Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Immigration Hardliners Try to Unhinge America

By Peter Schrag, The Nation. Posted December 29, 2007.


Widespread uncertainty about immigration has splintered the U.S., creating an unnecessary panic similar to the Red Scare or the McCarthy years.
20071229story
Advertisement

In the past year, we've become a nation of a thousand immigration laws and policies -- a confusing mosaic of fear, anger and nativism, of generosity, reason and self-defeating silliness. Although some of those laws were enacted before the Senate failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform in June, that failure greatly expanded the vacuum that local efforts sought to fill. It has also nourished the demagoguery that helps drive them, made immigration a prime domestic issue in the 2008 presidential campaign and intensified the fears those laws in turn produce.

If your name is Hernandez and you speak little English, can you risk reporting a crime to the local cops without being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement? If you have a contagious disease or you're a drug addict, how willing will you be to seek treatment, and how safe are other residents because of that fear? And what about those driver's licenses? What happens when a car driven by an American citizen collides with one driven by an undocumented -- and uninsured -- immigrant? As the anti-immigrant zealots fan a generalized hysteria, these unresolved questions, which provoke legitimate fears, get little airtime. And there are many more: what are the chances of being stopped on the highway by sheriff's deputies empowered to arrest illegal immigrants, or of legal residents being rousted at midnight by warrantless raids?

There are also important questions of social policy crying out for redress. What sort of future is facing an 18-year-old high school graduate who was brought here by her parents as a young child and knows no other country but can't go to college, get a driver's license or a legal job? Conversely, how large a price should local schools have to pay to teach English to the children of illegal immigrants? A nation struggling with such issues is in dire need of leadership from its central government.

In the first eleven months of 2007, forty-six state legislatures passed nearly 250 immigration laws -- some 1,560 were introduced, nearly triple the number for the same period in 2006. Cities and counties have enacted hundreds more, ranging all over the philosophical and political map.

Begin with the action the city council of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, took in 2006 to prohibit landlords from renting to undocumented aliens. Hazleton's ordinance, which preceded the Senate vote, became a model for similar measures in the Southern California city of Escondido and in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch. All three quickly faced constitutional challenges -- the Escondido council reversed itself in the face of mounting legal costs; the Hazleton and Farmers Branch laws were blocked by federal courts. But the anxieties and rage that drove those acts weren't dampened by a couple of judges.

It's a long list. Last February Lake Havasu, Arizona, like a number of other cities, made an agreement with the feds under which local cops will be trained by federal agents to interrogate and detain all illegal immigrants for deportation. In June Green Bay, Wisconsin, voted to yank the licenses of businesses that hire undocumented immigrants. In October the supervisors in Prince William County, Virginia, voted to crack down on illegal immigrants by increasing police enforcement, creating a Criminal Alien Unit and denying virtually all services, including substance abuse counseling. In addition to a long list of sanctions, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 makes it a felony to "conceal, harbor or shelter from detection any alien."

Similar state laws have been enacted in Arizona and Tennessee. Alabama has created a Joint Interim Patriotic Immigration Commission to figure out some comprehensive approach to undocumented immigrants (a group that was immediately attacked as being stacked with pro-business and pro-immigrant voices). In October Missouri Governor Matt Blunt issued a press release lavishly praising the arrest and delivery to immigration authorities of a vanload of illegal immigrants who were stopped on the pretext of following another vehicle too closely. He promised (in Churchillian cadences) to "make every effort, implement every tool and take every step to ensure the laws against illegal immigration are enforced." Virginia has prohibited the sale of automatic weapons to illegal aliens, and Rhode Island approved legislation that will issue ID cards to all residents over 21 -- excepting only undocumented immigrants -- allowing them to drink alcohol.

In other places, the response has been more positive. Last summer, the city council of New Haven, Connecticut, enacted a measure to issue what it calls Elm City Resident Cards -- ID cards that also serve as small-balance debit cards -- to all local residents, legal and illegal. In November San Francisco adopted a virtually identical program. Also last summer, the Illinois legislature prohibited employers from participating in the mandatory federal employee verification system until the feds get their data systems in order; the Department of Homeland Security promptly filed suit to overturn the law. (A few weeks later, US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, citing the high likelihood of error and jeopardy to legal workers, upheld a challenge filed by the ACLU and a coalition of labor and business groups to implementation of the employee "no-match" verification system.) The DHS has since asked for more time to revise the system.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, immigration

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Immigration! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Christ on a Bicycle
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Dec 29, 2007 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
another bleedin' heart who wants to redefine the debate by controlling the language.

dude, NO ONE is concerned about LEGAL immigrants being here--couching the emotional plea by lumping illegal and legal immigrants together is just weak.

call a spade a spade--illegal means get the hell out, get in line, and don't disrespect the folks who got in line and followed the ungawdly paperwork ot get in. paperwork and bureaucracy created by one your heros (i'm sure), ted kennedy, and made worse by every administration since he ram rodded the reform act through in the 60s.

feh. odds are, every time health care comes up, you're right up there with the choir singing high praises how the "civilisied" europeans do things. but gawd forbid you take those blinders off and look how those same countries curtail their immigration.

damn, sucks to be a hypocrite eh peter?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christ on a Bicycle Posted by: ninethreeone
» RE: Christ on a Bicycle Posted by: Joshua Holland
» How about... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: How about... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Peter Schrag Unhinged
Posted by: wandagb on Dec 29, 2007 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Schrag gives us a propaganda piece to attack thosse opposed to the flood of illegal immigration. To his way of thinking illegal immigration is good, those opposed are merely conjuring up the Red Scare and resistance is futile.
Shrag repeats the usual underestimate of 12 million illegals, but best evidence from scholars indicates 20 to 30 million.
Of course Shrag won't touch how the U.S. will reduce greenhouse gases, lower energy consumption and preserve a square foot of open space in the face of runaway population growth from immigration: the U.S. Census Bureau projects ONE BILLION people here by 2090 if Shrag and company prevail.
A sane public policy is one that penalizes illegal immigration. Accomodation is national suicide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Peter Schrag Unhinged Posted by: yellow
» RE: Peter Schrag Unhinged Posted by: yellow
» RE: Peter Schrag Unhinged Posted by: puddytat
» RE: Peter Schrag Unhinged Posted by: left_libertarian
The Practical Problem
Posted by: thornwolf on Dec 29, 2007 2:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Riverside...repealed its anti-illegal-immigrant ordinance after the resulting exodus...hit...local businesses...and left a growing number of boarded-up...storefronts."

That little gem of truth illustrates the larger problem:

Let's say the 20-million undocumented alien estimate is correct. With 300 million people living in the US, 20 million represents over 6% of the US population. Because these people are consumers, kicking them out (if it were possible to do so) would contract the US economy by that amount -- 6+%. That's a serious drop in economic output, which would be much worse than a mere recession.

Some other solution has to be devised. I'm not sure what that may be, but mass deportation is not it.

Congress is largely to blame, possibly entirely to blame, for the current illegal immigration mess. In multiple instances, when the (formerly named) INS busted companies employing illegal immigrants (onion farms in Georgia and meat packing plants in the midwest) the corporations called on their congressional representatives and their senators to whine and cry. The predictable outcome is that the INS was told to back off, and the INS's regional honchos who had mounted the raids were reassigned and transferred (one of them quit in disgust).

There you have it. Corporations get what they want in the US Corporatocracy. Congress doesn't really want to do anything about illegal immigration as long as corporations want it the way it is, and only Congress could do something about it.

And don't forget that 6% figure. Contracting the US economy by 6% would affect each and every one of us, right where it hurts.

Anyone have a non-emotionally-charged solution to propose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Practical Problem Posted by: wandagb
» RE: The Practical Problem Posted by: Lauren
» AGREE 10,000 % lauren Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: AGREE 10,000 % lauren Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: The Practical Problem Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Practical Problem Posted by: darkhorse
» RE: The Practical Problem Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Have you ever been a census taker? Posted by: Joshua Holland
Immigration is getting stricter but why ?
Posted by: hungarian33 on Dec 29, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard somethin glike, Latinos make up like 40% of illegal immigration for the U.S. . Otherwise, I heard thousands of people just fly to the u.s. dont have a U.S. passport, and just stay there until they die. for the rest of their lives.
I put it up on my blog as well, www.opentopix.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics of Hate
Posted by: SBK on Dec 29, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh here we go again. We always have to have an enemy don't we, and when we do, how is it that corporations benefit? How much is "border security" costing us? I'm sorry militia guys; did you want to work as hospital janitors or as meat packers? Look, this nation was founded on "illegal" immigration--from the first landing of the Europeans and the slaves they brought with them. Long after white people stole Northern Mexico, we proceeded with murderous tactics in the 80s and 90s destroying the economies of Mexico and Central America with the wars and free trade agreements we paid for. What the hell do you expect these people to do when US policies have dropped the prices of their exports and left them with nothing but desperately low wage jobs? Cleaning your hotel is better than starving in San Salvador. But then, it's easier to hate and spew racist garbage than to think about the real policy issues isn't it? Peter Schrag provides some solid analysis, read the article again deeper this time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: madmax427
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: madmax427
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: Geolager
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Politics of Hate Posted by: RobinD
otto
Posted by: otto on Dec 29, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article does a great job of showing the comlexity of the issue. I'd like to add a few details.
I now have dual citizenship - U.S. and Canadian (although the U.S. doesn't recognize my Canadian citizenship). I grew up in Detroit, where we almost didn't recognize a border and went to Windsor regularly to play hockey, shop, etc. Many on both sides crossed over to work each day. In this context borders seem artificial.
There are towns where the border passes through
bars and restaurants. People share the same issues.
My Church in Detroit became the Detroit-Windsor Refugee Coalition in the 80's, because U.S. policies in El Salvador made it unsafe for many to live. Salvadorians who came were illegal, but we worked with Canadians who accepted them legally because of their endangered situations. We practiced the Church-Sanctuary movement of the Middle Ages.
And what of all the Hispanics in Southwest states, whose land we stole over a century ago.
We resented them for speaking their Native language. What of Natives in both the U.S. and Canada, whose treaties have been broken continuously - leading the Lacota tribe to want to give up U.S. citizenship.
Finally, I went from high school to Toronto for 8 years of education. I had no papers, and nobody seemed to worry about citizenship (except Canadian students that we Americans riled with our "rah-rah" U.S. attitudes!). We freely went back and forth across borders. I lived in both countries a number of times over the years, eventually obtaining an official "landed immigrant" status, and years later citizenship. But I believe that the open attitude of Canadians did more for security than any laws, walls or fences could ever hope to accomplish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Bravo Posted by: otto
» Many thanks for your reply Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: otto Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: otto Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: otto Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
What's so bad about local action?
Posted by: war_on_tara on Dec 29, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Articles like this one always seem so appalled by action taken at the local level, or even at the state level - WHEN the actions run contrary to the let-'em-all-in agenda.

But this story notes the irony of the Littleton immigration integration initiative being in Tom Tancredo's district. There's more irony to it than that, because it's one of those (gasp) local actions.

The argument (such as it is) seems to be that no locality should do anything at all until Congress acts. When Congress does act, logically they're going to act with a crackdown. When they tried to act last spring, the public shot the proposal down as too lenient, but people like the author insisted on ignoring public opinion and continued to shoot it down as too strict! So now they can pretend to complain that Congress won't act. Most of the "immigration advocates" have a hard time denying that what they really want done is... nothing, now or ever.

Even this story gives two examples, from its own perspective, of local action it likes (Littleton, and Riverside NJ repealing its ordinance).

What's so bad about local action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» An answer in a question Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Sorry -- a misunderstanding Posted by: Joshua Holland
» No- I am Sorry. Posted by: single-serving poster
» Sorry, but one more point Posted by: Joshua Holland
» States' rights Posted by: YogiBear
There is value in abiding by the law that we liberals too often overlook.
Posted by: ThinkingHard on Dec 29, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a midwestern state where my hometown, the site of an large meatpacking plant owned by a major international company, has radically changed my life and the life of our community . . . without our choice.

And, for all of my adult life, I have been known as a strong liberal; a progressive who has followed, supported, donated, and worked on behalf of many liberal, progressive candidates and causes.

But, we liberals and progressive have it wrong on illegal immigration. We liberals should not engage in just what we don't like about Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and others; and throw out other epithets like "nativist," "mcarthyism," and us "rascist" midwesterners {for example} who, according to this author, probably never saw a brown face or heard spanish until the awful "illegal immigrants" came to town looking for work that we Amercians just won't too because it is beneath us.

Here are some thoughts:

1. In the midwestern states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas; we have seen dramatic increases in immigrants, many illegal, to meat slaughter and packing houses. And, these are jobs that we legal midwesterners did take and would do, but really have no opportunity now because the unions have been broken and the real wages at these plants is consistent with 1970 levels, and working conditions are worse. At the plant in my home town; where my cousin and several of my friends worked and supported a comfortable middle-class lifestyle; the workforce is largely illegal immigrants who all speak spanish and many of whom do live in what appear to be "company-housing" mobile homes and apartments. So, who is the "nativist" to assume and say that things are so gosh-awful bad in Mexico that these workers just have it so much better here. I do not contest that things are better or worse in Mexico. I do not know for sure. What I do know is that it seems "nativist" to me to assume that we are helping folks to bring them out of Mexico, for example, an put them in slaughter and packing facilities that are what Sinclair Lewis wrote about, and which have taken away real job opportunities for real midwestern Americans, who did, and would perform those jobs at fair wages; instead of the depressed wages which are the direct result of illegal immigration.

2. While I do believe the misguided, corrupt, and greedy trade policies brought about by recent administrations (including our very own Bill Clinton) has resulted in economic turmoil, that does not lead to the conclusion that illegal immigration is ok. It is simply a non sequitur.

3. Continuing illegality has its own corrupting effect on society. The author writes "If your name is Hernandez and you speak little English, can you risk reporting a crime to the local cops without being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement?" And which crime might that be? The crime of coming to the United States illegally and working illegally? Sure, I understand his point; which is that living in the shadows of some "in between" status causes a breakdown of normal civic activity and civic virtues, like reporting crimes to the police. But, while you would ask civic virtue of an immigrant, or undocumented worker, or whatever to report a traffic violation or a crime, you would not ask them to follow the law about being in the United States and staying here legally? We may be plain folks out here in the midwest (or so you may thing) but that sort of mush just doesn't fly for conservatives or liberals.



And, before you get too sappy over the living conditions in Mexico, come on over to a meat packing town in the midwest, and talk with some of these immigrants who do live in crowded and depressing conditions.

We liberals need to do better than this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You hit the nail on the head! Posted by: zooeyhall
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Mexicans are to me what Posted by: Lauren
» Hey, wasn't Hitler a vegan? Posted by: sausage
» Not racism Posted by: Joshua Holland
Closing the Borders is an old theme
Posted by: pbziegler on Dec 29, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watched a film last night--From the Villa--which took place in Italy during the rise of Fascism. I was fascinated to see and hear the character playing the Italian police chief talk about how Italy had to rid itself of immigrants who were coming into Italy fleeing the Nazis in Germany, Austria and Poland. The speech he gave sounded so much like the ragings of the Republican candidates and the right-wing talking heads. It amazes me that these American fascists can sound so much like the European fascists of the 30's and not notice the similarity of the rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Closing the Borders is an old theme Posted by: single-serving poster
» Not to be picky, but "always"? Posted by: single-serving poster
» Preposterous! Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: Preposterous! Posted by: Joshua Holland
Questions
Posted by: Southern Gal on Dec 29, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who benefits from illegal immigration?

What are the financial costs of illegal immigration both locally and nationally?

What are the impacts on local and national infrastructures from the influx of illegal immigrants?

What are the impacts on the environment and natural resources of increases in population due to illegal immigration?

What responsibilities does the United States have to people who enter this country illegally?

How does this country humanely deal with the 20 plus million illegal immigrants already here?

Are there other countries that have policies addressing illegal immigration that the United States could use as models?

How important is the issue of illegal immigration in the elections of 2008?

What voice does the public have in the issues of illegal immigration?

If the national government is not willing or able to address the issues of illegal immigration, should local governments be able to address these issues through policies and legistlation developed on the local level?

Are the issues of illegal immigration better served on the national level by waiting until after the 2008 national elections to engage in development of policies based on real information and objectives that address the complexities and impacts of illegal immigration on people and resources of the United States?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliant, but misses the opening for fascism
Posted by: citizenjoe on Dec 29, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Superb discussion of immigration. I would add to it a discussion of a much greater political threat today than Peter Schrag perceives. Today we are faced with an authoritarian govt far more aggressive and imperial than any since before WWII. The USA has always had problems of assimilation, partly because assimilation involves rigorous and nasty subordination of those being assimilated. By an large, equality does not come to new members of society for many generations. The regime in power today is exploiting these problems with its devastatingly effective "war on terror". Their idea is to instill fear of all foreigners, especially those of the Middle East. With this ideology, the Bush regime is destroying the civil liberties of all citizens. It is dismantling our very republic. It was fear of the foreigner which fueled the Nazi's. Its is fear of the "inferior other" weakening our nation internally and externally that supports authoritarianism; it breeds the politics of fascism. This Peter Schrag does not perceive.--- Joe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I normally have 5 ratings Posted by: citizenjoe
» Yeah, I called this way back. Posted by: supercrisp
The Term is Deviance Scare
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 29, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term we sociologists use is "deviance scare." A sociologist named Kai Erikson did an excellent job explaining the witch hunts using this concept. Norms, beliefs, ideology are what hold society together. When a society experiences rapid change, norms break down and society is in danger of falling apart. Durkheim called it anomie! To achieve temporary unity, society rallies around a "deviant" until the threat has past. Here is how I explain it to my classes. You can be fighting cats and dogs with your boy/girl friend, parent, brother, but what happens when an outsider comes and criticizes them? Bam, you are like glue with your loved one and the outsider becomes the new "enemy." Same dynamics in a deviance scare.

The problem is, when we are in one, whatever group we are picking on truly seems to be the problem. We can recognize a witchunt or McCarthism in restrospect, after the times have changed. But we can't recognize ourselves in those people when we are involved. Part of my master's project included weight obsession as a type of nutritional McCarthism. Women are more afraid of fat than nuclear war. Yet, it is even harder to convince sociey of its irrationality than immigration. Another hallmark of a deviance scare is that credible institutions are involved, like medicine or government. They provide legitimacy to the hysteria.

On the other hand, just because a deviance scare is occuring, does not mean there are no legitimate concerns. Certainly, it was reasonable to have some fear of communists during the cold war. Certainly, alcohol does pose some problems. (Prohibition.) Many people say we can't have totally open borders, and immigration has histoically been used by the power-elite to drive down the cost of labor. The issue is addressing the situation rationally and humanely vs losing all perspective and demonizing a group to the point we can no longer see them as human. I have long said that a popular prejudice in times or rapid change is as dangerous as a match in a parched forest. We as a society need to be more aware of this phemonena so we can stop repeating the mistakes of history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm still waiting for Spanish lessons for adults on prime time TV
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Dec 29, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm still waiting for Spanish lessons for English only speaking adults on prime time TV

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TARA- ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Who's Country?
Posted by: Carson on Dec 29, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporations and their economy's are doing fine.

The, "We the People's" economy's are being gutted by the criminals in businesses illegal labor.

Our faith in our government is at an all time low. Is it our government anymore?

In the sixties they came into our schools and brainwashed us with the concept that there wasn't enough room for us to have children. The said they would be unwanted. They launched, Family Planning, Birth Control pills, and Zero Population Growth. At the same time the Revolutionaries in the government were propping open the floodgates for their illegal invasion.

Anything and everything for the criminals in business. It is a worldwide rip-off!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Vote for Mike Huckabee!!! Posted by: sausage
» RE: Who's Country? Posted by: Sparks56
The coming revolution
Posted by: kevtop on Dec 29, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Schrag and his loonies on the far left are so full of BS; equating McCarthyism with illegal immigration. I personally know many people who lost their jobs to illegal immigrants working for so called private contractors. American families who were making a decent middle class living with full benefits were all of a sudden gathered together and told by their company's HR dept. that their service was no longer required. This shit happens all over this country and you people have the gaull to compare Americans who want justice to McCarthyism. Where is your liberal compassion for your fellow American worker, who themselves have to worry about losing jobs to cheap f.....g illegal border crosser's ? You don't know what the hell your talking about. Your on the wrong side of the issue and you don't even realize it. Bush's and the corporatist have been selling out the middle class for years;sending millions of factory jobs to Communist China. It's a double whammy for the poor American worker who now has to worry about losing his or her job to insourcing. Again you people are in on the killing of the American middle class worker. I hope your satisfied. Bad Comma is coming at you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uproar about illegal immigaration=Distraction
Posted by: kirkmuse on Dec 29, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have had illegal immigrants coming across the Mexican border for well over 40 years. So why all of the uproar now? Distraction.

The GOP certainly doesn't want to talk about our invasion and endless occupation of Iraq. The GOP certainly doesn't want to talk about our skyrocketing budget deficits, which
are leading to our nation's bankruptcy.

And the GOP certainly doesn't want to talk about our good-paying jobs that are being 'outsourced' while the corporate CEO's
are making astronomical salaries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Claptrap
Posted by: Bettybb on Dec 29, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer has not a clue about the real issues facing this country with respect to illegal immigration.

1. The rule of law. Yep. That means one law for everyone, applied equally. That means if you break the law you get hit with the penalty. That means there is only one way to enter the USA, that is legally.

2. Cost. If all illegals were given amnesty, in 20 years there would be a 2.5 trillion unfunded entitlement. Want to triple the taxes you are paying right now? It still won't be enough.

According to the economists, a country must select the best and brightest as immigrants as they add more to the economy than they take out. Then you can have some low skllled workers who will be carried for a generation until they get high school diplomas. Otherwise you bankrupt your country.

Unfortunately per the Pew Hispanic Center study, Hispanics are taking 4 generations to reach the high school diploma stage, versus the standard 1 generation for other immigrants. They are equally capable, it seems it is a cultural problem (which of course would not exist if the assimilated).

3. Discrimination. With illegals being primarily Hispanic, any amnesty gives HIspanic
Americans PREFERENCE over other Americans in terms of numbers and timing of family reunification. That violates the anti discrimination clause and the equal protection clause of our Constituiton.

4. Amnesty = more amnesty. Americans protested in 1986 saying that if you gave amnesty all that would happen is that even more would come in and wait for the next one. Guess what? If there is another amnesty, the waves of new illegals are on their way.

5. Illegals take jobs, depress wages of Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Racism Posted by: YogiBear
Ridiculous comparison
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 29, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comparing working-class concerns over a mass influx of illegal aliens and economic refugees, to the McCarthyism and anti-communism of the 50's is ridiculous.

It is a SOCIAL and ECONOMIC issue.

Another old saw from the pro-illegal immigration types is that: if you oppose it you are racist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the best wedge issue ever!
Posted by: sausage on Dec 29, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder who first woke Lou Dobbs to the "illegal" immigrants issue? I mean he's kissed corporate America's butt of for years now and I for one don't expect him to change anytime soon. Cui bono from low wage, immigrant labor?

I wonder who put the bug in Mike Huckabee's ear that if the United States hadn't aborted 30-45 million babies since 1973, we have all the native-born, low wage workers we need?

I wonder how many posters here at Alternet.org--or any other Web site that takes up a reasonable discussion of "illegal" immigration--really know and can quote the "laws" the "illegals" are breaking?

I wonder how many times in this topic thread we're going to read something like, "My great-great-grandparents came through Ellis Island..."yaddy-yaddy-yadda.

I wonder how many posters who quack up a storm about how "illegal" immigrants are taking American jobs have ever worked as a hotel/motel domestic, washed dishes in a restaurant, worked as heavy construction laborer or on the kill-floor of a meat packing plant? And not as a summer job at college. ( I'm going to think you're lying anyway, so don't bother.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Can't quote the laws... Posted by: mjabele
500k Mexicanos Will Trek North in '08
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Dec 29, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
500,000 Mexicanos are expected to make the long dangerous trek north to El Norte next year. They will come for the same reason my grandparents came during the great depression. They will come because they will be hungry and because they will want to eat. They will come to work and they will bring their own version of the American dream - a better future for their children.

READ MORE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» PEW is wrong Posted by: DigitalAztec
» RE: PEW is wrong Posted by: Joshua Holland
If you can hike the Sonoran desert, you deserve to be a U.S. citizen
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 29, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right? Isn't that just the kind of ethic we want to support in this country? Hard work, dedication and determination - aren't those the "true American values" we try and teach our children?

All these people who froth at the mouth over the immigration issue should put their efforts into repealing NAFTA and ending the economic warfare against poor Mexicans and Central Americans. These people are best understood as economic r