Raids fill Hispanics with fear: Legal or not, many stay at home

[theHandpuppet]

From the Cincinnati Enquirer http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/NEWS0103/605150347

Monday, May 15, 2006

Raids fill Hispanics with fear
Legal or not, many stay at home
BY RYAN CLARK AND KAREN GUTIÉRREZ | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITERS

FLORENCE - Yolanda Wysocki spent part of last week begging Hispanic parents to send their children back to Collins Elementary School.

But the parents were afraid. On Tuesday, 76 allegedly undocumented immigrants had been arrested in Florence. Could the same happen to them or their children?

The roundup has drawn attention to Florence's Hispanic residents, less than 4 percent of the population.

Theirs is a world in which some are now staying locked inside their homes, fearful of police. Others have proper documentation, yet are met with suspicious glances. Still others - resigned to the risk of deportation - continue to openly look for work.

Collins Elementary School has 80 students in a special program for English language learners. The day of the arrests, 10 were absent.

One mother kept her children at home because her husband had been taken away by authorities that day.

Another was afraid to put her children on the bus because she thought she might never see them again, said Wysocki, an assistant teacher in the English-language program and a native of Mexico...

MORE

[Kailassa]

1. sadly kicked and recommended

[Mountainman]

2. I really do not like what this country has become and pray that we

can get back to caring about people instead of living in fear of each other.

[Blue_Tires]

97. i have been truly appalled

at what americans can openly defend or support (with a straight face) all in the name of 'fighting terrorism', or 'keeping the whatever race out of our communities'

[Solon]

3. See, this is the type of shit we should avoid...

there are OTHER ways to preserve AMERICAN jobs without pitting AMERICANS against each other.

[MaraJade]

56. Yes. The feet of the employers

should be held to the fire on this one. The employers are already breaking federal laws.
Arresting and fining them through the laws currently on the books will solve the problem.

[Kenergy]

92. Agree n/t

[Bacchus39]

103. so you want employers to do the job of the Border Patrol?

what if illegals use fake IDs, and they do, is it the employers responsibility to verify the validity of documentation? what do you do when all the illegals are jobless when their employers are shut down?

how about keeping them out in the first place?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. K & R, for anyone who thinks "rounding up" of Americans would never

happen.

When you hear a news report about groups of illegals rounded up and bussed off, do you assume that they are all illegal and it's a justified action?

I'm asking this question of family and friends a lot, lately. MKJ

[FreakinDJ]

5. Leave the illegal immigrants alone and go after EMPLOYERS

No I don't think it fair to put these folks in fear for their lives. Nor do i think it fair we give a FREE PASS to 1000s of employers who cheat the workes, and the state and federal tax codes.

[RebelOne]

17. They are not in fear for their lives.

They are just afraid that they will be sent back to where they came from and rightly so.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Where are they sent? I'm asking because I don't trust anything the

government does, at this point.

Are they "released" at some kind of checkpoint? Are they further "processed"?

I'm just curious what these people have experienced that makes them that fearful. MKJ

[primavera]

84. Depends upon the circumstances

If a migrant does not contest their unlawful presence, they're usually just put on a bus or a plane and sent back to wherever they came from. That's been a bit of a problem in that DHS usually just drives them across the border and dumps them, at which point they frequently will just come right back across that evening. There's been some recent experimentation with deporting them to interior areas of Mexico, farther away from the border and the smugglers, as an added deterrent to re-entering, I'm not sure whether that's been effective or not.

Where things get more complicated is when the migrant has a potential basis for contesting deportation, such as a claim to asylum or they have a US citizen immediate family member who might qualify them for a potential waiver of deportability. In those instances, the arresting officer has discretion whether they will issue a notice to appear before an immigration judge and release them on their own recognisance (in which event the migrant rarely shows up) or detains the migrant in jail until their scheduled hearing. The officer may also simply decide that they don't believe the migrant's story and summarily deport them anyway. So there are several possible outcomes if the migrant has a potential claim for remaining in the US. Since most of them are unpleasant and involve a significant risk of denial, deportation, and/or imprisonment, most migrants would just as soon avoid the risk altogether, so will maintain a low profile.

I think the most pronounced fear for many migrants is among those who aren't just seasonal workers accustomed to repeated border crossings, but those who have been here for years and have set down some roots. They may have a home, friends, family, be part of a community, they may have kids who were born here and are therefore US citizens, not Mexican citizens, which would pose a tricky legal situation if the parents were deported but Mexico didn't recognize the US citizen children.

Traditionally, law recognized that denying someone entry at the border (exclusion) was substantively different from uprooting someone who had been here for years and had built a life here (deportation). Since the hardship imposed on someone being deported was so much greater, it was considered a form of punishment and, under the Constitution, punishment entitles you to a day in court to present your side of the story and present mitigating circumstances before the punishment can be imposed. That distinction between exclusion and deportation has existed in every country on earth for hundreds of years. But in 1996, we came up with a way around it by introducing the concept of "summary removal," which allowed government agents to deport people based solely upon their own personal discretion, without affording the person being deported the opportunity to appear before a court. The then-INS argued that it didn't count as a deportation, which all agreed required the protections of due process of law, provided they simply didn't call it a deportation, but rather called it a removal, see, that made all the difference. As is so often the case, the then-INS petitioned for is as an extraordinary authority, only to be exercised in the rarest and most emergent of circumstances. Naturally, the ink hadn't even dried on the bill before INS was using it across the board for virtually all deportations, since it was so handy and eliminated all of that pesky due process red tape. Anyway, to make a long story short, migrants rapidly discovered that being apprehended could very well mean summary removal without so much as the opportunity to contact their families to let them know what had become of them, so they've become much more cautious and wary of any interaction with immigration authorities.

[0007]

93. Mexico has a big problem.

[MaraJade]

53. Absolutely agree.

It should be a felony to hire undocumented people. As a matter of fact, there are currently
laws on the books that specify a $5000 fine for every undocumented worker hired. Those laws should be enforced absolutely. Put the employers on the run. Only that is the best way to solve this problem.

[primavera]

6. This is why it's easier said than done to...

..."just enforce the existing laws and seal the border" as so many here like to advocate. Short of branding everyone with barcodes across their foreheads, how do people know who is and who is not lawfully presnt, which ID is legit and which is fake? The opera gets really comical when you recruit local law enforcement who possess no training whatsoever in determining lawful immigration status to pitch in and lend a hand. Then suddenly anyone with brown skin and an accent becomes an illegal alien to be deported. Unfortuantely, there are very, very protections anymore against government error, as due process was considered to be too cumbersome, so nowadays it's very easy to get deported, even if you should happen to be lawfully presnt or, in some instances, even a US citizen.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. Exactly, we need to streamline the citizenship process. If someone really

wants to be a citizen of this country, let's make it a little easier.

Then, you have more citizens, with the attendant rights, especially the minimum wage and voting rights.

I don't agree with large numbers of workers, from any country, that won't make the commitment to citizenship here.

However, if they're willing to take that step, they should have a clear, quick avenue to do so.

MKJ

[primavera]

14. Why is citizenship the keystone for you?

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, I certainly agree that people who want to become citizens need to have a viable means for accomplishing that, but are you saying that the only immigrants we should welcome are those bound for citizenship? What about students who come here for a few yeas to study? Tourists? Presumably it's okay for those groups to live here for a while without ever seeking citizenship, so why does it matter if the reason they're coming here is to work a job for a few years?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. I think the difference with the groups you mention and the illegal

immigrants, especially those from South American, Central America and Mexico, are there are no agreements prior to their arrival.

Students, temporary workers sanctioned by the INS and tourists enter after agreeing to the rule of law for immigrants to our country.

If you have a significant number of immigrants slipping in illegally, there's no way to know who wants citizenship, vs. who's here strictly for the economic benefits.

I would draw the conclusion that the majority are here because wages are much better here than in their countries.

It seems a large number begin new lives here, and would jump at the chance to become fully vested American citizens.

But that process is excruciatingly long and arbitrary.

Again, if we offered a better system for citizenship, we would have a handle on how many really want to live here and how many want to be temporary workers.

And that was such a great question, it really forced me to break this down, rather than proclaim an ideal and be done with it. :hi: MKJ

[MaraJade]

55. Tourists and Students are here for a limited time. . .

Nothing against either. After all, they are time-delimited and are going to be leaving.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Gaining legal residency is the step that is overly complex.

Especially for "certain people."

[MaraJade]

57. Not complex at all. . .

It just takes TIME, and so many people today are into instant gratification. I had to wait TWO YEARS
after our wedding to get my husband into the US. If I can do that, so can everyone else.

The reason why it takes so much time is because other people are ahead of you in the 'line.' It's like
any other queue. You must wait in 'line' until it is your turn. Nothing unfair about it.

[primavera]

68. Waiting in line

Tell me, if you go to a supermarket and there are 100 customers and the store has decided it doesn't want to have to pay for any more checkers than necessary, so there's only one checker and you and the other 99 shoppers all have to spend hours and hours waiting in that line, will you stand peacefully in line waiting your turn, or will you demand to see a store manager and complain about the disgrace of not providing enough checkers to provide service in a reasonable timeframe?

[420inTN]

73. So, in your scenario, would it be okay to...

skip the line and walk out of the store with your groceries, without paying for them?

[primavera]

79. No

But I would complain like hell and lobby vigorously for better service.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

80. To which "certain people" do you refer?

My British cousin (a "wasp") and his wife and children, have been living here for about 5 years. He has an excellent job (was recruited to the San Francisco area by corporate headhunters). He applied for citizenship soon after arriving, and is still waiting.

[MaraJade]

54. I strongly disagree, . .

My husband is an immigrant who first, got his "green card" BEFORE entering the country and who,
about three years ago, obtained Naturalization.

Everyone entering this nation should have to prove that they are literate, not a criminal, not a
carrier of communicable disease, able to work, will NOT become a public charge of any type. Everyone who wants to be a citizen MUST invest enough of him or herself to LEARN about this nation, how the government works and their proper role as a citizen. Nothing else makes any sense. It doesn't make sense to grant the PRIVILEGE of citizenship cheaply.

As my mother says, "anything free is worth exactly what you paid for it." Nothing.

[primavera]

67. Not to put too fine a point on it...

... but just how much effort did you invest to obtain your citizenship? I don't know about you, but I don't know that I've exactly cured cancer recently to justify my continued enjoyment of the privilege of citizenship. So what makes me so special that I deserve US citizenship? That I was born a few miles farther north instead of a few miles farther south. Doesn't sound like all that great an accomplishment.

[loyalsister]

83. #1 priority in the Eugenics movement

"will NOT become a public charge of any type."
Immigrations regulations during the 1930s banned people with disabilities from entering the U.S. They enjoyed Democratic support at that time too. At that time it was for "their own good" and to maximize the positive genetics of the "superior nordic race."

[Bacchus39]

104. if they come here legally sure

n/t

[FreakinDJ]

8. If you are a legal immigrant

....you are mandated by law to carry your green card with you at all times. Just as most states have laws requiring citizens of legal age to carry identification at all times.

Just try refusing to give an officer of the law your identity upon their request and see what happens.

[Solon]

12. Never heard of that before...

I know quite a few people that never bother to even carry their ID unless absolutely necessary, many don't smoke or drink, and don't drive either, for most day to day activities, they don't carry it. Why should they? I'm not talking about Green Card holders either, but citizens here.

[Xithras]

24. Here in California, that can get you arrested.

State law says that anyone who is 18 or older, or who appears to be 18 or older, must provide identification to the police upon request (assuming that the request is reasonable...ID checkpoints and such would be illegal). When I was in college, a good friend was arrested after being stopped by the Berkeley PD. He didn't have his state ID on him, or any other form of legal identification, so they arrested him until his ID could be verified. He called his roomate, had his wallet dropped off, and was released. The purpose of the stop? A window had been broken a few blocks away and the PD were looking for possible suspects.

[Solon]

25. That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of...

I knew a kid in Middle School who could pass for well over 18, one of those "hairy" kids with a good stubble. Are you saying that this kid, not even old enough to drive, would have been arrested in California? What type of Bullshit is that?

[Xithras]

37. Not arrested..."detained for questioning".

But yeah, it is screwed up. It's nothing new either, that happened over a decade ago.

Basically, if the cops have any reason to suspect you of a crime, they can detain you until your identity is established. If the person is a minor, it IS legal for his parents to identify him. Your "middle school" example would have been forced to hand over his parents phone numbers.

[primavera]

50. But there is a probable cause requirement, isn't there?

I mean, not carrying ID isn't an offense in and of itself, right? The police can just make life inconvenient for you if they have some reasonable belief that you may have been involved in a criminal activity and you're unable to establish your identity to their satisfaction? I'd hate to think we've really advanced to a "Your papers, please!" society to the degree where it was an actionable offense simply to not carry documents. <shudder!>

[Xithras]

85. Yes, but mostly no.

They have to show that they had a reasonable reason to stop you in the first place. In my friends case, they were canvassing the neighborhood and he was caught up in the sweep. As long as they had a reasonable purpose for stopping you, they can demand ID. They DON'T actually have to suspect you of a crime, they merely have to prove a legitimate purpose for the stop. Your lack of ID is actually irrelevant to the original stop.

Example: Woman calls police claiming that she just had her purse snatched. Police stop a white guy walking three blocks away to find out if he saw anything. The police get a follow up from the officer on site detailing that it was an asian suspect. The white person, in this case, can no longer reasonably be considered a suspect in ANY crime. If the officer asks for his ID though, he STILL has to provide it, and he can still be detained if he refuses to do so.

This is, sadly, perfectly legal and constitutional in this country. There was a case that went through to the SC a few years ago that clarified it. A guy was sitting on the back tailgate of his own pickup on the side of a country road...on his own property. A police officer stopped, asked what he was doing there, and then asked for the mans ID. The guy explained that it was his property, but refused to give an ID to the officer. When the police officer threatened to arrest him, the man became argumentative and was arrested for failing to turn over his ID, and was charged with disorderly conduct for not cooperating with the police officer. He fought it all the way to the Supremes, but they ultimately decided that it is reasonable for a police officer to establish your identity during ANY contact for ANY reason. They cannot do ID checks randomly, but as long as they can show legitimate cause for the initial contact, they are free to demand identification.

[primavera]

86. How interesting! And terrifying...

Thank you very much for the information, I had no idea we were as far gone as that. I don't suppose you happen to remember the name of the SCROTUS case, do you? I'd love to look it up and read it.

[primavera]

13. They're not supposed to ask for immigration documentation

... because they generally lack the knowledge to know what is and is not valid documentation. For instance, I worked with a refugee once who had been stopped by a police officer in Florida and asked to show his immigration documents. Refugees commonly are fleeing repressive regimes, so often do not have passports, as the governments they're fleeing refuse to issue them to dissidents. Even in instances where they may have had passports or other documentation at some point, they may have been forced from their homes owing to civil unrest and may not have had time to gather their documents before having to flee for their lives. So it's not uncommon for refugees to not have a lot of formal documentation when they arrive in the US. The only document we provide them with when they enter the US is what is known as an I-94 card, just a white paper card with their name written on it, a number, and an admission stamp. That's it, that's all the documentation they have to show.

Such was the case for this refugee in Florida, who dutifully showed his I-94 card to the police officer who demanded it. The police officer, having never seen an I-94 card before, assumed that it was bogus, tore it into pieces, and arrested the guy. He was here perfectly legally, was carrying the official documentation we'd provided him as evidence of his lawful status, but the police had no knowledge of immigration documentation, so shredded his only proof of lawful status and threw him in the clink anyway. This is why police officers should never be allowed to ask for immigration documentation.

[Bridget Burke]

20. If you are a native born American, you won't have a Green Card.

So you'll be in serious trouble if you've got brown skin.

[FreakinDJ]

22. Irrelevent

Just try refusing to give an officer of the law identification upon request and see what happens.

So if these "brown skinned people" (your words not mine)don't have identification it is for another reason.

Shit just try being brown skinned and not complieing with every law on the books and see what happens

[Solon]

28. Actually, that did happen to me...

I was one time a passenger in a car on the way home from work(car broke down that week) and I couldn't find my wallet that morning so said "fuck it" and just went to work. So on the way home, my friend, the dumbass, was speeding, and he got pulled over. The officer asked for his driver's license and insurance card. He gave it over, then the officer asked for MY ID, I told him I didn't have it, couldn't find my wallet that morning, etc. He said, OK, and let us go. I don't get this whole "You need an ID" thing, I mean, really, should we carry our birth certificates and social security cards too? I would hate to be the victim of a pickpocket THEN!

[High Plains]

40. Only some states have those "must show ID" laws.

Thank goodness.

[Solon]

48. How do they handle when you DON'T have your ID on you?

I lose my wallet constantly, I'd lose my head if it wasn't attached, that's what messes me up. I don't know how many times I'd call up friends asking for a ride because I forgot where my wallet was and needed to get to work. I don't drive without my license, but I can't really believe that I would be BREAKING the fucking law by forgetting the damned thing altogether.

[MaraJade]

60. But you will have a driver's license or

Some other form of state-issed id. Here in PA non-drivers can get an id from the Commonwealth
Bureau of Motor Vehicles. My mom has one.

Also, most students have student ids (my high school age daughter has one).

[MaraJade]

58. That's not a problem.

My husband carried his "green card" around with him for nearly 15 years. It's no bigger than
a credit card and it looks a lot like a driver's license. He was an over-the-road trucker (we even
owned our own trucking company) and carrying the "green card" did not present any larger a burden
than carrying a driver's license.

Even citizens must give officers of the law identification of some sort. I do not understand what you are saying about this.

[primavera]

66. It is a problem

...because a green card isn't the only form of legal ID a person can have. Consider nonimmigrant aliens such as students or tourists, they don't have green cards, but they're still here legally. Typically, the only document we give to nonimmigrants, as well as to newly arrived immigrants, asylees, and refugees, all of whom are here legally, is a little white paper card called an I-94 card, which bears their name written by hand, a dated admission stamp, and a hopelessly illegible scrawl written by some port of entry inspection officer referencing the section of law under which the person was admitted. Very few law enforcement officers have any idea that this is in fact the only documentation we give to many categories of lawfully present aliens.

[Love Bug]

9. My Mexican neighbors have been keeping a low profile lately

My Mexican neighbors usually celebrate holidays by having cookouts and fireworks. I was surprised they didn't do that for Cinco de Mayo last week. I'm wondering if they are purposely keeping a low profile in order to not draw attention to themselves. I don't know if they are legal or not and don't care -- they own their home, cars, have jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the community.

[Marie26]

10. Filling people with fear: what the Bush Ad. does best. nt

[TriMetFan]

11. This is the SHIT I have been talking about!

To all those here in our DU Family that have attacked the undocumented workers and don't want to understand that the back lash has been happening to American BORN Hispanics like myself because I'm brown skin THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR NARROW MINDS! Only people of color are going to understand what it feels like to be looked at because of your skin color. The ones that need to be blamed for hiring undocumented workers are not even getting their asses kicked/fined. The companies are to blame not the people!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[libpunkmom]

15. Thank You ! There are a few of us

who are going through this type of shit. Amazing, even here in Portland (a liberal oasis compared to most places) This is happening! Two guys that work with my husband asked him if he was going to go back to his country, my husband's response, "What is Cali finally it's on country now?"

[LostinVA]

16. I have white skin, but I'm not part of that DU "family" that rails against

"Illegals." Craziness. I can't imagine what our Hispanic DUers think of some of these posts/threads lately.....

[TriMetFan]

18. Well I can tell you!

I'm fucking pissed off! It is so much easier to blame a person then to blame who really is at fault! The companies and our own fucking Government!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[LostinVA]

26. My great grandfather came from Sicily in 1918

And the same type of racist, xenophobic crap happened to him... it's appalling that it's still going on here in 2006. And also on DU. You have a right to be enraged. It's making me enraged, and I'm Anglo.

[teknomanzer]

42. Time for me to chime in...

Some Background - Completely americanized hispanic, third generation, can't really speak Spanish - born in a military hospital in Puerto Rico, my father is retired Air Force, I myself served in the Army during Gulf War I '91 - '94.

Let me just say I can smell bullshit around this whole god damned 'national immigration debate.' The Republican ship is taking on water fast and there aren't enough buckets being mass produced in China to bail their asses out. They seriously need to distract the american people from all the trouble they are in. And quite frankly they've used up all the other wedge issues already. What are they going to do rehash gay marriage, stoke up the right to life people, find another Terri Shaivo, raise the awful specter of terrorism, find a Bin Laden tape? They've played every card in their hand and the last one is immigration. This is not to say that there aren't real problems around this issue, but they are deliberately using agitating rhetoric to take the focus off the fact that Toto has pulled the curtain open. Graft, spying, and hookers - OH MY!

The sad thing is Americans are once more falling for it. To me the lies about the war, the domestic spying, the abandonment of NOLA, the disappearing middle class, the flippant attitude about the environment, the refusal to take our country off the fossil fuel based economy all have much more precedence over deporting the poor chicano washing dishes at the local country club.

[TriMetFan]

44. Well said, but.......

What really gets to me is that there are members here in DU that are believing this bush shit. When the rest of us know that it is the companies and the American Governments fault.

[420inTN]

72. It's not just "this bush shit"...

You are saying that this is the fault of companies and the American Government? Yes, they are to blame somewhat, but did they force these non-American citizens to cross the border? No.

It's illegal to drive drunk. Do you blame the alcohol producers/distributors or car companies for some dumbass driving drunk, or do you blame the drunk? Do you blame the Enron stockholders, or the executives? Do you blame those murdered, or the murderers? Do you blame women for being raped, or the rapist?

If you come into, or stay, in this country illegally, it is illegal. What part of "illegal" is it hard to understand? Should we all now selectively follow only those laws that we want to follow? Are we a nation of laws, or not? If you don't like the law, work to have it changed. Until a law is changed, I will follow the law, and expect everyone else to do the same, or face the consequences.

Should there be a change in immigration laws/policies? Yes. I have friends who are trying to immigrate into this country legally, and it is worse than pulling eye teeth. I've been tempted to tell them to fly to mexico and cross the border, but I haven't.

I apologize if I've offended anyone, but I'm tired of this disregard for our laws. I don't care if you are Ken Lay, George Bush, Charles Manson, John Kerry, Stanley Kubrick, or Pablo Sanchez. We have laws for a reason, and they should be followed regardless of who you are, or who you think you are.

[EFerrari]

76. Republicans have been using the "law and order" argument

to consolidate their racist base for nearly half a century, in case you haven't noticed.

And yes, NAFTA bears a lot of responsibility for the state of Mexico at this moment.

What part of hunger don't you understand?

Jesus.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

78. So hunger is an excuse to break the law?

Why can't Mexico fix their own problems and/or have their citizens come here legally?

Why should we allow illegal immigrants to be exploited and undercut American wages at the same time?

[Solon]

87. Answer to your questions...

So hunger is an excuse to break the law?

Actually yes, motive is a factor in determining guilt or innocence, just like asking, is defending your life or someone else's an excuse to break the law? You would answer yes, if you were human.

Why can't Mexico fix their own problems and/or have their citizens come here legally?

If you knew anything about NAFTA and the economic effects and limitations on governments that is in that agreement, you wouldn't be asking that question. Hell, I don't even think Mexico can unilaterally withdraw from that agreement in the first place.

Why should we allow illegal immigrants to be exploited and undercut American wages at the same time?

As long as free trade exists, American wages are going to be undercut, whether by workers in other nations being exploited or by workers inside the nation that are being exploited, the key here is the target the exploiters rather than the exploited.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

95. I agree about targeting the exploiters.

But that means illegal immigrants will still go hungry, which necessitates action on Mexico's part to lift their people up economically.

I'm aware of Nafta, and I'm fairly confident Mexico can withdraw from NAFTA. I recall Dennis Kucinich advocating us withdrawing from NAFTA back in 2004.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/trade.php

The NAFTA and WTO treaties include legal clauses permitting the signatory countries to withdraw from them at any time, following a routine notification period. The President should invoke these withdrawal clauses and once and for all take America out of an unfair system of corporate trade. We should return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles. This would provide security for American workers and for workers worldwide.

[TriMetFan]

90. "Why can't Mexico fix their own problems

and/or have their citizens come here legally?"

Because the U.S. is partially to blame for what is happening in Mexico. NAFTA
Also Prez. V. Fox wanted to have talks with Bush in the beginning about this stuff and our very own dumb shit Prez but on the back burner. I wonder why??????????

[Starbucks Anarchist]

94. Fox supports a guest worker program.

He's not exactly trying to fix Mexico's problems.

[primavera]

102. I'd have to agree with that

I think we have to take our fair share of blame for employers who actively recruit undocumented aliens. I think we need to be honest about the fact that we ourselves, as consumers, are largely responsible for the unscrupulous conduct of those companies because they are the only businesses to whom we will give our business because they are the only ones offering jeans for $3/pair and, as long as the goods and services are cheap, we Americans don't ask questions about how they managed to provide goods and services so inexpensively.

All that said, I do agree that Fox seems to be awfully cavalier in his willingness to disregard US immigration law and rely upon emigration as a partial remedy for his poor domestic policy performance, and that is definitely irresponsible behavior in a national leader.

[teknomanzer]

77. Your analogy in somewhat incomplete...

Lets say that a liquor store owner sold alcohol to a minor and that minor was caught driving drunk or caused an accident. The minor in this case did indeed break the law... but shouldn't the person who sold him the liquor be held responsible as well?

If he hadn't sold the minor the alcohol the minor would not have been driving drunk.

In other words, if companies requested the proper documentation of work status and refused to hire illegals then there would be little incentive to cross the border.

You see here we have a case where not just one party is breaking the law, but only one party is having to face the consequences.

PS - by the way if the 420 in your handle means what I think in means then you have little room to get all fucken 'law and order' here. It would appear you have as much regard for the law as illegal immigrants do. The difference is the immigrant is trying to make a living.

[420inTN]

82. Don't let your presumptions blind you.

And as I've noted above, if I do break a law, I do so prepared to face the consequences of breaking that law.

[teknomanzer]

96. Okay, so what are you saying...

that the 420 in your handle does not in fact refer to smoking the immaculate herb? I mean be honest about it... and at least check yourself with the obvious contradiction...

You said,

"I apologize if I've offended anyone, but I'm tired of this disregard for our laws. I don't care if you are Ken Lay, George Bush, Charles Manson, John Kerry, Stanley Kubrick, or Pablo Sanchez. We have laws for a reason, and they should be followed regardless of who you are, or who you think you are."

Emphasis is clearly mine.

So making a statement like the above its really hypocritical to pick and chose which laws you intend to follow. Last time I checked, making with the 420 is illegal. Thats the law of the land, and apparently there must be a good reason for it, and it should not just be disregarded 'regardless of who you are or who you think you are.'

Now I have no problem with the consumption of cannabis, but I'm not making statements like the above.

[420inTN]

98. No, I do not partake of cannabis

If it were legal, I would. Since it's not, I don't. However, I'm for the legalization of marijuana and agricultural/industrial hemp.

[Bridget Burke]

81. Which country does not have a "Rule of Law"

In fact, countries with extremely strong Rules of Law are usually considered dictatorships.

Undocumented worker does not equal Charles Manson or John Kerry(?)

And laws can change.

[TriMetFan]

89. What part of blaming the right people for the miss our Nation is in

so hard to understand???? I'm not saying that these undocumented works have the right to stay here, what I'm saying is to shut down the loop holes. Make the companies pay their fine and increase the fines. Also our Government has to make it harder for any-one that hires any one that is not a American. Just look at this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2288007

Has you can see brown people are not the only ones coming here illegally. And this group has a lobbing group to help them.:wtf: Is up with that.

[420inTN]

99. If they weren't here in the first place, they couldn't be hired illegally.

But I agree that companies who KNOWINGLY hire illegals should be fined heavily.

However, not every company who hires illegals do so knowingly. They are presented with either fake Social Security Numbers, or forged documents with good numbers. They fill out the I-9s and send them into the DHS/INS, where the paperwork might or might not be processed and researched. Should these companies be heavily fined as well?

I'm aware that it's not only "brown" people as you put it who are here illegally. Asians and other islanders come in (or are smuggled) through the West Coast and Canada. People from all over the world fly into the country on legal visits, and never leave. I'm against all illegal immigration, not just the "brown" ones.

[TriMetFan]

100. " I'm against all illegal immigration, not just the "brown" ones."

Really??? I didn't see your post on the issue of those illegal Irish, that have their own lobbing group?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2288007

As far as I can tell that whole post fell to the waste side and I think the only reason was because it was dealing with white people.

[420inTN]

101. Re: "I think the only reason was because it was dealing with white people"

A) Haven't you every heard of "black irish"?
B) Personally, I don't give a flying f*ck what you think. You don't know me or my family, but presume that I'm only against "brown" skin immigration because I didn't post in the other thread? Go Cheney yourself.

I didn't post in the other thread, because I didn't read it. I don't have the time, nor the need to go through every post or thread on this board. Btw, 30,000 vs 12,000,000? Wooohhh.. that's a scary illegal immigration rush from Ireland. We probably get more than 30,000 a month from over our southern border.

If we find any African, Asian, or European that has overstayed a visit, then we should deport them.

[TriMetFan]

106. Well then may-be you should start reading a whole

post before giving your .2! And just like I thought, you are not a very big person if you need to tell someone to go "Cheney yourself" which we all know what that really stands for. Grow up.

[420inTN]

109. Re: "you are not a very big person if you need "

As opposed to "big people" who accuse others of racism or bigotry because other people don't post in specific threads? Right. You must be a very "big" person, then. Congratulations on your bigness.

[TriMetFan]

110. Thank you.

[TriMetFan]

21. If I ever have some dumb shit ask me that type of question I will.....

just say this: As soon as I can get Tejas to leave the Untied States and we can become our own Republic again then I might just go back. I can say this because I'm from Tejas not like this want to be Bush.

This was meant to be a repley to libpunkmom.

[libpunkmom]

23. That was my answer

They're are quite a few of us from Tejas who live in Portland!
But that's what people really don't understand. Yes my husband is from Cali, His father's family lived in Cali before it was part of the US. My family and my MIL's family have both been in Texas since before it was Texas. So we are Americans, whose ancestors were in these states before they were states. Yet we keep getting this immigrant shit thrown at us. Sorry for "ranting" but this shit is starting to work my last nerve!
(edit for spelling)

[LostinVA]

27. As I also say: the people at the Alamo were the original "Illegals"

Wanting to force their slave holding on Mexico, breaking the laws, refusing to leave... then leading an armed insurrection... THAT'S the true history of Texas, not "Remember the Alamo."

[TriMetFan]

30. I'm not a fan of Santa Anna, but.....

He was right to go after a bunch of law breaking slave owners that didn't want to give up their ownership on their slaves.

[LostinVA]

35. You got it

And, even though he certainly wasn't a peach, he wasn't any worse than a whole slew of US Presidents, that's for sure.

And yeah, he had every legal and moral right. And, there were some real winners at the Alamao... NOT. Many of the "heroes" were a bunch of scuzzballs.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Some "legal" settlers were allowed to keep their slaves....

Mostly colonists brought in by Stephen Austin as "Empresario." Sometimes they set up a fake "indentured" status. Sort of an under-the-counter deal.

But the slave trade was DEFINITELY illegal. Jim Bowie & Fannin (who died at Goliad) were both slave traders who couldn't follow their "trade" under Mexican law.

[LostinVA]

39. Yeah, Bowie was a total scuzz, and Crockett wasn't much better

I had never read that about the Empresario. Very interesting.

[TriMetFan]

29. I know what you mean.

I dare any DU member that thinks I'm wrong to tell me! Like I have said before and will say over and over until every one gets it " It is the companies and our own Governments fault. Fine the hell out of the companies that do illegal things and things will change for the better.".

[Robbie Michaels]

33. Hell yeah

I just thought about this after I shaved off my goatee. I did it to look younger, but yeah, I could pass for an Italian now.

I hate what's happening with this issue. Everyone is quick to blame immigrants when it's the f**king companies that set wages and hire employees.

[TriMetFan]

45. There should be laws about hiring undocumented workers.

And if a Company gets caught the fine should be 10% of their annul gross income from the year before and if they get caught a 2nd time then the fine should be 45%, but the 3rd time they have to shut their doors (close them down).

[MaraJade]

62. Actually, there are laws

Last I heard the fine was $5000 for every undocumented person hired, and being banned from application for any government contracts. Current laws are not being enforced at all. This is the real problem.
Until employers pay for this, we will never see a solution at all.

[primavera]

64. The problem is proving they knowingly hired undocumenteds

The employer sanctions mandated by the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act specify that the employer must not only hire an undocumented alien, but do so knowingly. See, they didn't want to go after employers who were perhaps making an honest, good faith effort to comply with the law, but were being deceived by a fraudulent identity document. In this country, there is a wide assortment of legal identity documents, all of which may be perfectly legal and legitimate, so you have to accept them, as they're legal documents and not accepting them for employment purpososes would be employment discrimination, which would be against the law. But it makes it hard for the average employer to know, of the long list of possible, acceptable documents a prospective employee can show to prove their eligibility to work, whether any one such document is bona fide. Many of those documents are very vulnerable to fraud. Consider your Social Security Card. For most of us, it's just a plain white paper card, any fool can make thousands of them with a photocopier. Are you enough of a document expert to know which ones are real and which ones aren't? Would you want some high school dropout employer with no training and the IQ of a houseplant making those determinations on your documents? Obviosuly we don;t want that. So the default is that employers are supposed to accept documents at face value.

Unfortunately, that means a lot of fraudulent documents get used by undocumented aliens applying for jobs and the employers are supposed to accept them. In order to prosecute an employer under the IRCA employer sanctions, you therefore have to prove that they hired this person, knowing that the worker was an undocumented alien. How do you prove that they knew, absolutely for certain, that the worker was undocumented? At that point, those employers which rely upon undocumented labor have the perfect fig leaf to escape prosecution: they simply claim that the alien showed them a document and, as they are required to by law, they accepted it at face value.

This loophole is a big part of the motivation behind the REAL ID act, which attempts to create uniform IDs with biometric indicators and microchips and links to superdatabases and all that rot, so that every prospective employee can be expected to possess the same document, the security of which can be reasonably assured. The problem there, of course, though, is that you then get into all of the privacy concerns that go along with a national ID card and all of your information going to feed these super databases and living in a "Your papers, please!" society and so on and so on.

[TriMetFan]

70. Well I guess if we have to go to something like this.....

"This loophole is a big part of the motivation behind the REAL ID act, which attempts to create uniform IDs with biometric indicators and microchips and links to superdatabases and all that rot, so that every prospective employee can be expected to possess the same document, the security of which can be reasonably assured. The problem there, of course, though, is that you then get into all of the privacy concerns that go along with a national ID card and all of your information going to feed these super databases and living in a "Your papers, please!" society and so on and so on."

oh well. This should make all those people that are so freaking anti-undocumented worker happy as clams. Because the American Government doesn't want to go after companies that brake the law because their little tiny feelings are going to be hurt.

[TriMetFan]

69. $5,000 is pocket change for most companies.

But this is what I have been saying, be pissed at the companies and our Government for not following the laws. It is way to easy to blame a person then the ones that are at fault.

[TriMetFan]

31. I wish those damn Right Wing Yankes

would move out of Tejas!

[teknomanzer]

43. Bunch of Connecticut carpet baggers...

With fake Texas accents and bullshit pig farms that they call a ranch. Western White House my ass.

[TriMetFan]

47. Hell I don't even think the people of Conn. would want them

back. Who would want these wackos in their home State?

[MaraJade]

59. I am not against immigration if it is legal. . .

I say the EMPLOYERS should be the ones attacked. I recently heard that people attempting to hire
non-agency day labor have come under scrutiny. In some areas, police are fining the "person in the pickup truck" that offers day labor on the street corner. That is a good start.

If people want to work as day laborers, there are plenty of agencies (like Labor Ready) where
suchlike people can go. These agencies offer a "work today get paid today" service. It should be illegal to hire people off the street, especially since the underground economy is involved.

I hope more cities and states start going after the employers in pickup trucks that appear on street
corners.

[TriMetFan]

71. No-one is against legal immigration.

What I'm pissed about is that a lot of people are so freaking willing to drink the kool-aide about the undocumented workers and not following the bread crumbs to our American Companies that do the hiring and the Federal Government for not applying the laws or making stricter hiring laws. Fine the crap out of the companies that hire undocumented workers.

[Vidar]

38. Our very own "crystal nacht": Hitler looks down upon his student fondly.

[Boomer]

41. Racist enforcement

When I was living in New York, several of my friends and neighbors were illegals. But they were illegal WHITE EUROPEANS, with English or Irish accents. They were never, ever pressured for their papers. They slid through the city like butter, picking up good jobs and never looking over their shoulders in fear of La Migra.

One of them finally married a gay man to gain her American citizenship. The marriage was totally bogus, but again, because she was a Brit (blonde, blue-eyed, posh accent), the immigration officials quickly gave the union their stamp of approval. Good thing, because otherwise she would have ended up on the other side of the Atlantic from her female lover (who would happily have married her for real).

What I learned from that experience is that different rules apply to poor, brown people than do to nice middle-class Europeans. It's a rigged game.

[jerry611]

49. Europeans are not invading us by the millions per year

According to estimates now being put out, if we grant amnesty to all the illegals in the United States, it will increase our population by 100 MILLION!!! It will literally and completely SINK this nation into the ground.

And then even after the amnesty...we still didn't fix the border problem. So 20 years from now, we will have to do it again. Although I doubt it will be a problem in 20 years because America will become a 3rd world nation by then.

[TriMetFan]

51. The fastest easies way to fix this whole mess be......

To just do raids on the known companies that hire undocumented workers and fine the hell out of the company! But that would be just way to simple of a solution! It is easier to hate people then to do the right thing.

[MaraJade]

63. I agree.

We now have a "race to the bottom" with living standards in the US because EMPLOYERS now have the
option to fire a reasonably paid citizen and replace that citizen with a "docile" worker who can
be brutally exploited through slave labor wages. More and more we are seeing citizens and legal immigrants losing their jobs. We are seeing the disintegration of the middle class.

Bear in mind that not only are Americans of the middle class suffering, but the undocumented ones also
suffer because they are not being paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Unscrupulous employers
LOVE illegals because they can grind them to death like slaves and they don't have to face any consequences for it. This is why all workers MUST be here legally. Once here legally, they qualify for the same legal protections as citizen workers. The exploitation will end.

Of course, I also agree that we cannot afford to be the welfare safety net for the Third World. Right now, the nations that are feeding undocumented persons into the US have no incentiveto do anything for their own people. Why should they? The US will provide them with cradle to grave care at the expense of the American taxpayer. We need to enforce the current law, which clearly specifies that immigrants cannot be "Public Charges," people who depend on the public dole for their life and livelihood.

[Bacchus39]

105. most western European countries do not require a visa

to travel to the US. Entering the US is very easy. so overextending your tourist stamp is quite easy as well.

[laundry_queen]

46. Man, immigrants are the new Jews. :( n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

65. True, that. n/t

MKJ

[kestrel91316]

52. I thought the vastly reduced traffic here in my part of Lost Angeles was

due to the high cost of gas, but I betcha at least part of it is the scared illegals. God knows we have HUGE numbers of them here.

[Sgent]

61. They need to do two things:

1) Enforce the current laws (no entering country w/o going through customs / INS), fine employers.
2) Change the employer laws -- same fine ($5k/worker), but:
Require both the employer, and whomever is the recipient of the work to get fined. This prevents Wal-Mart from hiring Joe's Cleaning Service to get out of fines. This (realistically) means that Joe's will have to obtain a bond -- and this will make the bonding company enforce the rules better than government ever will.

[420inTN]

74. About your points:

1) ID is checked at border crossings. The problem is the thousands of miles of open border. How do you make sure that everyone crosses through customs? You either have to have a lot of manpower/monitoring on the border, or put up some barriers plus manpower/monitoring.

2) A Google search shows that there are online I-9 verification services out there, such as www.usverify.com.

[bjb]

88. employers

What if every employer was fined $50.000 tomorrow and all the 15 to 20 million ILLEGALS were let go. What would we do with all of these unemployed people? I agree that the employers should be fined but what to do with all these people? We have 3 to 4 million waiting to get in legally.

[Bacchus39]

108. yep, those who say just go after the employers

are still going to have to deal with the UNEMPLOYED illegals still here.

[Indy Lurker]

111. The problem is not the employers, it's the documentation

The only thing an employer has available to check is the social security number, name, and date of birth.

I've been told that a valid SS# can be purchased for under $1000.00

The SS# is used to get all other ID.

As long as the person looks within 10 yrs of the listed date of birth, there's nothing else to check.

[Bacchus39]

107. exactly on both accounts

you have to do both. prevent them from coming in the first place and penalize employers. However, there is so much underground work being done that this will be more difficult than patroling the border.

[nolabels]

75. Yep, a bunch of desperate rats trying to justify their existence.

I thought this might be interesting in the way some have such inhumanity for others and considering how there are so many mistakes the degenerates have made yet still have not been stopped.

Operation Reinhard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(snip)
In his book Russia's War, British historian Richard Overy describes how the Nazis sought more efficient ways to kill people. In 1941, after occupying Belarus, they used mental patients from Minsk asylums as guinea pigs. Initially, they tried shooting them by having them stand one behind the other, so that several people could be killed with one bullet, but it was too slow. Then they tried dynamite, but few were killed and many were left wounded with hands and legs missing, so that the Germans had to finish them off with machine guns. In October 1941, in Mogilev, they tried the Gaswagen or "gas car". First they used a light military car, and it took more than 30 minutes for people to die. Then they used a larger truck exhaust and it took only eight minutes to kill all the people inside.<5>

Alleged corporate involvement in the Holocaust has created significant controversy in recent years. Rudolf Höß, Auschwitz camp commandant, said that far from having to advertise their slave labour services, the concentration camps were actually approached by various large German businesses, some of which are still in existence. Technology developed by IBM also played a role in the categorization of prisoners, through the use of index machines. A book on IBM's role in the holocaust called IBM and the Holocaust gives more details on this.
(snip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_Reinhard

[bdamomma]

91. hispanics are the new scapegoats

sickening, we did it to the japanese during WWII now we are doing it to another group of people.