View Full Version : Question about illegal aliens
I was watching the national news tonight and they were interviewing a hispanic woman (in her home, while she was fixing dinner) and they said she had been an illegal for 10 years now and they were asking her how she felt about the Supreme Court ruling.
How can she be on national TV, saying she's an illegal? Did the interviewer promise not to turn her in? I think they even gave her name. Maybe I don't understand how this works.
small & friendly
6-25-12, 7:39pm
When my family came to the US in the 1950s we had a legal sponsor. I am blessed to have become a naturalized citizen some years ago. There was no question that it had to be done legally. It should continue to be done legally today.
But, in order to do that you must have public officials willing to abide by and enforce the law. When you have politicians who choose to circumvent the law for their own agenda, and you have a populace which supports them by continuing to elect them into office, the system is corrupted and illegals can thumb their nose at the law.
They may be thumbing their noses or maybe this issue is so important to this woman and her family that she's willing to go public to make a point that she's law-abiding (otherwise) and contributing to the US economy and has been doing so for many years and to make that point she's willing to take the risk of deportation.
Enforcement of any law is expensive. Currently the dire economic situation of many localities which are generally not allowed to run a deficit and must balance their books each year compels officials to pick and choose which laws are the most threatening to the good of the entire community to enforce. Personally, I'd prefer that in my locality the limited funding go to putting murderers, rapists, bank robbers and extortionists behind bars and leave law abiding but illegal aliens alone.
Its probably just a matter of numbers. There are too many illegal aliens to realistically do anything about them en masse. Most of the folks I've met over the years that are here illegally aren't trying to get away with anything. They simply don't have the resources or the ability to complete a long process to become legal. I'm not a fan of amnesty, but absolutely believe it would be in everyone's best interest to come up with an abbreviated path to citizenship and some type of compromise that would allow honest, hard working people to stay here as long as they are on that path. Regarding law enforcement, I'm with bunnys. Go after the violent criminals first and check the papers of the other folks later, if there's anything left over.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-12, 11:54am
Localities around here DO NOT have to balance their budgets. I know very few cities that aren't in serious deficit around here (and of course the state). So I really don't think that is a prime concern.
Its probably just a matter of numbers. There are too many illegal aliens to realistically do anything about them en masse.
Really, I can't imagine people would want the kind of law enforcement that could do something about that in mass (putting the "police" in "police state"). My cynical quip is pretty soon it will be used to keep you in, rather than keep illegals out ...
Besides we need illegals to pick our farms and so on. But IF they paid decent wages Americans might do that work. Yea maybe. But if they paid decent wages they might not be able to compete on a global marketplace for food. I mean um, do you even want somewhat local agriculture at all? Seriously from a basic survival perspective - outsourcing all agriculture = not good. Now if you want to quibble with a global marketplace and the race to the bottom, fine that's fair. But that's the type of thing you'd have to consider in trade agreements (worker protections etc.), not just by yanking at one thread (immigration). Because some jobs illegals do would just be outsourced if they weren't there to do them. I don't even deny that they also compete with low wage workers for jobs low wage workers do now. They may well drive down wages on some jobs. But I think that's to be balanced against jobs that would just be outsourced entirely if illegals weren't here to do them.
I'm not a fan of amnesty, but absolutely believe it would be in everyone's best interest to come up with an abbreviated path to citizenship and some type of compromise that would allow honest, hard working people to stay here as long as they are on that path.
Agreed with Gregg.
But of course there's not a lot of compromise going on these days in any political quarter. Not in fashion this year. A shame, really, because I really do think there is an intelligent, compassionate middle ground between "let 'em all come" and "kick 'em all out."
They may be thumbing their noses or maybe this issue is so important to this woman and her family that she's willing to go public to make a point that she's law-abiding (otherwise) and contributing to the US economy and has been doing so for many years and to make that point she's willing to take the risk of deportation.
Enforcement of any law is expensive. Currently the dire economic situation of many localities which are generally not allowed to run a deficit and must balance their books each year compels officials to pick and choose which laws are the most threatening to the good of the entire community to enforce. Personally, I'd prefer that in my locality the limited funding go to putting murderers, rapists, bank robbers and extortionists behind bars and leave law abiding but illegal aliens alone.
I think your phrase “illegal but law-abiding” neatly illustrates the current administration’s doublespeak on this issue. Finding the law as written politically uncongenial, the President simply dispenses with the inconvenient parts by fiat. This is behavior more appropriate for a philosopher king who acts above the law, than an elected official, to my mind. Hopefully, the voters will remind him of that fact some months hence.
In my community, the phrase "illegal" isn't PC. The preferred term is "undocumented worker", because, you know, they just forgot their documents in a drawer back home...
We don't seem to be able to come up with a reasonable immigration policy that can be enforced. Blame whoever you want or whichever side you want. As the Hispanic population increases and becomes the majority, it will be interesting to see how the political situation evolves.
I would love to see a simple scheme in place that allowed men and women of good character to come and work freely and openly in our country and receive the protection of our laws. I don't see why this has to be rocket science...
That seems like an obvious solution to me--a "guest worker" kind of thing. We seem to have no problem welcoming IT workers from all over the world to undercut our own citizens' pay. Why should lower-echelon employees be hounded and harassed? It looks like the usual double standard.
I would love to see a simple scheme in place that allowed men and women of good character to come and work freely and openly in our country and receive the protection of our laws. I don't see why this has to be rocket science...
I think part of it is many businesses that hire people here illegally are likely doing a lot of other things that are illegal, things that legal workers could report.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-12, 5:53pm
I would love to see a simple scheme in place that allowed men and women of good character to come and work freely and openly in our country and receive the protection of our laws. I don't see why this has to be rocket science...This I totally agree with......Rob
I think part of it is many businesses that hire people here illegally are likely doing a lot of other things that are illegal, things that legal workers could report.
The other thing is it's one of those issues--like abortion and gun control--that lends itself to demagoguery and can be played to advantage by both sides.
I'm not sure either "side" wants a sane immigration and guest worker policy, frankly.
Exactly. Why resolve an issue that fires up the base and brings in the money. Rhetorical question.
Illegal/Undocumented Workers are a deeply integral part of our economic system.
Hiring this cheap labor to pick our fruits and vegets and slaughterhouse jobs too few legal workers will do keeps the cost of things like lettuce cheaper for companies like McDonalds to buy.
That cheap lettuce keeps the cost of the McDonalds meals cheaper so there will be a higher profit margin on sales.
Which in turn creates growth in McDonalds stock which many avg Americans have in their 401k or similar retirement savings plans.
How do you think sales will be at McDs when lettuce is $2? $3? $4 a head?
It will hit McDs bottom line, then your bottom line through everything from a simple trip to the grocery store to a dinner out your retirment plan.
This example applies to a LOT of fruits, vegets and meats in this country.
They are an integral part of our economy.
Like or dislike, it is what it is at this time and a solution that is best for all is not as simple as deportation.
PS - Aliens are from outer space.
They may be an integral part of our economy, but in their current undocumented, illegal status they are often exploited and victimized by their employers and by others in our society who prey upon them, and have little recourse.
I think your phrase “illegal but law-abiding” neatly illustrates the current administration’s doublespeak on this issue.
Your response sounds like you do not differentiate on any level between illegal activities. Is this the case?
I see a difference between capital murder and stealing a loaf of bread from 7-11 to feed your hungry family. They are both illegal activities but decidedly different when it comes to the level of moral and ethical and illegal infraction.
bae - I totally agree they are an exploited population.
It is an extremely complex problem with no easy solution.
ToomuchStuff
6-26-12, 10:05pm
Personally, I'd prefer that in my locality the limited funding go to putting murderers, rapists, bank robbers and extortionists behind bars and leave law abiding but illegal aliens alone.
You might want to rethink that statement. Locals do NOT have the authority to deport them, they can and do arrest illegals when they are caught committing a crime that they DO have authority and RESPONSIBILITY to arrest for.
Once they are arrested and ran, then in the process, Immigration is notified.
That was a good example Dhiana. It is a very complex issue.
CBC in Canada has a commentator that analyses the news from a different perspective. He suggests that the US Supreme Court reflects society's partisanship rather than the laws while the Canadian Supreme Court (which I know is not perfect by any means) examines the case based on law. Would you agree with his view of the US Supreme Court?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/26/f-rfa-macdonald-court.html
Quotes:
Only one of the nine, Justice Anthony Kennedy, tends to vote issue-by-issue rather than ideologically, which makes him appear the only consistently independent thinker on the court.
As a result, he is often the tiebreaker, effectively giving him the final say over laws passed by legislatures and signed by presidents and governors.
By contrast, Justice Thomas sits on the bench in silence, looking bored and irritated. As of April, he hadn't asked a question in open court in six years, something he takes pride in.
Thomas, who is married to a prominent conservative activist with ties to the Tea Party, is as reliably right wing as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is left wing, the principal distinction being that Ginsburg participates in arguments made before the court.
Thomas has said he sees little if any value in bothering with oral arguments. He's only interested in written briefs. To him, it seems, there is little practical point to the court actually sitting...
In fact, if the Supreme Court rules Thursday against Obama's signature policy achievement, the Affordable Care Act (known colloquially as Obamacare), it may have less to do with the constitutionality of the law than with the fact that Obama has so far been able to appoint only two judges, both of them liberals replacing retired liberals.
The entire country awaits the court's decision. And I can predict the political reaction right now.
If Obamacare is upheld, Republicans will denounce the court for "judicial activism," or some other such sin. If the court overturns the law, they will praise the justices for adhering wisely to the wishes of the founding fathers.
Ditto the Democrats, just in reverse.
CBC in Canada has a commentator that analyses the news from a different perspective. He suggests that the US Supreme Court reflects society's partisanship rather than the laws while the Canadian Supreme Court (which I know is not perfect by any means) examines the case based on law. Would you agree with his view of the US Supreme Court?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/26/f-rfa-macdonald-court.html
Quotes:
Only one of the nine, Justice Anthony Kennedy, tends to vote issue-by-issue rather than ideologically, which makes him appear the only consistently independent thinker on the court.
As a result, he is often the tiebreaker, effectively giving him the final say over laws passed by legislatures and signed by presidents and governors.
By contrast, Justice Thomas sits on the bench in silence, looking bored and irritated. As of April, he hadn't asked a question in open court in six years, something he takes pride in.
Thomas, who is married to a prominent conservative activist with ties to the Tea Party, is as reliably right wing as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is left wing, the principal distinction being that Ginsburg participates in arguments made before the court.
Thomas has said he sees little if any value in bothering with oral arguments. He's only interested in written briefs. To him, it seems, there is little practical point to the court actually sitting...
In fact, if the Supreme Court rules Thursday against Obama's signature policy achievement, the Affordable Care Act (known colloquially as Obamacare), it may have less to do with the constitutionality of the law than with the fact that Obama has so far been able to appoint only two judges, both of them liberals replacing retired liberals.
The entire country awaits the court's decision. And I can predict the political reaction right now.
If Obamacare is upheld, Republicans will denounce the court for "judicial activism," or some other such sin. If the court overturns the law, they will praise the justices for adhering wisely to the wishes of the founding fathers.
Ditto the Democrats, just in reverse.
The column itself is not particularly well-reasoned or insightful. Just the usual hand-wringing over opposing viewpoints opposing each other. The reader comments were very interesting, though.
The column itself is not particularly well-reasoned or insightful. Just the usual hand-wringing over opposing viewpoints opposing each other.
It was a hack article. It's actually surprising there aren't more 5-4 decisions since you usually need split circuit court decisions to get cert. and cases frequently are based on limitations on govt powers which naturally invoke judicial philosophies.
Google Fu reveals:
...the total number of decisions issued this year to 49. Of those forty-nine decisions, 57 percent were unanimous decisions of the Court. In fact, many Court watchers have agreed that since his appointment in 2005, Chief Justice Roberts has worked hard to find common ground in cases on which most or all of the Court’s Justices can agree.
... So just how often do 5–4 decisions occur? Of the 49 decisions in this 2011–2012 court term only five of them have been decided by 5–4 votes.
...As the final arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, public confidence in the fundamental fairness of the judiciary rests tenuously on the public’s perception of the motives of the Justices — motives which are frequently overly attributed to political leanings. ... That is not to say that Supreme Court Justices do not have judicial and political ideologies. Certainly, they do and particularly as to their judicial theories, one would expect them to put those theories into practice in the manner in which they consider cases. ...In fact, one could just as easily divide the Justices based on their theories on religious freedom, commercial litigation, law enforcement powers, home owner rights or a variety of other categories. In so doing, one would find a variety of cases in which the lack of politics would make strange bedfellows. Already this year there have been cases in which Justices Breyer and Alito have joined in dissent and in which Justices Scalia and Ginsburg have joined in dissent.
http://delgazette.com/2012/04/myth-5-4-court/
And then take a step back and ask yourself: who has motives for undermining the public's trust in the judiciary? And what are those motives?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DeguUP_jTPs/T-t-MZOG7VI/AAAAAAAAFsM/i96hq-_H3N4/s800/IMG_1554.GIF
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-12, 6:00pm
Maybe people distrust them based on their rulings? No couldn't be, say it ain't so!
There is of course the wonderful strip search ruling.
And then there's the can't sue for torture ruling:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_rejects_padilla_torture_suit_gitmo_d etainee_cases/
Lovely, just lovely ...
Maybe people distrust them based on their rulings? No couldn't be, say it ain't so!
There is of course the wonderful strip search ruling.
And then there's the can't sue for torture ruling:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_rejects_padilla_torture_suit_gitmo_d etainee_cases/
Lovely, just lovely ...
Not to mention the Bush 'appointment' in 2000 and Citizens United.
And then take a step back and ask yourself: who has motives for undermining the public's trust in the judiciary? And what are those motives?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DeguUP_jTPs/T-t-MZOG7VI/AAAAAAAAFsM/i96hq-_H3N4/s800/IMG_1554.GIF
Oh I don't know. Could be those republicans who keep screaming "activist judges" whenever they disagree with a ruling. Google the phrase. Then you can see who wants to undermine the public trust in the court.
You know, this is an interesting issue to me. I'm well on the outside of it.
I wanted to move to another country, and I did that legally. It's really hard not to do it legally here, but most of the illegals in NZ are people who 'stay on' after their holiday visas expire. These are often young people (under 30) who do contribute by working in cafes or fields and what not, and then usually will go their merry way eventually. Then, there is the other group that comes out of this group where they meet a national and stay because of that relationship.
Generally, at this point, they will apply for immigration status -- and their 'way around' the issue of having been illegal is to go to australia on a tourist visa for several months, then return to NZ and apply as a having committed relationship to the kiwi. The fact that they left -- even if it was after their own holiday visa ended -- is enough for much of immigration.
I would say that most of the people whom I know are legal immigrants, well on top of their paperwork (we spend a lot of time talking about our paperwork, btw. LOL). I am currently on top of my paperwork.
I'm actually a little nervous about it. We need about $2000 to apply. That's for our medicals (x-rays are $800 for both DH and myself, blood work is $200, FBI character/stuff will cost about $50 or so including postage, the medical appointments for the physical come in at $250), and applying for the visa comes in at $700.
I would say that most people want to immigrate for opportunity. For people who are poor and/or uneducated, that can be *very* difficult. It's difficult to get any form of refugee status, and in order to immigrate to NZ -- for example -- you have to either A. have enough money to be an investor (millions); B. revitalize and existing business (our path); or C. be on the skills shortage list and have enough 'points' (which includes things like a certain level of education) and/or have a job that will sponsor you. Obviously a poor person would be very hard-pressed on A and B, and then for C, it would really depend upon their education.
There is, btw, a migrant worker category. During certain seasons, people from a variety of pacific islands flock to NZ for the seasonal work in farms. Then they return home after they earn during that time. But, they do have to return home. (I believe the US has something similar for people who live across the borders).
So, what I'm saying is, I can understand why people are illegals.
To be legal, it takes money *and* you might not be accepted. Heck, we have fulfilled the things we planned on doing, and immigration can still say no to us (it's highly unlikely, but they can). But, if you can just walk into the country, find a job, and work your way forward -- or if you come as a tourist and meet someone, but then the path is expensive and you may not get to stay (a friend of mine married a young man on a student visa, and he was sent back to his home country for 3 years before they were able to sort his visa for the US!) -- well, yeah, it's easier to just not get into the paperwork and hope that you fly under the radar.
To me, amnesty is a way forward at this point -- law abiding folk get to stay where they have built a life. But I agree that immigration probably needs an overhaul.
You might want to rethink that statement. Locals do NOT have the authority to deport them, they can and do arrest illegals when they are caught committing a crime that they DO have authority and RESPONSIBILITY to arrest for.
Once they are arrested and ran, then in the process, Immigration is notified.
I didn't say anything about deportation. Arresting someone, charging them with a crime and processing that arrest all take money well before the point of prosecution and deportation. Plus, every police officer who's stopping someone and arresting them because they don't have papers is distracted from their real job--stopping crime and real criminals.
Washington vegetable growers may lose millions because they have too few field workers this year. I guess you could say we reap what we sow.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018528816_asparagus26m.html
Washington vegetable growers may lose millions because they have too few field workers this year. I guess you could say we reap what we sow.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018528816_asparagus26m.html
That's what happened in Georgia last year. It will probably be happening again this year, too.
ToomuchStuff
6-28-12, 1:39pm
I didn't say anything about deportation. Arresting someone, charging them with a crime and processing that arrest all take money well before the point of prosecution and deportation. Plus, every police officer who's stopping someone and arresting them because they don't have papers is distracted from their real job--stopping crime and real criminals.
Swing and a miss.
Arrests take different forms, from a traffic ticket (driving without license, insurance, etc), to full blown taking to the station. You stop someone because you see them doing something illegal, like stealing, breaking an entering, etc. They are not stopping them because they don't have paper, any more then they stop you because you don't have id on you (required in some states, like mine). To do that is federal, not local jurisdiction. To do that as a local cop, puts you at risk of being PERSONALLY sued, as well as your department. And your falling for hype if you believe that overall. Some will screw up and get sued of course (just as their are bad cops, nothing is 100%)
I think you should go on some ride alongs or get a job as one, before telling cops how to do their jobs.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-12, 1:56pm
You stop someone because you see them doing something illegal, like stealing, breaking an entering, etc.
driving without a seatbelt, making a rolling stop, jaywalking, having a broken headlight, tinted windows on car that didn't come that way from the manufacturer, not having the latest registration sticker on your car, suspicion of intoxication. You know something illegal.
driving without a seatbelt, making a rolling stop, jaywalking, having a broken headlight, tinted windows on car that didn't come that way from the manufacturer, not having the latest registration sticker on your car, suspicion of intoxication. You know something illegal.
Actually, all those things are illegal in many jurisdictions. And, every time a citizen is stopped, their identity is checked against a database for 'Wants & Warrants', to see if they have any outstanding warrants. I would suppose that going forward, everyone in Arizona will have their citizenship status checked as well.
I've never understood why the federal government would try to prevent this from happening, well, outside of the obvious ability to promote racial division. Class/Racial/Nationality warfare has to be carefully stoked to keep it alight.
loosechickens
6-28-12, 2:17pm
"I've never understood why the federal government would try to prevent this from happening, well, outside of the obvious ability to promote racial division. Class/Racial/Nationality warfare has to be carefully stoked to keep it alight." (Alan)
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAH!!!!! Plenty of folks stoking that class/racial/nationality fire.......passing out the torches and pitchforks with abandon, Alan. Don't you ever listen to rightwing talk radio? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? try not to make me laugh so hard, dear. I almost spit tea all over the laptop.
driving without a seatbelt, making a rolling stop, jaywalking, having a broken headlight, tinted windows on car that didn't come that way from the manufacturer, not having the latest registration sticker on your car, suspicion of intoxication. You know something illegal.
Apparently the primary driver for police doing "stop and frisk" in NYC has been to meet quotas.
"I've never understood why the federal government would try to prevent this from happening, well, outside of the obvious ability to promote racial division. Class/Racial/Nationality warfare has to be carefully stoked to keep it alight." (Alan)
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAH!!!!! Plenty of folks stoking that class/racial/nationality fire.......passing out the torches and pitchforks with abandon, Alan. Don't you ever listen to rightwing talk radio? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? try not to make me laugh so hard, dear. I almost spit tea all over the laptop.
Hi there loosechickens, nice to see you on the forums. It's been kinda dull without you. Please do stop in more often to accuse us of things and , ya know, keep things interesting.
ToomuchStuff
6-29-12, 5:27am
Actually, all those things are illegal in many jurisdictions. And, every time a citizen is stopped, their identity is checked against a database for 'Wants & Warrants', to see if they have any outstanding warrants. I would suppose that going forward, everyone in Arizona will have their citizenship status checked as well.
I've never understood why the federal government would try to prevent this from happening,
Agreed on the first part. Those things that ApatheticNoMore doesn't see as crimes, are. They are also a tool that has been used successfully to stop other crimes, as well as getting lucky (Look up Ted Bundy).
Why does the Federal government not like this? Mirroring power, without responsibility or ability to take action? Also providing statistics that politicians don't like (and politics generally is the reason that quota's come into being, and crimes are told to be downgraded, etc). I am sure there are other reasons.
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-12, 1:28pm
Agreed on the first part. Those things that ApatheticNoMore doesn't see as crimes, are. They are also a tool that has been used successfully to stop other crimes, as well as getting lucky (Look up Ted Bundy).
my list of minor crimes (fine something like jaywalking can be illegal but if the coast is clear it doesn't mean I think it's immoral - really I think: meh, who the heck cares!) was in response to:
You stop someone because you see them doing something illegal, like stealing, breaking an entering, etc. They are not stopping them because they don't have paper
If almost everything is a potential crime (see above, all the things I listed are crimes), then in effect it amounts to stopping someone because they don't have a paper (because you can pretty much always come up with a legal excuse). Something like a cop suspecting someone of driving under the influence, can basically be an excuse for arbitrarily asking someone's papers. Even if you were driving prefectly, prove the cop is pulling you over for "driving while Mexican" rather than swerving ..... and then if you are an illegal uh oh.
My actual stance on this is not wildly pro-illegal immigration. It's more the cost in so many ways of making the borders entirely non-porous is in my view NOT WORTH IT. It's a cost-benefits estimation on my part, yea. A better policy for allowing people in might be what we need I suppose.
ToomuchStuff
6-30-12, 2:06pm
A better policy for allowing people in might be what we need I suppose.
You can't arrest someone for potential crimes, but we are getting to the point of arguing and that isn't the reason for this forum. But your last statement that I quoted, I want you to seriously think about!
When people illegally break that policy, what do you want done?
awakenedsoul
6-30-12, 2:51pm
I've had a different experience here in So CA. I own a tiny cottage in a "working class" neighborhood. I bought it because it was a good price and I could have a farm and animals. I am in between two households of Hispanic families. One group is here legally, the other not. It has been the worst experience of my life. They have blocked my driveway with their cars, thrown their trash and beer cans in my flowerbeds, kept me up all night with their partying, and have no respect for women. I have never seen such destructiveness and bullying. It seems to boil down to no self respect. They work in a group and network to abuse as much and as often as possible. I finally turned them in to Building and Safety. They had built 4 free standing structures without permits, and they used toilets with no plumbing. Children were living in sheds, and being raised to hoot, holler, harass, and dominate. I also took them to court for Nuisance. I am sickened by their lack of respect and abuse of everything around them. They are exremely opppositional and antagonistic. I tried to move twice, but couldn't. I think our system is a joke.
I worked in Europe on a visa. I paid my taxes and enjoyed my time there. I followed the rules and their laws. If you didn't have your passport there on the train, they took you to jail. The boundaries were clear. It's so out of control here. Things are better now, since Building and Safety demo'd their "village." The inspector said it was the worst case he'd seen in his whole career. (He retired a few years later.)
Mine is an extreme case but it just sickens me. I do have some Hispanic neighbors who I really like, too. They have beautiful gardens and they are sensitive people.
As far as exploitation, I feel it goes both ways. Many of them now have cancer. The lifestyle is backfiring. It's a challenge for me to live here and focus on my goals and farming. I never hear this side of it.
On the other hand, I live in a neighborhood full of immigrants, 9 languages on our block alone, and it is street of kind people, helpful, well-mannered, and generally a great place to live. Working class & middle class, a HOPE VI redevelopment neighborhood.
One upon a time I lived in a rural community that was nearly all Caucasian, and the particular area I lived in was populated by individuals who chose to let their dogs run & kill livestock, hold über loud parties at all hours, shoot their guns off, harass anyone they felt didn't measure up, routinely broke the law and building codes, etc.
My take-home: being a bad neighbor is an equal opportunity experience, open to those in all races, immigratn status, & economic strata. My personal experience is just that.
jaywalking can be illegal but if the coast is clear it doesn't mean I think it's immoral
When I was in Tokyo I went for a walk by the old Imperial Gardens. There is a road that runs along the old castle wall that is closed off on weekends when they convert the area to pedestrian recreation. The road had to be a mile long and straight as an arrow and not a tree in sight. When the crosswalk signal changed to don't walk, the Japanese people all stood and waited, even though the road was closed and you could see for a mile that there were no cars. Me, I just jogged across. They were probably appauled.
Wanted to reiterate that the timing of this immigration hysteria is interesting. It ramped up here in AZ, and I think elsewhere in the country, in 2008, same time as the economy declined. People demanded answers, and the politicians and compliant news media offered up a scapegoat: illegals.
It is true that some state budgets take a net loss from illegals working both over and under the table and then needing services such as schooling and medical care. It's also true that the federal budget has a net gain from illegals working and being charged FICA for which they can never collect: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017113852_immigtaxes29.html
I agree with the earlier poster who said, bottom line, is this worth it? There are an estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally. The cost of our militarized southern border including drones, military reservists, civilian border guards, fencing, etc. has soared. The judicial costs of processing those here illegally has soared. One suggestion was for the fed gov't to subsidize those states with some of the $7 BILLION/year in unaccounted for FICA money.
I think the president's executive order which prioritizes enforcement against those who are have been arrested repeatedly for illegal border crossing, or are criminals, is the first step in sanity. And it leaves those people alone who were brought here when they were under age 16.
We need leadership in this area that's practical, not hysterical.
Wanted to reiterate that the timing of this immigration hysteria is interesting. It ramped up here in AZ, and I think elsewhere in the country, in 2008, same time as the economy declined. People demanded answers, and the politicians and compliant news media offered up a scapegoat: illegals.
This has all happened before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
This has all happened before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Yes, agreed, and it's not only U.S. politicians but others who love pointing to scapegoats to avoid fixing real problems.
Question is, when are citizens everywhere going to quit being distracted by that old tactic and demand real solutions?
awakenedsoul
6-30-12, 8:12pm
On the other hand, I live in a neighborhood full of immigrants, 9 languages on our block alone, and it is street of kind people, helpful, well-mannered, and generally a great place to live. Working class & middle class, a HOPE VI redevelopment neighborhood.
One upon a time I lived in a rural community that was nearly all Caucasian, and the particular area I lived in was populated by individuals who chose to let their dogs run & kill livestock, hold über loud parties at all hours, shoot their guns off, harass anyone they felt didn't measure up, routinely broke the law and building codes, etc.
My take-home: being a bad neighbor is an equal opportunity experience, open to those in all races, immigratn status, & economic strata. My personal experience is just that.
redfox,
There is SO MUCH of that here, too. Exactly as you described...I had never been around people like that. They have that Old West mentality. Rulebreakers...
I had a friend over one time. She looked around and said, "I used to live in a neighborhood like this, rednecks and hippies...
Sounds like you are in a great place now. We do have a lot of nice neighbors here as well. I just don't see or hear them very often.
This has all happened before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Thanks bae for reminding me that history unfortunately repeats itself. As an old history major I should know that.
Which hispanic family was more bothersome (or was it both) -- the legal or illegal?
I remember working in an educational charity on the texas border for a summer. I found all of the families -- both legal and illegal -- to be pretty cool. Though, I had to admit that the did party pretty hardy and the roosters were super annoying with their 2 am crowing.
Still, all in all, my experience hasn't been that bad.
My son has an Hispanic family living next to him. They live in the country. The Hispanic couple likes to throw big parties. They can be loud. The couple realized the parties could be bothering my son and they started inviting him and his wife to the parties.
I don't know if they are legal or not, but it seams that most of the Hispanics that I come in contact with are willing to work. Many seam to be working construction jobs and landscaping. I guess when you don't expect the government to take care of you, you find a job. Even if its not what you would prefer to do.
In my experience, folks here without proper documentation lay very very low & are quite law-abiding. The last thing someone without documentation wants is attention from law enforcement. This works against crime victims who are also undocumented, especially battered women & sexual assault victims, who have very low reporting numbers, as they apparently fear immigration more than they hope for help. I have found immigrants in my neighborhood & immediate family to be exceedingly polite and kind.
The xenophobia that I hear, mostly in the comments sections of online news is shocking. Reminds me of the KKK activity that was happening in the midwwest in the 70's when I lived in Missouri. I don't believe I will ever understand the fear and hate that is being expressed by this small minority of people towards immigrants & folks with brown skin. Heartbreakingly sad.
gimmethesimplelife
7-3-12, 12:18am
Hi there loosechickens, nice to see you on the forums. It's been kinda dull without you. Please do stop in more often to accuse us of things and , ya know, keep things interesting.I've been missing Loosechickens around here myself! Good to see your post here and know you are around.....Rob
awakenedsoul
7-3-12, 3:10pm
Which hispanic family was more bothersome (or was it both) -- the legal or illegal?
I remember working in an educational charity on the texas border for a summer. I found all of the families -- both legal and illegal -- to be pretty cool. Though, I had to admit that the did party pretty hardy and the roosters were super annoying with their 2 am crowing.
Still, all in all, my experience hasn't been that bad.
The group that is here illegally was having the loud, noisy parties. They started on Friday and went on all weekend. The group on the other side felt a loyalty to them, and they had all of their family members drive by and honk their horn in front of my house during the middle of my night to wake me up. They took turns. They were relentless.
There are some other residents on the street that are here illegally, and they are very nice and considerate. They like me, and I speak Spanish to some of them, if they don't speak English. I look at the individual.
I think it's more of a class issue than race. Also, it's power. The situation is much better now. I can enjoy my home and garden and go outside. I couldn't before...the drinking was just out of control. They had 20 people living in a small one bedroom house. They would invite fifty people over at a time. Mine was an extreme situation.
Oh, initially they did invite me to their parties. I had no desire to go. Just like I wouldn't want to do drugs with the drug dealers in our neighborhood. They are considerate now.
Pastures of Plenty
Woody Guthrie
It's a mighty hard row that my poor hands have hoed
My poor feet have traveled a hot dusty road
Out of your Dust Bowl and Westward we rolled
And your deserts were hot and your mountains were cold
I worked in your orchards of peaches and prunes
I slept on the ground in the light of the moon
On the edge of the city you'll see us and then
We come with the dust and we go with the wind
California, Arizona, I harvest your crops
Well its North up to Oregon to gather your hops
Dig the beets from your ground, cut the grapes from your vine
To set on your table your light sparkling wine
Green pastures of plenty from dry desert ground
From the Grand Coulee Dam where the waters run down
Every state in the Union us migrants have been
We'll work in this fight and we'll fight till we win
It's always we rambled, that river and I
All along your green valley, I will work till I die
My land I'll defend with my life if it be
Cause my pastures of plenty must always be free
© Copyright 1960 (renewed) and 1963 (renewed) by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc. & TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI) (http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Publisher_Contact.htm)Contact The Publisher-
The Richmond Organization (TRO)
Attention: Kathryn Ostien
266 West 37th Street, 17th Floor / New York, NY 10018-6609
Email: copyright@songways.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.