of it on the backs of workers. If illegal immigration was stopped tomorrow, I have no doubt that we would see an automatic rise in the wages of the poorest Americans. Those who support illegal immigrationa and excessive legal immigration too, are supporting the oppression of the American workers. It is simples as that. Hurl your racism charges all you want, the day is closing when you can stop debate by calling someone a racist.

[ausus]

475. Only politician willing to speak out openly is Tom Tancredo.

To a man and woman the Democrats run from even discussing this issue. I am not saying that anybody must agree that immigration ought to be restricted but at the least they should not work to suffocate debate as every single Democrat is doing and 90% of the Republicans are doing.

Think. When 90% of the elite, 90% of the media, 90% of our politicians are trying to suffocate debate don't you think it is because they have something awful to hide?

Tom Tancredo 2008. That is the answer.

[unlawflcombatnt]

483. Other good points

I like Tancredo's position on immigration. He's also been a consistent opponent of Free Trade agreements, having voted against CAFTA and voting in favor of World Trade Organization withdrawal.

He's definitely voted against the Corporate "cheap labor lobby" every time he could, and for protecting American labor from competition with the semi-slave labor of foreign countries, as well as from the unlimited,
illegal importation of cheap labor into this country.

However, I'd like to see where he stands on other issues.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Sapere aude]

480. I don't know, maybe because it is racist.