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.

Have Immigrants Hit The Wall?

By Roberto Lovato, TomPaine.com. Posted November 10, 2006.


A Democratic Congress offers only a thin hope of getting it right on immigration.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Roberto Lovato

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

After casting her "angry liberal" vote on Tuesday, psychiatrist and Coney Island, N.Y., resident Ellen Weinberg looked past the fence and wall guarding the entrance to her gated community and declared, "We have a right to protect our quality of life" and then added "even if it means putting up a wall."

The good news for the Jamaican, Dominican, Chinese and other immigrants living in the tall, crowded projects just a block away, is that Weinberg cast a vote that caused the fall of the GOP, the party of the red border wall. The bad news for immigrants across the country is that her angry vote helped bring about the rise of the party of the blue border wall, the Democrats. "A wall at the [U.S.-Mexico] border protects our standard of living," said Weinberg, whose conservative, national security-infused positions on immigration mirror those of a significant number of those Democrats--liberal, moderate and conservative--elected to the House and Senate Tuesday night.

Despite the predictable demise of Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Randy Graf in Arizona and other red state darlings of the Minutemen and other anti-immigrantistas, the pro-immigrant legislative outlook is less-than-rosy--or even purple. The crop of House and Senate members-elect includes many Democrats whose positions on immigration hardly differ from the "border first" Republicans they ousted. This poses a major problem to those hoping the new political wave washes away the Wall, opposition to legalization, the increased raids and other enforcement-only immigration policies.

A good case in point is that of Ohio's senator-elect, Sherrod Brown, a self-described "progressive." In addition joining fellow Democrats and presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (as well as 24 other Demss and Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Sam Brownback) in their vote for the recently-approved 700-mile wall at the border, Brown also voted to deny habeas corpus to undocumented and legal immigrants deemed "enemy combatants" or suspected of providing "material support" to terrorist groups by the president.

In the House, the voice of the new majority may sound like that of one of the growing number of Blue Dog Democrats like North Carolina's Heath Shuler, who said in an interview during the campaign, "I oppose illegal immigration and any amnesty for those who have entered our country illegally. Securing our borders is not just an immigration issue, it's a matter of national security. I support the necessary funding for physical barriers, additional border agents and any other means required to secure our borders."

Despite the historic immigration marches earlier this year, Blue Dog, liberal-left and moderate Democrats were pretty consistent in following the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's message on immigration, which seemed to be, "Emphasize border security, ignore legalization." As Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi crafts what some pundits predict may be a more "moderate" legislative agenda that includes increasing the minimum wage, funding stem cell research and tax breaks for college tuition, her campaign and victory statements have largely left out any mention of immigration.

This silence on immigration from Pelosi and other Democrats provides little sense of where the numerous reform proposals of 2006 will go. This will depend on both the recent elections and on what activists on both sides of the immigration issue do inside and outside the Beltway. We should remember that, prior to the spring marches, the largest in U.S. history, the word in Washington was that there was no chance of even considering legalization. And though naive projections of a million new voters did not materialize, Latinos appear to have joined African-American, suburban, Catholic and women voters as they return to the Democratic fold. Recent polls by the William C. Velasquez Institute, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and other organizations indicate that a majority of Latinos will carry into the Democratic tent concerns about immigration as one of their most important electoral issues.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dems, election06, immigration

Roberto Lovato is a New York-based writer with New America Media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
There is nothing right wing or 'fascist' about wanting border controls
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 10, 2006 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Uncontrolled and exploitative immigration is not something the left should be fighting for. Immigration has long been in need of control and effective management. It is not letting people down by doing that.

Keep this in mind: in the case of say Mexico, its political failures will neither be solved or altered by just letting more Mexicans into the US. They will only be solved by Mexicans fighting the hard fight in their own country. Americas role should only be as a friend and adviser. This goes for other contries around the world where government tolerate corruption and poverty.

The US can not import the entire third world in order to solve these problems. The US has finite resources and is already getting very crowded. In fact, apart from Canada, most western nations are filling up. And we have seen standards of living and quality of life go down as a result.

A true democrat will support a government that respects your vote and respects your nationality by ensuring that your rights are not watered down to accomodate migrants.

It is time some on the left drop the argument for unfettered migration and the chaos of open borders.

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

» Straw man argument Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Straw man argument Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Straw man argument Posted by: kathat
which GOP policies?
Posted by: edith on Nov 10, 2006 12:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the author seems worried about Democrats' adoption of GOP immigration policies. He must be reading too many issues of American Conservative, because the leader of the Republican Party is W, not Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo. The vehicle that Senate Democrats and Repubicans who favor legalization of millions of "illegal" immigrants who now live and work in the USA was essentially a plan proposed by Bush and modified by GOP leaders like McCain. Yes, the grassroots of the GOP is anti-amnesty and wants a border wall up prior to any legalization measure. But Big Business is as much as a lobbyist for controlled immigration without deportation of existing illegals as any Latino or human rights based lobby in DC, and a lot more potent with either Party, I might add.

Yes, ironically the defeat of so many Republicans may open the way for a Democrat-McCain-Bush compromise on immigration. But W provided the frame upon which this ship will be built. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats go along with tougher employer sanctions and ID requiements as well as funding of a Wall in order to produce the GOP votes in a still closely divided Congress for a "comprehensive" immigration bill that legalizes existing paperless immigrants.

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

Thank god i dont live there!
Posted by: Temporary on Nov 10, 2006 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may not be an American, but i have a pretty good clue on how the slavery issue of the 21'st century will be solved.

It was only a matter of time!

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

worse
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 10, 2006 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legal or illegal, wall or no wall the immigrants will continue to come. The carrot of jobs and the stick of unemployment will equally suck them in. All we can rightly do is to encourage decency and discourage indecency. As always we drift toward a better or worse world. Without intelligent environmental improvements it will only get worse.

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

» RE: 1848 Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: 1848 Posted by: symcokid
» RE: 1848 Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: 1848 Posted by: symcokid
» Will probably happen anyway Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
We NEED Control
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 10, 2006 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We Need the Following:
A NATIONAL LANGUAGE- ENLGISH, not Spanish, French, German, Chinese, etc etc

1. Fences
2. A Hell of a lot MORE border agents
3. Active/Agressive participation by the National Guard (fully armed)
4. Fight back against the drug and human trafficser and kill them outright when they engage our people. Our people on the border are being ourgunned and shot up every day. Look it up.
5. NO MORE "Free Imigration" if a person comes here, they must contribute to this nation
6. No more children being concieved abroad and born here. That is a loop-hole that must be closed. Mandate that all incomming applicants for citizenship must take pregnancy tests with those who are pregnant returning home.
7. Grant "Refugee" status to those who REALLY NEED IT!
8. They can wait in line like all other people who have come here, and go through the process and get rubber stamped.

Without drastic measures such as these we will loose our way of life. Just look at the North American Union, Real ID Act, etc etc...

America- FOR AMERICANS! Join us- BUT DO SO LEGALLY, and if we have no room- GO HOME...

EUROPEANS DO NOT TOLERATE THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR, WE DO NOT NEED TO EITHER.

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

» RE: We NEED Control Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: We NEED Control Posted by: edith
» We Are All Africans Posted by: edith
» RE: We Are All Africans Posted by: albrechtkrausse
we need enforce the employer laws on the books
Posted by: spiritsha on Nov 10, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If employers go jail and pay big fines for hiring people without the proper papers, then a lot of the flow will stop. We can enforce these laws, while we take care of so many more pressing issues that need legislation. This was an a wedge issue to start with and it needs to cool off and there is no wall to be built anyway, no money to pay for it.

This is the new racist issue of the 2006 elections. We need to stop the rise of racism that started with white, male GOP power grabs 12 years ago. When affirmative action laws were struck down, it was open season on all minorities, including women. Later next year cool headed people can set down and find some way to start to solve these problems. I am not smart enough to see any other way than just enforcing the laws already on the books. There is so many issues involved here, that it will take a lot of time to deal with them. walls, jails and prisons are not the answer to our need for good jobs to all Americans. No one is really looking at the real issues here, which includes the death of the American Dream.

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

Illegal Immigrants - Smokescreen
Posted by: Chevaliere on Nov 10, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but a little investigation into what is really wrong with America shows that the problem is not illegal immigrants, it is tax breaks for U.S. corporations that allow them to build their factories in foreign countries, employing slave labor. That means that all the REAL AMERICAN JOBS are being given away by the corporations that then bring the goods back to America and sell them at obscene profits to Americans who only are able to get service jobs because that is all that's left in the U.S.

And then, the companies that hire service employees naturally are going to want to hire the immigrants who come and work for lower wages than American's are willing to work for.

It's not the immigrants' fault, it is the fault of the greedy corporations and the Bush Admin's handing of carte blanche to corporations so that they can get away with this nonsense.

Oh, but the people who are worried about protecting THEIR way of life think that any government meddling in the business of making money at the expense of whoever you can step on is "socialism."

Well, so it is. The very idea! Actually having a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people! What a concept.

From its inception, the U.S. government was designed to be "of, by and for the rich and well-born." And certainly, any psychopath with no conscience who can lie, cheat or steal his way to the top becomes one of THEM.

And thank God for propaganda! It keeps us free of any of that socialist nonsense! You know, socialism leads to communism, the government as a corporation.

Capitalism as it is practiced in America is nothing but psychopathy: a dog eat dog world that has led to the Fascist regime of today: Corporations own the government.

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

A nation of laws not men, by the people and for the people
Posted by: JPHickey on Nov 10, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortuantely, Mr. Lavato's reasoning is peppered with fallacious presuppositions like he's the one who knows what "getting it right" on immigration means. This snotty tone really is a veiled threat to our form of government. The second example of discrepant thinking is his leap from illegal immigrants to all Hispanics in his big tent. Well, as a loyal citizen of the U.S., I don't want to give up the autonomy of this country and open it to all comers. Really, if this misguided "reasoning" is pursued to the ultimate, we would just be an amorphous blob in a one-world mass of lawless humanity. Unfortunately, considering the current state of humanity, the result would definitely be the end of life as we currently know and love.

Prissy, soft liberals who enjoy the fruits of meritocracy in the U.S. are also out of touch with the real people who do the work of this nation. Prissy, sissy liberals are either blind to the reality of what cheap slave labor is doing to this country and the standard of living of our working class. These effete and impudent snobs believe they alone deserve their Olympian existence even if they pretend that their vaunted and classy lives are totally separate from the exploited illegal immigrants who are increasingly providing the cheap (near slave) labor that is intentionally providing the foundation of the prosperity to this seemingly supercilious advantaged class. Regardless, this class of overlords which includes both political parties is based on the big money marriage between corporations and government.

Perhaps the recent election is a step in the right direction but remember only rich people can even run for office. It is still up to the citizens to assert our rights to government by the people and for the people. Not by illegal immigrants and for illegal immigrants.

The best gauge of who's calling the shots is whether we clamp down on employers who hire illegal aliens. The elite congressional leaders may choose to ignore this central factor because the money stream into their pockets still comes from corporations, and corporations, for the most part are heatless when it comes to keeping the costs of labor to a minimum (read that as hiring cheap, illegal immigrants).

I, for one, am dedicated to do whatever I can to help lawmakers to focus on the problem of "illegal employers", the biggest problem in the United States! And I invite you to join me. Now is the time to get with the program to save our working people from an increasingly degrading future! I still have a passion for government by the people, and for the people, don't you?

Honoring the labors of all working citizens can lead to so much that is truly incredible. Respecting the quality of living of every citizen must remain our passionate calling! To see an inspiring example of labors of love, though Canadian, I invite you to visit http://tinyurl.com/ybhwul http://picasaweb.google.com/JayPatrickHickey/ADreamComeTrueB
ouchardGardens

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

Pressure Mexico
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 10, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting, isn't it, that we use the excuse of terrorism to our Mexican border when the reason people emigrate through that border is economic. Yes, it is outrageous that American corporations get encouraged to move jobs abroad. Yes, Mexican (and other immigrants) do tough jobs for less and under worse conditions than legal residents. We need to modify NAFTA and pressure the Mexican government to address its problems in Chiapas and Oaxaca. If Mexico were livable, they wouldn't come here.

That woman in Staten Island is deluded; every day, scores immigrants fly in through Kennedy Airport not far from her (gated) door, and we do a lousy job of keeping track of them. Fences and gates won't do the trick. We need trade and labor policies that deal with these issues here and abroad. And, no, we can't act like Europeans. Why do you think some of us came here? Besides, I would't trade our immigration problems with those of England or France for the world. Talk about a powder keg!

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

» RE: Pressure Mexico and the USA Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Pressure Mexico and the USA Posted by: albrechtkrausse
You just don't get it, do you?
Posted by: medstudgeek on Nov 10, 2006 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of the American people DO NOT WANT MORE IMMIGRATION! There's few enough jobs as is! For crying out loud, look at your example. This ain't a conservative white southerner, you've got a 1. female 2. Jewish 3. doctor from NEW YORK CITY who wants to cut down immigration! (Last time I checked, Jews, women, and urban professionals all skewed heavily Democratic). This is your own base, people. Ignore at your peril.

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

K.I.S.S.
Posted by: Crone on Nov 10, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we complicating this? They are ILLEGAL immigrants. FINE those who employ them. Raise the minimum wage so that Americans can fill those jobs. Offer free bus trips back to Mexico. We are not Mexico's Welfare System. Keep It Simple, Stupid!

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

» RE: K.I.S.S. and L.O.V.E. Posted by: edith
Now is the time for Democrats to reframe the debate on immigration.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 10, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice that the Democratic voter mentioned in the article is only looking at the "border wall" as the solution. As medgeekstudent pointed out, now is not the time to ignore one's base. In fact, I'd like to add that it's high time the Democrats actually brought out more of the base in them. Had the progressives addressed more of what really led to this immigration mess, the voter would have asked for more than just a "border wall" which isn't going cut corners even if it's as high as the sky. She would have been able to realize that it is high time that America cancelled "free trade", stopped supporting foreign governments that throw their own natives off their land as was the case with Mexico's economic policies supported by the U.S. government, closed all the tax and shelter loopholes that have allowed the business elite to move jobs to those countries where near-slave wage labor was ripe for the picking, etc ...

And in case the Democrats think that supporting a "guest worker" program is such a great idea, I strongly recommend that everyone take these points presented in a wonderful article and bring into the discussion the real culprits of this immigration mess:

The Framing of Immigration by George Lakoff, Sam Ferguson

Crucial Issues Not Addressed in the Immigration Debate: Why Deep Framing Matters
Document Actions by George Lakoff, Sam Ferguson


Also, Wyoming Democrat candidate for House Gary Trauner who's in a close race with Republican incumbent Barbara Cubin put's it best on the issue of Immigration and Fair Trade

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

Think before reacting
Posted by: doodles on Nov 10, 2006 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to stop the angry and sobbing rhetoric. Several people have gotten part of the issue. Try this metaphor on. The real issue is do we, the people of the United States have the right and duty to control who comes into our home? This nation is our home. It's up to us to decide if we want further immigration, and if so how many immigrants we want/need and who those immigrants should be. Look at the difference in immigration policies around the world and at how that plays out for those nations. I personally like the New Zealand model. They decide how many people they want to let in. Then they pick and choose the best of the applicants, people with job skills, education, etc. The system has worked beautifully for them. But then they understand that at some point you have to find an economic model that is not growth dependent. Humanity can not continue to grow and spread without becoming toxic to itself and the planet, i.e. global warming, no more food from the oceans, etc.

It feels really good to talk about giving people a better life, but at this point, we need to be thinking about species survival and that means not just stopping the growth of the human community, but reducing the size and effect of the human community on our world. We can't control the world, but we can and must be responsible in our own country. We can be an example of how responsible population control works and how that benefits our people.

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

Education on what Liberty is....
Posted by: Taraerin on Nov 10, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all might want to read a childrens' book I had taught/read to my Religious Education class of 5 and 6 year olds.

Liberty / Allan Drummond.
Publication info. New York : Frances Foster Books, 2002.

It might make one think; it did so with the parents in attendance to include an attorney who has now become a judge.

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

A question about the illegal immigration problem
Posted by: maizie on Nov 10, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know who else to ask. I don't post comments on the sites I read. If I wait long enough and someone else will have the same thought. I've never seen this question discussed on any of the blogs I frequent, so I thought I'd ask.

Why can't "work stations" be set up along the U.S.-Mexico border for those from Mexico who want to work in this country and those employers in the U.S. who need workers. On the Mexico side they could build housing communities and be provided transportation each day to their jobs. They don't have to live here, but if they want to eventually they should have to go through a legal and lengthy immigration process.

This is a serious question from someone not nearly as glib as some of you, so please give me a serious answer. Thanks.

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

» Maquiladoras Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Maquiladoras Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Maquiladoras Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Throw NAFTA down the well Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Throw NAFTA down the well Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Another insulting article
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 10, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Equating ALL immigrants with illegal immigrants. No one here is against legal immigrants.

Refusing to recognize that George W. Bush is the cheerleader for illegal immigration - he wants it to bust unions, keep wages low. No surprise that many elected Democrats can see this if Alternet can't.

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

» RE: Another insulting article Posted by: YogiBear
Take a Good Look At Arizona
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 10, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Arizona and it is surprising that in this election where 50% of the registered voters here were Hispanic, that the immigrant rights initiatives (3) went down to defeat overwhelmingly, which means that a significant number of Hispanic voters voted against them as well. We also overwhelmingly passed English as the official state language ending nearly 25 years of bilingual government and education mandates that have cost this state millions of dollars. It would behoove the politicos and media to look closely at this because it brings to light something that none of the Republicans and none of the Democrats or the media want to admit: LEGAL IMMIGRANTS DO NOT WANT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HERE EITHER. We have spent so much time trying to appease groups that advocate immigration policies that not only jeopardize the security of this nation, but also the economic base of this nation that we have forgotten that we are a nation built not by immigrants who wanted special privileges or the right to break out laws by entering illegally, but rather by immigrants who came in legally and worked hard to build a nation. We are so busy being "politically correct" because of this push for diversity, that we have failed to realize that diversity is just another word for segregation and disunity.

Learn from Arizona, and start facing reality, America. We do not need Washington telling us lies about how Americans won't do the jobs that the illegals do. We know that is not true, and we have the unemployed, skilled Americans here to prove it (as does every other state in the Uniion). These are the Americans who have lost their jobs, used up their benefits, and who are working at any job they can find because they are the ones whose jobs were outsourced or giving to an illegal who would work cheaper. Arizonans have had enough, and when the rest of America quits allowing itself to be led around by the nose by special interest groups with political agendas contrary to American interests, corporations and media interests who need cheap labor and a 15 minute politically correct sound-bite, maybe they will realize that legal immigrants are the ones being hurt the most because they are being painted by the same brush as illegals, and they want walls and stronger security and the mass deportation of illegals more than the rest of us do.

Stop listening to groups who claim to have the voice of the people who are legal immigrants and start reading the Hispanic anti-amnesty websites and newspapers of the legal communities. Start realizing that the ones who intimidate the legal residents are strong-arm illegals and special interests groups promoting the political agenda of Mexico here in the US, not the average American citizen, who is being turned against all the Hispanics here because of the media coverage giving the impression that it is the legals who are supporting this effort. The Hispanic citizens sent a loud and clear message to the government of this state and of this nation. They do not want the illegal immigrants here, and it is time to send them home and protect our nation from anymore coming in.

So stop talking amnesty, start listening to the legal immigrants of this nation, and start doing something to protect the economy and the security of the American people, legal and native born, and stop dancing with special and corporate interests, Washington. You can find plenty of Americans to clean your toilets and rake your lawns, you just have to pay them a fair wage!

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

» RE: Take a Good Look At Arizona Posted by: ReallyBearish
Have Illegal immigrants hit the wall? I certainly hope so!
Posted by: dstauff on Nov 10, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of the article sums up the authors confusion or deliberate equation of illegal immigration with immigration.

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

Hurray for the commentators who mentioned NAFTA
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 10, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few gleams of light in an otherwise obscure debate.

I'm actually very much in favor of tightly controlled and regulated immigration - of money, that is. NAFTA allows for the free flow of cash back and forth across the border - that's why the polluting factories staffed with young women are all located south of the border. Polluting Mexican diesel trucks also move back and forth across the border at will (as does a whole lot of cocaine and heroin (coming in) and suitcases full of $100 bills (going out)).

Why are poor Mexican farmers flooding across the border to work as cut-rate slaves in US agricultural fields? Simple - because under NAFTA rules, huge agribusiness concerns (ADM, etc.) can dump their products in Mexico at below-market prices, thus bankrupting the local farmers who can't compete, and driving them off their land - at which point they head for America in order to survive.

This should be a staple issue in ANY discussion of illegal immigration into the USA. Right-wing idealogues don't dare discuss it because they're funded by the same corporate paymasters who oversee the whole scheme.

If you want answers, you need to follow the money. When you start smelling something foul, you'll know you're close to the truth.

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

» Put that broad brush away Posted by: edith
» Yes! Thank God.... Posted by: CatDad
» Viva la Zapatistas! Posted by: YinRising
» RE: Yes! Thank God.... Posted by: edith
use the right label
Posted by: edith on Nov 10, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
most people, including politicians, are against illegal immigrants holding jobs in the US and using services like schools, hospitals, and counseling services, including language and job training courses. However, the American people with insignificant exceptions are for legal immigrants. There is a pro-illegal immigrant lobby that has successfully smeared those who asked that laws passed by Democrats and Repubicans alike be enforced.

I do not consider illegal immigrnats to be immoral or dangerous. I do believe that they are tools of employers to exploit US citizen workers, including Latino citizens.

Advocates of unrestricted immigration should have the honesty to admit that open borders is the goal; that any restriction on immigration is irrational, and that these advocates have a duty to prepare careful and objective studies to show how the US and the average US worker would benefit from unrestricted immigration. I would also like these advocates to consider the adverse environmental impact on major areas where illegal immmigrants work and reside. We rightfully ask the military to do EIS, so illegal immigrant advocates like the author here should favor impact statements on the environment that analyze immigration impacts.

Finally, stop smearing opponents of illegal immigration as anti-immmigrant. The vast majority of us are grandkids or descendents of immigrants. But no one arose in 1965 when a Democrat congress vastly liberalized immigration quotas and said that LBJ, Humphrey, McGovern and Carl Albert were racists because some restirictions like a quota total per annum was preserved.

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

BREAKING NEWS: SOME DEMOCRATS ARE PLANNING TO UNDERMINE TRADE REFORM !!!!
Posted by: SDres11 on Nov 10, 2006 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Top Dem Announces “Grand Bargain” to Undermine Election Mandate on Trade
So let’s see - Democrats win Congress by using a strong opposition to lobbyist-written trade policies as a key way to gain ground among traditionally conservative voters. As USA Today noted, fighting our current trade policy “especially helped Democrats woo voters in traditionally Republican rural areas. Yet now, just three days after the election, we read this in the New York Times:

“Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who could soon become the head of the Financial Services Committee, said he and other Democrats who have been advising Ms. Pelosi are planning to propose a ‘’grand bargain'’ with business interests. If business groups support the Democrats’ efforts to increase the minimum wage, extend student loans and expand affordable housing programs, Mr. Frank said, then the Democrats would support efforts to reduce trade barriers and burdensome regulation. ‘We are liberal internationalists,’ Mr. Frank said. ‘Businesses know they have an interest in working with us.’”

Barney Frank has done some great, courageous and commendable work on trying to regulate exorbitant CEO pay packages and on economic inequality in general. But make no mistake about it: “reduced trade barriers” is political language for continuing our current trade policy that includes no basic protections for labor, environmental or human rights - a trade policy that sells out both American and foreign workers and has exacerbated the economic inequality that Frank himself has focused on.

This doesn’t sound like a “grand bargain” - it sounds like laying the groundwork for selling out just a few days after an election where a major mandate for change on trade was very clear (just read Public Citizen’s incredible new report, and you will see how clear this message really was across the country). Look, no one wants “high” trade barriers - but this kind This is why, as I have said before, the fight only began on November 7th. Making sure the new Congress stays true to what it was elected on is going to be a major battle. There are many Democratic staffers-turned-corporate-lobbyists running to reporters bragging about how much influence they will have now - influence that will be used to make sure the election’s mandate on issues like trade is ignored in the new Congress. It is up to us to make sure it isn’t.

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

NAFTA, CHEMICAL FARMING EQUAL MASS MIGRATION
Posted by: bonzo2_2 on Nov 10, 2006 7:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just weeks before the elections, Congress is unable to agree on legislation regarding the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants. Legislators are at loggerheads over such disparate proposals as conditional legalization, guest-worker programs and massive deportations. In a sad testimony to the lack of bipartisan leadership, the only thing Congress has authorized this year is the construction of a $2.2 billion, 700-mile fence on the Mexican border. Remarkably, not one single U.S. lawmaker has addressed why an estimated 1.1 million people cross the border every year looking for work. This omission allows our politicians to divert public attention away from the way U.S. policies cause massive migrations. In the 1960s and '70s, when the Rockefeller Foundation's Green Revolution increased grain production in Mexico and Central America, the world applauded, convinced this signalled the end of world hunger.But the region's fragile tropical and hillside soils where the majority of farmers cultivate their grains lost organic matter under the Green Revolution's intensive fertilizer regimes. Pest outbreaks became chronic.

Smallholder farmers took out loans to buy more and more chemicals. When the World Bank and the IMF imposed structural adjustment programs in the 1980s, government loans, marketing programs, and agricultural extension services disappeared overnight. Then the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and its Central American cousin, CAFTA, flooded local grain markets with cheap corn, subsidized by U.S. taxpayers and sold below cost of production. The region's peasant farmers struggled, squeezing out every last ounce of family labor to compete in the so-called free market. Debts piled up. When droughts or hurricanes hit-as they frequently do in the tropics-the Green Revolution hybrids withered and died. In Mexico from 1994-2004, 1.3 million smallholders went bust. Abandoned by their governments, run over by the Green Revolution, broke, hungry, and exhausted, they joined the ranks of the dispossessed. Desperate to feed their families, dreaming of a better life, small farmers send their able-bodied family members to the United States to look for work.

There their sons and daughters find jobs in poisonous fields harvesting vegetables, in deadly industrial slaughterhouses, and in gruelling food-processing plants.
The U.S. Farm Bureau estimates that immigrant labor adds up to $9 billion of the nation's $200 billion annual agricultural output. Because they are undocumented, migrant farm workers are forced to sell their labor cheaply and receive no health or insurance benefits. This results in tremendous labor savings for an industry that already benefits substantially from agricultural subsidies. The agri-food chain depends on immigrant labor, and it requires migrants' illegal status to realize its windfall profits.
Immigrant working families make up a large portion of the 12 million food-insecure people in the United States who often do not know where their next meal is coming from. They cannot afford to buy the fresh fruits, vegetables or meat they produce. In order to obtain the necessary calories for survival, like most low-income people in this country, they substitute protein, fresh vegetables, and fiber for sugars, fats, and starch by eating the cheap processed food sold by the agri-food industry.

Eric Holt-Gimenezis the Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, California www.foodfirst.org. He is author of Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America's Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture and an analyst for the IRC Americas Program. He can be reached at: eholtgim@foodfirst.org

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

COYOTES, POLLOS, AND THE PROMISED VAN
Posted by: bonzo2_2 on Nov 10, 2006 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any reduction of poverty in Mexico takes two forms: the exportation of brown flesh to the United States, and the money those people send home to sustain the people, la gente, whom their own government ignores. Everything else is talk - and bad talk. There are no honest players in this game. People cut the cards to fit their ideology. More Mexicans come north than either country is willing to admit. They do take jobs - they say they take jobs Americans refuse to do, which is probably true in some instances. But in the mid 1990s slaughter house workers earned twice the current wage for their toil. Now their jobs are mostly held by Mexicans. They do commit crimes, and if the arrival of millions of poor people in United States does not drive down wages, then surely there is a Nobel Prize to be earned in studying this remarkable exception to the law of supply and demand. They are no longer migratory workers. And it is not seasonal labor. The people walking north all around me are not going to go home again anytime soon. This is an exodus from a failed economy and a barbarous government and their journey is biblical. All the solutions now in political play are idiocy. .Employer sanctions to make Mexicans unemployable? Fine, then Mexicans all go home and Mexico erupts and we have a destroyed nation on our southern border and even greater illegal immigration.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEDOMSFORUM/message/79621

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

VOTERS FRUSTRATED WITH NAME-BRAND POLITICS
Posted by: bonzo2_2 on Nov 10, 2006 8:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you sending a message with your vote today? Grassroots opinion leaders at HOTSOUP.com say they are, and the news is bad for incumbents Republican or Democratic. If there was a spot on every ballot to mark ˜none of the above, I bet that would be the winner this time around, said MEED1, a member of today's Hot Loop. In the Loop, members are asked whether they plan to send a message to Washington with their votes today. If so, what is it? Who's awake at the wheel in Washington to receive a message? writes a member who goes by the name thevoice. Its all about survival and the status quo.

Writes another: Its time to shake up the focus-group phonies in Washington by getting out the vote. It doesn't matter who you vote for as long as you vote. The throw-the-bums-out frustration is underscored by a HOTSOUP poll in which about nine in 10 members say government doesn't work, their political leaders are untrustworthy and their voice is not heard in Washington. Few think things will get better after today's elections, regardless of the results. Looking to the 2008 presidential election, an overwhelming majority agreed that a ``major overhaul is needed in politics.

HOTSOUP members are an important audience, because they consist of local opinion leaders who tend to influence their friends, family and associates. In the short term, Republicans are likely to bear the brunt of the voters’ frustration, according to public polls and sentiments expressed in the Soup. I am a GOP voter, or at least I was until the party I signed up for disappeared, writes Kathleen33.What am I going to do? Well, its pretty simple. Vote Democrat. Campaign Democrat. And encourage everyone I know to vote Democrat.

Longer term, both parties stand accused at HOTSOUP of partisanship, gridlock and a lack of accountability. What will it take for America to move beyond brand-name politics? writes smellywetdog. When will there be a viable third party? Make your case at www.hotsoup.com.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEDOMSFORUM/message/81769

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

Bush Tells Mexico: "Y'all, Don't get grass stains on my new fence !"
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Nov 10, 2006 11:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a surprising retaliatory statement, President George Bush fires back at Mexican Mayor.
Stung by the recent vote of the people against his policies, President Bush seems to be taking a stronger stand regarding foreign policies world-wide. The statement regarding the wall being built between one American Country, Mexico, and the other being the United States, seems inflamatory to many on both sides of the fence. Bush also is showing little or no tolerance for the attitude of the British people who have as a majority opposed his Iraq policies. An undisclosed source remarked that Bush said, "Limey this" during a conversation about British distaste for his policies. He is now stung by the German people who want to hold to legal precedence the actions of his left hand-man, Donald Rumsfeld; who just recently resigned as Secretary of Defense. A leading Democrat suggested the office he held was actually "Secretary of Offense." With "Domestic Abuse" being suggested during the reign of the Bush Administration, the German action now adds "International Abuse" to the growing movement of distrust and anger towards the three left in office, President George Bush, Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney, and the architect of the Bush Presidency, Karl Rove. Condoleeza Rice, although part of the Administration, seems to be driven by a more patriotic sense of duty, than the politics of the Bush Administration seems to exude. Sources say that Bush still denies any ties to the Texas Rancher who made the derogatory statement to Sacha Cohen about the Jews.

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

Doublethink at work
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Nov 11, 2006 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It escapes me how so many people manage to fit both "immigration is a good thing, bring them on" and "we're using too much resources, we have to cut back" in the same brain.

Is it not apparent that if you admit wave after wave of people, they increase the human footprint of the nation?

They impact water usage, already a severe problem in some States. They add to the traffic mess, and burn gasoline in doing so. They put upward pressure on land prices, and cause cities to sprawl out further onto prime arable land. They cause from McHuts through McMansions to be built. They pollute the air with various fumes and the water with sewage. They increase greenhouse gas production. They increase the demand for electricty on an already strained grid.

Do you want to get it right on immigration? Then close the blasted door and stop the erosion of quality of life in this country!!!! And if you're so concerned about their quality of life, then go into their countries and set up programs that will help them there!!!!

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

can't have it both ways
Posted by: jgdewey on Nov 11, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a nation I have seen us use torture, break the geneva convention, start a war because of the POTENIAL for an attack and use illegal immigrant labor at slave wages. All of this out of fear of terroists and protecting our way of life. Maybe it is time for us to stop this trend toward utter selfishness, to join the world communtiy and help our poorer neighbors to the south. As I see it, they contribute a lot to our society, they pick our crops, clean our houses, sit our kids, clean the office buildings where the pontificating journalists sit on their fat behinds and talk about illegals, they work all night in restaurants peeling and chopping and cleaning,they work all night in hotels, cleaning and plumping our pillows, they sew our clothes, and construct our houses. We all know they do it, we close our eyes to it. Then 911 comes and they are to blame, it's there fault things are such a mess, it's them not our supersized houses, supersized waistlines, and supersized cars. Materialism has not made us happy, being the richest nation in the world has not made us peaceful, but God knows we'll keep trying. We will buy more and eat more, get bigger houses, maybe 2 or 3, and pools and closets the size of bedrooms. Wake up America. They are at our border, the poor, the hungry the political refugees, and you're standing on top of your gas guzzling SUV with your 1000 dollar high powered scope scapegoating the immigrants. It's not them, it's us. It's not a big accident in my mind that the two tallest buildings in our nation that were brought down by terroists were mouments to marketing, business and trade. And it's no accident that born again lunatics have taken over as religious and righteous. We have lost our moral compass, our guidelines of decency, we are awash in making more and more money and getting bigger and better stuff. And we do it with the slave labor of the immigrants. And in their desperate poverty, they come like a mirror in our face and tell us, you have too much, please I'll work but share it with me. We can't stand it so, we attack and build walls and raid them and humiliate them. You can't have it both ways. You can't use their slave labor to make yourself rich and then ignore them when they need a doctor or a home. Put a wall if you want, but it will never solve a thing because the sickness of America is inside us. The ends j