My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant

[CreekDog]

The essay below is from an undocumented immigrant. This is the kind of person who sends money to his family and works hard like this yet is stuck in a way almost none of us can imagine --and none of us can say for sure what we would do in the same situation.

This idea that some people can talk about him as if he were a common criminal seems like a greater injustice to me.

You and me and other people of opportunity need to recognize our responsibilities to the economic refugees of the world who face horrific choices, choices that often lead them to migrate. Humans have been moving for as long as humans have existed.

For those who think this person has taken your job, let's face it, before you were born, you took his place by being born here. You could have been born in his situation. Think about that.

=============


My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant

By JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS

One August morning nearly two decades ago, my mother woke me and put me in a cab. She handed me a jacket. “Baka malamig doon” were among the few words she said. (“It might be cold there.”) When I arrived at the Philippines’ Ninoy Aquino International Airport with her, my aunt and a family friend, I was introduced to a man I’d never seen. They told me he was my uncle. He held my hand as I boarded an airplane for the first time. It was 1993, and I was 12.

My mother wanted to give me a better life, so she sent me thousands of miles away to live with her parents in America — my grandfather (Lolo in Tagalog) and grandmother (Lola). After I arrived in Mountain View, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay Area, I entered sixth grade and quickly grew to love my new home, family and culture. I discovered a passion for language, though it was hard to learn the difference between formal English and American slang. One of my early memories is of a freckled kid in middle school asking me, “What’s up?” I replied, “The sky,” and he and a couple of other kids laughed. I won the eighth-grade spelling bee by memorizing words I couldn’t properly pronounce. (The winning word was “indefatigable.”)

One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby D.M.V. office to get my driver’s permit. Some of my friends already had their licenses, so I figured it was time. But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of U.S. residency, she flipped it around, examining it. “This is fake,” she whispered. “Don’t come back here again.”

Confused and scared, I pedaled home and confronted Lolo. I remember him sitting in the garage, cutting coupons. I dropped my bike and ran over to him, showing him the green card. “Peke ba ito?” I asked in Tagalog. (“Is this fake?”) My grandparents were naturalized American citizens — he worked as a security guard, she as a food server — and they had begun supporting my mother and me financially when I was 3, after my father’s wandering eye and inability to properly provide for us led to my parents’ separation. Lolo was a proud man, and I saw the shame on his face as he told me he purchased the card, along with other fake documents, for me. “Don’t show it to other people,” he warned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=1

[Luminous Animal]

1. Deport the illegal.

[CreekDog]

2. he's a person, no person is illegal

:eyes:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[LaurenG]

4. I doubt most of DU agrees with you

but if so it's just one more reason to believe that fear has taken over around here. There needs to be another solution.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[LaurenG]

8. He didn't know he was here illegally until he was old enough to drive

the things that happened to him were not his fault. Let him stay, that's my solution and if there really were such a thing as an illegal human being I think I'd place those with a fear laden attitude like the one in your post in that category.

[Luminous Animal]

11. What about an adult illegal gang banger? The cops and ICE know that an adult came here as an

innocent child but also know that that adult is involved in gang activities unprovable in court.

He has a wife and children, aunts and uncles, ties to the community and pays taxes. Still allowed to stay?

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. So are you advocating a different standard of justice for non-citizens?

Am I reading you correctly there? Advocating for the idea that the police should act independently of the judiciary in the case of people "known to be involved in gang activities unprovable in court"? If it can't be proven in court then the police should behave as they would with a citizen: monitor known associates and conduct occasional random surveillance if they believe a pattern of criminal associations and behaviour exists, and built a case with evidence. Non-citizens have the same rights at law as citizens in criminal proceedings, including the right to trial by jury and the right to remain silent. I find it quite disturbing that you seem to think that applying a different standard of justice on the basis of immigration status is not a problem at all.

[Luminous Animal]

15. I am saying that ICE would move in to deport that illegal in a heart beat. No trial

is necessary in the case of an illegal human being. If no trial is necessary to deport a suspected criminal, then why should this guy get a pass? Their immigration status is similar... that is, both of them are in this country illegally and neither of them has been convicted of a crime.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Because he's not a suspected criminal for a start?

And has no criminal history, and has on the other hand an established and productive career? I'm sorry you are incapable of making fine distinctions. (For the record I wouldn't think this girl should be deported either.

Blindly defending an obviously broken system is just idiocy.

[Luminous Animal]

18. What if the suspected criminal's alleged crime is creating fake IDs for innocent children?

And who said anything about a criminal history?

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. That is extremely convoluted and twisted reasoning

and again if you have evidence then try and convict, which would be more effective than a revolving-door deportation in any case...since the odds are very good that anyone deported from the US may return if they find the means to do so.

[Lance_Boyle]

22. He has been working in the US illegally for a long time.

Whatever documentation he gave ABC for his job is surely fraudulent. So he committed fraud at the very least. That's a criminal history. Ship his ass out, and make ABC pay shipping.

[nadine_mn]

23. seriously - what is wrong with you?

you use phrases like "that illegal" or "illegal human being"

These are PEOPLE

you cannot be an illegal human being, illegal is not a noun


Until you understand the basics of personhood vs someone's immigration STATUS you really have no business commenting on anything

[Luminous Animal]

29. I apologize. I was playing devil's advocate. In reality, I agree with you and have been

a long time advocate on behalf of undocumented immigrants going so far as to believe that labor should have the right to move as freely as capital.

Also, I was very drunk last night and clearly, I went too far.

[Travis_0004]

51. I'll bite

He is a person, but he is still here legally.

There is a legal way to immigrate to this country. His parents decided not to use that process, and came here illegally. So he should be deported. If he wants to blame his parents, thats fine by me.

There are billions of people who would love to come to this country. We can not accept them all. What we can do is establish a fair way for people to immigrate, and allow people to come to this country in a legal way. I'm not saying the system now is perfect, or even close, but we need to encourage legal immigration, and discourage illegal immigration.

[nadine_mn]

92. you missed the point of my post - its not about someone's status

its about referring to someone as "that illegal" or "an illegal human being"

We can discuss the US immigration policy without dehumanizing those who are involved

You cannot be an "illegal human being" and illegal is not itself a noun

That was the point of my post, and I will not respect ANYONE's opinion on the POLICY of US immigration if they cannot or will not acknowledge that first and foremost we are talking about human beings

[TorchTheWitch]

102. which is why they're called illegal immigrants and not illegal people

Clearly the adjective "illegal" in the term "illegal immigrant" refers to their immigration status, not their personhood. If the adjective "illegal" referred to their personhood the term would be "illegal person", not "illegal immigrant".

All this nonsense about the term "illegal immigrant" is ridiculous. Everyone knows that the adjective "illegal" refers to their immigration status, not their personhood. All this playing on words is stupid... and sneaky. Wanting to call them "undocumented immigrants" makes them sound like they're immigrants that ARE here legally and just don't have the proper papers... and there is a reason for that.

I will never understand why so many people on DU believe that we should have totally open borders when no other country does. And no other countries do because they recognize that by doing so it invites huge economic problems, drain on resources, makes it that much easier for criminals to harbor themselves in your country, etc. And it is an even bigger problem when the country you share a border with is Third World backward... OF COURSE the people of such a downtrodden country would flee to the much better one next door in droves and droves when it's easy. And it also keeps that mess of a country from ever doing anything about their mess of a country.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. That should be uncontroversial.

The standard of justice for non-citizens should, in general, be the standard that they'll get when returned to their home country.

[Spider Jerusalem]

99. I am sorry, but that is quite painfully stupid.

The standard of justice should be te same for anyone accused of a crime regardless of citizenship; if a non-citizen is arrested for a crime, then they deserve (and are indeed entitled to) the same justice an American would get (this is quite separate from immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings which are outside the scope of criminal law).

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Once deported, they are subject to a different standard of justice.

You have an odd definition of painfully stupid.

I'm subject to the laws of this country because there's nowhere to deport me to.
Aliens, illegal or otherwise, are subject to either deportation or criminal justice, at the court's discretion.

[treestar]

59. No, but if he's not?

And there's some argument that if he grew up here, he's ours. I mean, he might not have become a gang banger back home.

[Iggo]

30. I don't feel like getting banned today....

...but my pre-edit sentiments still stand.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Please see my apology (post #29).

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Your attitude is a perfect illustration...

of the sheer ugliness and stupidity and xenophobia driving so much of the "illegal immigration" debate, and the story is an excellent illustration of how fucked up the American immigration system is. The author was sent to the US, as a child, he didn't come of his own free will; he mostly grew up in the US, was educated in the US, had a career in the US. He is by the evidence already hardworking; given the opportunity to regularise his immigration status he would become a taxpaying citizen and by any consideration a productive member of society. And yet your response is "deport the illegal". Back to a country he has no meaningful ties to, having left it decades ago, as a child; sundering whatever relationships he's built at a stroke, destroying his career, wrecking his life because his mother decided he'd be better off in America than the Philippines all those years ago and he's been outside the system since. I am quite sorry, but that's just a fucked-up attitude. I feel quite sorry for you.

The law in the UK is somewhat more humane; after fifteen years' residence, if they've come to the attention of neither the immigration authorities or the police, even illegal immigrants are entitled to apply for what's called "indefinite leave to remain". That would be a more sensible and humane approach to take in the US as well; after all, people are already living there, and working there, and if they aren't otherwise breaking laws then why NOT make taxpayers of them?

[Luminous Animal]

9. Nearly every single illegal human being in the U.S. is hard working and pays taxes...

whether they come here as an innocent child or purposely as an adult.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Sales taxes yes, income taxes, probably not in most cases

and quite honestly: if you lived in a shithole like Ciudad Juarez, or in a poverty-ridden Manila barangay, and had relatives who'd made it to the US, and had the opportunity for a better life, regardless of legality, what would you do? What would you do if you had a child in that situation? And again quite honestly what do you expect to happen if you just deport all the illegal immigrants? They've done studies, actually; here's the results of one of them: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/los_angeles_economy_illegal_immigrants_ucla.php (bottom line? Economy shrinks, tax revenues fall.)

And again in the case of someone who has no meaningful ties to their country of origin but does have deep ties to the US, deportation seems quite frankly to be not only stupid but cruel and unnecessary.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Income tax and payroll tax, yes. Most illegals have fake papers and most have taxes

deducted from their pay. A friend of mine had an interesting conversation with the IRS when she found out that an illegal was using her social security number to report income. The IRS agent said, "Why care? This only increases your income and you'll get a bigger social security check when you retire."

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

42. Wrong. They pay rent which the landlord uses to pay taxes

unless they own their home, in which case they do pay property taxes.

[pinboy3niner]

46. Oh noes!1!! You killed Kenny!1!!

:rofl:

(Thanks, mods. :thumbsup: )

[EFerrari]

53. LOL

:hi:

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[a la izquierda]

24. Thank you very much for your...

sensitive and thoughtful post.
I try and stay away from immigration posts, because even on DU, the vitriol is very disturbing sometimes.

[CreekDog]

27. excellent post!

:D

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

57. He was 12!

If you don't have mercy for a case like this, you have none.

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. Ugh. You take his place. In deportation, I mean. nt

[Heidi]

7. Recommended.

:kick:

[Starry Messenger]

10. k&r

[MrDiaz]

17. Simple Fact

That everyone does not see. If you are in the country illegally you already are a criminal, you do not need to be suspected of another crime in order to be deported. Sorry that's not only the way it is, it's the way it should be.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Actually it's that fact that's being challenged.

Because it makes little sense to deport someone who has been in the US for decades and has for all of those decades avoided notice from either the police or the immigration authorities, and who has no meaningful ties to his country of origin. The law as it stands is neither sensible nor humane, and in some cases there are very clearly mitigating circumstances that should be considered.

[baldguy]

21. Until the middle of the 19th cent, the concept of "being in America illegally" didn't exist.

It's a legacy of the Teabaggers of the 1840's - the Know-Nothings.

(And they were afraid of the "illegal aliens" from Ireland and Germany - not Mexico.)

[WatsonT]

26. I assume then that you consider our attitudes towards race to be at it's zenith in the 1840s?

[baldguy]

98. Of course not.

I'm just wondering why any sane person wanting justice would not want to reform laws which are the result of the worst attitudes of those times, and which treats human beings as contraband simply because of an accident of birth.

[Unvanguard]

Duplicate. n/t

[Unvanguard]

40. No, it is not even remotely the way it should be.

Jose Vargas is as much an "American", in every sense that counts, as you or me or anyone else on this forum or in this country. And he has just as much to be here, and to stay here, as any of the rest of us do.

The law should not have the power to remove one group of residents from its protection, and decree that they can be imprisoned and exiled merely for their presence here.

[EFerrari]

41. Immigration law is not criminal law. n/t

[WatsonT]

43. Is using false identification and stealing someones SS number criminal law?

Or does that get a pass because it's all done to support a crime you don't acknowledge?

[EFerrari]

44. Make yourself into a pretzel. Immigration law is administrative, not criminal.

:hi:

[WatsonT]

45. But it still has that funny little word "law" in it

Let me ask you this: if a court rules against you on some civil offense do you have the right to say: bah, it's just a civil law, not a criminal law I will ignore the verdict.

[EFerrari]

54. I hope you're not a lawyer.

:)

[WatsonT]

93. I hope you're never found guilty of a civil offense

hint: you can't just ignore them.

[CreekDog]

68. so you like all laws, because this post isn't so much about the law --it's about whether you like it

and it's enforcement.

[WatsonT]

94. I like American laws that benefit US citizens

like ones controlling who may come in to this country.

Other nations may do as they please with their own laws. But I'd prefer to live in a country that puts it's own citizens first and attempts to make things better, rather than worse for them.

[CreekDog]

95. and collective bargaining for teachers

rightttt?

[WatsonT]

97. Not sure what that has to do with illegal immigration

but all workers have the right to collective bargaining. Teachers included.

Are you trying to imply that the only way to to be pro-collective bargaining is by also being pro illegal immigration?

Because not only is that silly, it's outright untrue: illegal immigration does more to undermine collective bargaining than most anything else.

/I do support your right to use nonsensical strawmen on internet arguments that you are clearly losing.

[treestar]

61. Not someone who came at 12

He would be the subject of the crime, not the perpetrator.

[Obamanaut]

25. He perpetrated a fraud with Soc Sec by using fake documents, and

with IRS, and with employers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1348374

[Romulox]

28. "My life committing employment and tax fraud" nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[a la izquierda]

34. I'm pretty sure you meant to post this...

on some right wing forum. Most Dems, even those most rabidly anti-illegal immigrant/immigration, do not advocate repealing the 14th Amendment.
Alerted, btw.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[a la izquierda]

37. Thom Hartmann does not support...

overturning the 14th Amendment, unless it extends to "corporate persons." This is a direct snubbing at Republicans, who are clamoring to overturn it to screw infants and kids who have no control over what their parents did. You can most certainly be against illegal immigration, but not for overturning the amendment.
Don't tell me what the 14th Amendment is for. I have a PhD in history. I know damn well what it was originally used for, and I know what the debate now is about.

Alerting is when one member lets the mods know that something posted by another is problematic for any number of reasons. Suggesting that the 14th Amendment be overturned is right-wing bullshit. There are other ways to go about immigration reform, none of which our government wants to do because it will screw with corporations.

ETA: grammar, GAH, my brain's not working this morning!

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Unvanguard]

38. "most of the undocumented Hispanics head for areas already full of Hispanics"

I'm not sure I even want to know what that comment is about.

[Unvanguard]

39. We need immigration reform--NOW, by executive order if necessary--and this is why. n/t

[dkf]

47. This clearly illustrates that good jobs are being held by illegal immigrants.

We don't have enough jobs for Americans and I don't see them coming on line soon. US citizens need to have first priority because we are stuck here.

[Unvanguard]

48. Yeah, how dare he get a job he was well qualified for.

After all, he was born in the wrong place.

:eyes:

[dkf]

49. I'm sure there were US citizens who would have loved that job.

And yes he was qualified for it. All illegal immigrants are qualified for some job I am sure.

[Unvanguard]

50. Yeah, so?

The only reason Vargas is not a citizen is because of the profound injustice of our immigration laws. He ought to be.

[CreekDog]

67. and he was apparently a better writer/reporter than they were and got it on merit

despite many disadvantages.

what can i say?

[dkf]

103. And many Chinese work harder than Americans.

So do we ship all our jobs to China?

[Romulox]

52. All jobs in the US require an I-9.

He wasn't qualified, as he could not truthfully completely form I-9. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

55. That's not a "qualification" as I was using the term.

It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with his merit as a journalist. A company in a state without comprehensive anti-discrimination laws might decide to refuse to hire any gay people; that doesn't mean they aren't qualified, it just means they won't be taken.

[Romulox]

58. Feel free to make up your own language, if you like. In English, he wasn't "qualified"

since eligibility for legal employment is a requirement for all jobs in the United States. :shrug:

[Unvanguard]

60. There is no point in continuing this line of argument. n/t

[Romulox]

62. There was no point *starting* that line of argument--it's a dead end. nt

[CreekDog]

66. Right, all he could do was perform the job well, it was the papers that he lacked

:eyes:

[Romulox]

71. Damn gub'mint! Always slowing down the private sector with their damn labor laws!

"it was the papers that he lacked"

Similarly, a bank robber is simply a customer who lacks a withdrawal slip!

It turns out that those "papers" represent the requirements of US employment law. :hi:

[CreekDog]

74. yes, comparing him to a bank robber is so appropriate

:eyes: :wtf:

[Romulox]

77. I made no comparison, other than to demonstrate that "mere papers" are IMPORTANT.

They represent our LAWS. :hi:

[riderinthestorm]

56. What's really amazing is how many people covered for him and helped him along the way.

From what I take on the story is that there's actually far more Americans who believe in making a way for these kind of immigrants to get citizenship.

Vargas had an amazing number of people get him to where he is today. Very telling. Americans are basically decent about how to rectify the situation, they "get" the dynamics here. We really need to have a grown-up conversation on people like Vargas - brought here by parents (or grandparents as the case may be here) and others who have been here for a few decades.

[Unvanguard]

63. It's easy to say "Deport them all!" in abstract.

It's much harder to do it when you're forced to directly face the human realities at stake.

[Romulox]

64. I agree with you, but will add that the BENEFITS are often localized, while the COSTS diffuse... nt

[Unvanguard]

69. If you want to go there

you'd have to also acknowledge the fact that immigration restrictions effectively impose broad social costs (in the form of lower efficiency and higher prices) for localized benefits (higher wages for native workers in certain industries.)

But I don't think that issue is relevant. This is a basic issue of equality: pure and simple.

[Romulox]

72. No, you've got it 180 degrees wrong. Allowing an unregulated labor market is not a social benefit

to the broadest class of workers.

"you'd have to also acknowledge the fact that immigration restrictions effectively impose broad social costs (in the form of lower efficiency and higher prices) for localized benefits (higher wages for native workers in certain industries.)"

Nope. Reality is not in accord. Workers, as a group, have seen their wages slashed during the last 30 years. Whatever savings are associated with unregulated labor have been absorbed by the ruling classes, and simply have not passed to workers. But virtually all of the costs have.

"But I don't think that issue is relevant. This is a basic issue of equality."

There is no equality argument; non-citizens do not have a "right" to demand US residency.

[Unvanguard]

75. Obviously "an unregulated labor market" isn't.

Of course, I didn't say it was. I referred specifically to "immigration restrictions." Why blame immigration for the declining fortunes of workers, rather than actual attacks on the rights of workers like anti-union "right-to-work" laws, an unwillingness (especially under Republican governments) to enforce the union-protective laws that exist, rich-favoring tax policies, obstruction of EFCA, etc.? There has been immigration into the United States from a variety of places since the very beginnings of our country. It is in the particular context of right-wing attacks on the New Deal and its progeny that we have seen wages stagnate.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric, rather than directly targeting the exploitation of workers by restoring the regulations that have been weakened and adding new ones to strengthen them, uses bad economics to divide workers against each other: there are "legal" workers and "illegal" workers, the legal workers are supposed to be fundamentally in conflict with the illegal ones, and the people who exploit both of them get off free.

Citizenship is a legal status that quite often fails to accord with justice. All Americans--all people who make this country their home, whatever their documentation status--deserve equal rights. That's the pro-worker thing to do, if we're concerned with all workers and not just some. And it's also the right and just thing to do.

[Romulox]

76. Right. But in the absence of regulation, EMPLOYERS get to choose.

"Why blame immigration for the declining fortunes of workers"

Because there are more workers in the US than there are jobs. More people means more competition. Whole industries, such as meat-packing and drywalling, have seen wages cut in half or more.

"rather than actual attacks on the rights of workers like anti-union "right-to-work" laws,"

Because cheap labor is the weapon employers use to break unions, such as the aforementioned meatpackers.

[Unvanguard]

78. The supply of jobs is not fixed.

Immigration does not result in generally lower wages or higher unemployment any more than having children does. The exploitation of workers, on the aggregate scale, is the consequence of power imbalances, not supply and demand. If we randomly sent half the population elsewhere, it would continue the same as always.

[Romulox]

80. Labor costs are dictated by supply in demand, just like everything else.

"The exploitation of workers, on the aggregate scale, is the consequence of power imbalances"

Right. An excess supply of labor gives power to the bosses.

[Unvanguard]

82. Not solely, no.

They would only be purely so in a perfectly-competitive labor market. If we had that, minimum wage laws would cause unemployment. But they don't, because we don't.

An "excess" supply of labor gives power to employers only temporarily. If the price of labor in a certain industry drops, more people seek to hire that labor, so competition is restored. The core problems of labor exploitation don't have to do with supply and demand, because markets adjust to supply and demand. The core problems have to do with the resource disparity between worker and employer.

If we deported all left-handed people, do you think that would improve working conditions in the US?

[Romulox]

83. That "temporary" power that the bosses have? It's resulted in *30 years* of stagnant wages.

The facts on the ground do not match your theories. Wages have been drastically cut in the past 30 years.

[Unvanguard]

86. And the global average temperature has been rising too.

I hope you don't want to blame immigration for that one. :eyes:

[Romulox]

87. We can't talk if we're not being honest. WHOLE INDUSTRIES have been gutted.

Meatpacking. Construction. Landscaping. All pay less now than a generation ago, in actual (NON-ADJUSTED) dollars.

[CreekDog]

81. so you don't mind paying to send him to the Phillipines?

what's that cost?

i mean, right now, he's paying taxes. the state, feds and local governments are getting an income stream from him. if they start trying to deport him, he becomes a net cost, then if we do deport him, he costs us to send home...all the while, the income stream from his fairly good jobs --stops.

net cost.

[Romulox]

84. "Hard cases make bad law."

Mr. Vargas is an uncommonly sympathetic figure, but I would make no exception for him.

[Oasis_]

65. What about 9+% unemployment?

With millions more being under employed? What about the fact that illegal immigrants do in fact take jobs that otherwise would be filled by Americans? The kicker being the illegals are also artificially suppressing wages, as any businesses are more than happy to hire an illegal for dirt cheap, as opposed to paying an American a real honest wage.

I'm sympathetic to the human side of this argument, I really am, but I cannot allow my emotions to cloud otherwise sound judgement.

Business owners that freely and knowingly hire an illegal immigrant should be charged with a felony. I believe the ICE "secure communities" program should be significantly expanded, and we should fully commit to much more aggressive border protection and enforcement.

With so many American families struggling just to get by, there's no way we should turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal immigration.

Oasis

[Unvanguard]

70. There is really a very fundamental divide here.

As far as I am concerned, Jose Vargas, and all the other long-term undocumented residents of this country, are Americans, their families are American families, and they have just as much right as everyone else to equal consideration in our public policy. I don't like caste societies: the idea that our law classifies some people as worthy and others as unworthy is deeply abhorrent to me. If you live here, if you are resident here, if this is your home in every material sense, you belong here, nobody should kick you out, and nobody should discriminate against you.

So when someone says, "Well, what about the welfare of Americans?", the only response I can give is that their definition of "American"--or, perhaps better put, their definition of whose welfare we as a society ought to count--is too narrow.

[a la izquierda]

73. Have you read this yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1347372
Pay attention when you read about what has happened in Georgia.
Vargas, from the sounds of it, is an exception. Most undocumented workers do NOT get where he is today.

[Romulox]

85. As an American, I would go for full amnesty if I could gain the right to work in other countries

too.

As it stands, it feels like American born workers are being trapped in this country and then forced to compete against cheaper immigrant labor. If workers should be as free as capital, that should include native born Americans as well.

[Unvanguard]

88. Two things.

First, I support liberal immigration policies basically everywhere.

Second, full amnesty is not the same issue as how many people to let in. You can have immigration enforcement at or near the border while still offering amnesty to people who have been here for a few years or more. Indeed, this is exactly what most proposals for immigration reform suggest.

[Romulox]

89. What's the point of talking about possibilities? I'm talking about actuality.

"You can have immigration enforcement at or near the border while still offering amnesty to people who have been here for a few years or more. "

We don't have that. Moreover, unless employers are penalized for exploiting cheap labor, there will ALWAYS be a new round of exploitable workers being spirited across the border.

"Indeed, this is exactly what most proposals for immigration reform suggest."

There's no evidence that this is even *possible* under the current framework. There is certainly no proposal to make employers accountable for exploiting this labor, or to serious monitor the border, for that matter.

I notice that you're a little dismissive of the idea of native born US workers earning the right to unilaterally emigrate, btw. It should be a package deal. "Freedom of movement" should belong to everyone, including US citizens.

[Unvanguard]

90. I don't know what proposal would meet your qualifications.

But there are certainly plenty of proposals that both suggest penalizing employers (the Obama Administration has done some of this in its enforcement already) and that amount to seriously monitoring the border. You still don't explain why you should object to full amnesty even now. We're not talking about people coming across the border, we're talking about people already here--many of them for a long time.

I don't know why you think that I'm "a little dismissive" of the idea that other countries should have liberal immigration policies too. I said I support that. I do. Of course, I can't make them change their policies, and I don't think US immigration policy should be predicated on what other countries do. I don't think the case for full amnesty or for more lenient immigration standards depends on what other countries do. Everyone should live in a society that has just and wise public policies. Lots of people don't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't either.

[Shagbark Hickory]

96. My problem is not with UDW. My problem is the substandard wages and conditions. Force their masters

to pay a living or at least minimum wage.
I believe the jobs they traditionally do are done at a fair wage more citizens will gladly take the jobs. If not, then set up an organized quota for temporary work permits and let people come to work legally, at fair wages, in decent conditions.

[MellowDem]

101. If we are people of opportunity with responsibility...

to those less fortunate, what makes this guy so special? He gets our help because he happened to be born next door to us?

Sorry, your attempt at shaming those of opportunity into supporting those with less comes with lots of privilege and strings attached apparantly.

I wonder how allowing an unregulated labor market helps others.... oh yeah it doesn't, well, it does help the rich.

Your ideals are based on a utopian worldview where there are no borders. But there are. There's a reason very liberal nations are much more strict about immigration laws than we are. Unless you want to conquer the whole world and make them accept the idea that there are no borders, all that your idea will do is hurt poor US workers while enriching the wealthy. It already is.

I think you should go to Germany, be a good citizen, even displace some Germans at a job just because you are better at that job (or ask for less), and then be shocked with outrage when you are deported.

Better yet, go to Mexico and do the same. I'm sure the Mexicans in the local economy will understand. Indeed, bring lots of your fellow countrymen. You'll be very welcome to corporations.

[astral]

104. +1.

As I said more or less in another thread we can't have it BOTH WAYS. We either have borders and immigration laws, or we don't. We can't twisty -turn the law into a doughy pretzel just because THIS person shouldn't be treated THAT way because it's UNFAIR.

I don't think many laws are fair. That doesn't allow anyone to decide who has to obey the law and who doesn't. (Well, in reality, that may not be true!)

I don't KNOW if it's fair having border control. I know the people of Mexico had a big part of this country as their country before the --- er --- whiteys? --- came in and invaded. And that isn't fair just like a lot of history. But if we didn't have border control (and we don't anymore, really) there would not be a land of opportunity for US to live in and for OTHERS to come to, and for the land to adjust to the increasing numbers to make it as best as it can be for all who live here.

In a utopian society we would at least TRY to do that, but it's not what really happens, is it?

I am sick and tired of the word ZENOPHOBE being tossed around whenever illegal immigration is mentioned, although I am not seeing it in this thread. What about all the other races and nationalities besides the Mexican people who come over the border too? It is not about being zenophobic towards any race or nationality, it is a matter of both national security and the degradation of our country where we can not comfortably sustain huge rapid increases in population.

Our schools suffer, they were not even properly set up to be multi-lingual centers of learning, and yet that is what they are expected to be. Our job market suffers as more and more people can't find a job that they can even survive on. It hurts our safety level as more and more people out on the streets (of any and every national origin and citizenship) have to do desperate things to survive. It hurts our national security as people freely come in from everywhere without even being checked out in any way, while our children are having their bodies groped at the airport just to fly city to city.

When people argue to just let everybody already here become legal I can't help but wonder how you think this once-great nation is going to withstand the pressure and survive.

I realize this planet is turning itself inside out, and the whole human race has to switch over to a new paradigm. That will mean a seriously lowered 'standard of living' to level things out. Or, I should say, a seriously lowered 'standard of expectation.' And that may not be a bad thing. We are resistant to and suspicious of change, big change, because there are alot of unknowns on the other side of it, and change can be very painful, very painful, for those who have led a fairly comfortable life.

I do not know the right answer anymore. I used to think I did. This United States of America thing is not going to survive much longer, that I am certain of. And since we are totally out of control with what our government chooses to do, maybe that won't be such a sad loss at this point anyway.

So when I said in the other thread, "Just let them all in," I wasn't necessarily being sarcastic, I just wanted to point out the obvious ramifications of this whole border control issue. If we can't keep them out and make them come in legally, with some inflow control, but we want to bless them once they're here and give them immediate rights as a citizen, legal immigration becomes a total sham, well, it perhaps already is at this point. Illegal immigration is the way to get into this country and make a new start.

Then we have what I call REALLY being all in this together. If that's what we want, all right then.