EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Not Just Arizona: Immigration Enforcement Out of Control on Federal Level
While people protest the terrible Arizona state law that uses local law enforcement to target immigrants, the federal government is expanding its efforts to use local law enforcement in immigration enforcement and has launched a major PR campaign to defend it.
One example of the out of control federal program occurred last week in Maryland. Florinda Lorenzo-Desimilian, a 26 year old married mother of three, lives in Prince George’s County Maryland. Last week she was arrested in her home by local police on a misdemeanor charge of selling $2 phone cards out of her apartment window without a license.
Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian was booked at the county jail. During booking, she was fingerprinted. Local police sent her prints to the FBI who in turn notified ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) that she had overstayed her work visa. Even though her three children are U.S. citizens, ICE kept her in jail for two days and is now trying to deport her.
This is the result of a federal ICE and Homeland Security program called “Secure Communities” which is supposed to be targeting violent criminals. Instead, this program is really operating a dragnet scooping up and deporting tens of thousands of immigrants, like Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian, who are no security risk to anyone.
Congress provided funding to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in 2008 to “identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, who may be deportable, and remove them from the US once they are judged deportable.”
ICE says this program “supports public safety by strengthening efforts to identify and remove the most dangerous criminal aliens from the United States.”
However, ICE is not actually targeting convicted criminal aliens, dangerous aliens, or even violent aliens. They are targeting everyone.
ICE, through Secure Communities contracts with local law enforcement offices, runs every accused person’s fingerprints through multiple databases regardless how minor the charges. Thus, people like Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian are subject to ICE investigation, detention and deportation.
Monday, forty-five people protested with the human rights organization CASA Maryland against the ICE actions aimed at Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian. Maryland State Representative Del Victor Ramirez challenged the Secure Communities sweeps in a statement to the Maryland Gazette. “She’s not a threat. Should you really be deporting a nonviolent mother of three? There are much bigger problems we could be using our resources for.”
This ICE program is now operating in 165 jurisdictions in 20 states and aims to be in partnership with every local law enforcement office in the country in a few years. ICE admits that in its first one year period almost one million people were fingerprinted under this program. About one percent, or 11,000 people, were identified as immigrants arrested – arrested not convicted – for major crimes. Most of the people deported by ICE were picked up for minor or traffic charges and not violent crimes. As the Washington Post revealed in March, ICE has explicit internal goals to remove 150,000 immigrants through the “criminal alien removals” and to deport 250,000 others this year.
Basic information about the ICE Secure Communities program has never seen the light of day. Questions like what are the error rates, what is the cost, how is oversight done, what about accountability for racial profiling and other questions have not been publicly disclosed. That is why the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of Benjamin Cardozo School of Law filed a federal Freedom of Information Act case against ICE and others this week.
Protests aimed at the Secure Communities programs have occurred this week in Houston, Washington DC, New York, Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh, San Bernardino, and Maryland. Critics say the program makes the public less safe not more because it effectively blurs the role between local law enforcement and ICE agents seeking to deport immigrants. Protestors challenge the program deports people before they are even found guilty of committing a crime or even if the arrest was illegal or later dropped. They seek a moratorium on all ICE-local law enforcement partnerships until basic facts about the program are disclosed, debated and evaluated. They created a website of information at http://uncoverthetruth.org
ICE responded to these protests with a six page internal media plan which included targeted op-eds in “major newspapers in the right cities where protests are planned.” The ICE media memo indicated it also arranged ICE interviews with the New York Times, the Associated Press, La Opinion, Telemundo and the BBC.
Regional ICE offices were directed to “reach out to English and Spanish language reporters initially in the eight cities where protests are planned Monday, April 23, to discuss the program and highlight its successes in that local area.” The ICE memo listed sound bites and talking points including “Secure Communities is not about immigration. It’s about information sharing with local law enforcement…”
The ICE media plan also states incredibly, on page five, “To date, ICE has not received any complaints of racial profiling.” That would be real news to people across the country including Ms. Lorenzo-Similian and CASA Maryland.
As the Arizona experience shows us, combining local law enforcement and federal immigration can prove to be quite toxic. Perhaps if ICE would stop spending money on PR to defend its lack of transparency and spend it instead on sharing information about the program so it could be fairly evaluated, the public would be better served.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
103 Comments so far
Show AllAs the right wingers fanned the flames of anti-immigrant hatred, a liberal response began to emerge and then suddenly you were hearing it everywhere. Rather than persecuting and torturing and murdering "aliens" as the right wingers advocated, they advocated hurting the employers. (Can we dispense with all of the euphemisms? Seriously hurting "aliens" - otherwise known as people who are different than "us," with "us" being straight white males, is what this has always been about: hurting people of color and dissidents and GLBTQ people and poor people in any way possible, here, in Iraq, at Guantanamo, wherever and whenever.)
In other words, the liberals were in complete agreement with the right wingers on all of the fundamental points: that there is such a thing as "aliens" who were "illegal," that there is a "them" as opposed to "us," that there is a "problem" that "we" must "do something about," and that punishment is the most appropriate tool for achieving any social change.
Now we are seeing the results of the liberal approach to "the problem," and as is so often the case it is worse than the right wing approach.
For those on the left this is a defining issue. What is here is liberal progressive democracy. This is what it looks like. This is what it always looked like, not just in America but everywhere. That it does not look like what "people thought" is our point of departure. That it looked otherwise was one part hope, plus one part illusion, plus one part social conditions which no longer exist (except for a rapidly shrinking part of the population). Ireland died while England was in a Progressive Era. The Japanese went to camps under FDR. An entire generation of African Americans was (and is) imprisoned because of a "War on Crime", which was knowingly contrived from the beginning (as a political expediency; not a conspiracy). Then, there is war - nonstop. The immigration moves are just business as usual because politics demand it and the undocumented are vulnerable. There is much, much, more to come.
Which side are you on?
FACTS
(1) Liberals and right wingers are the 51% top income
earners who rule society.
(2) Latinos are part of the 49% bottom income earners
who are oppressed by society.
SOLUTION
Yes, please do tell us your solution?
What if I don't have a side? What if I admit I just don't know? In the 50s Operation Wetback (!) deported thousands. Should we be an extrememly caring nation for illegals and give them free health care, SS and Medicare? Should we raise SS and Medicare taxes to pay for this? Should we discourage Latino immigration because most are Catholic and have too many children and just make the problems of overpopulation worse? This divisive issue needs even more debate to come to grips with the complexities. Another problem is that I feel somewhat ashamed of even bringing up some of these issues. Please, tell me how my thinking is faulty, please.
Your thinking is faulty because you have fallen into the cheap labor lobbies trap. Feeling "guilty" about objecting to citizens of other countries coming here without permission and demanding all you mentioned and more as if they have a right to it.
I suggest that you check into the human wreckage from their putrid agenda before feeling too "guilty" There seems to be no information forthcoming from these shills about what happens to these folks coming here, what really happens to many while they are here or what happens to then when they can no longer work or they are replaced by the next wave of younger cheap labor willing to work for even less. Somehow these points are never mentioned.
Its a sordid business in every way and only the worst would engage in it.
One can question the Arizona law, while admitting there is an immigration problem. Those with agendas want to confuse the issue and divide us even more. Or call people names and label them because they do not agree with their views. Divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy.
A thought provoking comment, mcoyote.
Mcoyote, you are talking about a perfect world without borders. The next best thing would be reparations to Mexico for NAFTA and nationalizing, in Mexico, all American and international companies using cheap labor in that country (and elsewhere, of course). I'd love to see it, but barring a revolution, it's not going to happen.
Back to earth - I don't know about "liberals", but the reason I advocate going after employers is to expose government's phony solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. Right now the government is spending enormous amount of taxpayers' money to deport people, at the same time allowing employers to profit from low-cost labor. If the government was serious about ending illegal immigration, the problem could be solved in no time at all by appropriately fining employers, or/and taking away business licenses.
Illegal immigration most likely will never be stopped, for the same reason outsourcing will never be stopped - the prices of food, and pretty much everything else, would rise, which would require that Americans both downsize their lifestyle and are paid enough to afford even the lowered standard of living. That would mean full employment, elimination of cheap labor, and lower corporate profits.
What's happening now is nothing but a PR exercise, so that the government could be seen as trying to solve the problem, and at the same time preserve the source of cheap labor using ineffective means to curb illegal immigration.
As in other cases of subsidizing corporations, the cost is dumped on taxpayers, and not on employers who profit from immigrant labor.
Not sure why this is under my comment.
I am on your side , Ardent.
Thanks for your reply and clarification.
When are asked to take sides we are already polarized. Some have used the term 'brainwashed,' but I prefer conditioned. And conditioning can work both ways. The issue of illegal immigration is heating up as it was always destined to. And polarization is certainly we do not need more of.
BRAINPOWER DICTATORSHIP -- STRIKES AGAIN
To maximize profit, our corporate rich needs free
trade agreements with nations south of the border,
and needs all the cheap labor it can get going north
during harvest times and when the Wal-Mart greedy
types need cheep labor.
An impossible situation gentlemen, which again establishes
that the purpose of this world is to show all the harm caused
by our most intelligent and richest gentlemen.
Truth_Light
I believe it is past even your suggestions. I believe that at this point Transnationals and their fellow travelers are using illegal labor not just here but in many countries to surpress wages. We "had" the best wage average in the workld, but 1986 immigration reform allowed them to slowly increase illegal labor to the point that they have kept labor costs declining in America and benchmarked us to surpress wages in every other country.
Our dilemma is no accident.
I couldn't agree more. Add onto that the passage of NAFTA, which screwed the Mexican farm worker in his own country and GATT, which removed the tariffs that protected our jobs, and you have a pretty good perfect storm. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and nations are left in a situation where they cannot fix anything due to the damned treaties. Business creates problems that cause environmental destruction? Too bad, NAFTA forbids the country from doing ANYTHING about it. Workers getting screwed working 12 hours a day for $1.50? Too bad, NAFTA says you can't demand a living wage for that job.
CAFTA does the same thing to Mexico that NAFTA did to us. All kinds of people who can no longer make a living in their countries are going to Mexico just trying to feed their families, making it next to impossible for Mexicans to work in their own country, much like WE are dealing with.
This was NO accident. It was a concerted effort by the rich, who just don't like paying their share of things, and the conservatives, who saw the 60's as a problem that needed to be prevented from happening again, rather than people demanding the rights that their constitution promised them. That is also why EVERY law that comes along, anymore, has US squarely in it's sights. It's NEVER the rich who have to pay and suffer for ANYTHING, regardless of how much damage they do.
Time for THAT to change.
Cool down, he's not blaming the immigrants but Transnationals.
As the sycophants and shills for business try to fan the flames of racial hatred in aid of their exploitation of cheap labor coming here illegally by using this kind of sophomoric reasoning and appeals for "compassion" based on "facts" that don't make sense.
This woman, who is an illegal alien was arrested for criminal activity and Mr. Quigley suggests that she be given better treatment than an American citizen.
"Even though" her three children are American citizens? What does that have to do with anything? They weren't put out on the street, they were put in the care of the State just as the children of any criminal would be.
He also suggests that because she has children that are citizens she should be treated differently. Her children will go with her as any children would with their parents. They are not required to stay here. We usually deport criminals when we find them.
"Most of the people deported by ICE were picked up for minor or traffic charges and not violent crimes."
I guess Mr. Quigley is suggesting that because these people were not violent they should be released.
You can identify business shills immediately by their use of "immigrant" when speaking of illegal aliens in an attempt to wrap their cheap labor in the justice of legal immigrants. An exercise in corruption and dishonesty.
Or their attempt to use racism as an excuse. There are those that join the business shills simply because they hate whites, even some whites feel a hatred for their own race and attempt to make this about race as there is no real justification for their betrayal of everything that is right.
This in the end is simply a question of right and wrong and everyone has pretty much made up their mind that it is wrong to allow the exploitation of any group, that it is wrong to allow any group to break our laws with impunity and most of all because it is unjust to all concerned.
The dishonest will try to make this about "immigration" rather that illegal immigration, they will try to pitch it as part of a racist agenda no matter who is in charge, they will try to portray it somehow as a matter of "rights" of people to break our laws, demand we support them and their families, provide them with education and medical services and they will demand this to the detriment of American citizens.
And their sycophants will aid them for their own self indulgent, self gratifying prejudices.
Yes, everyone will have to choose a side in this argument, I hope you make an honest choice, not an ideological and dishonest one.
The facts are quite plain at this point. After 24 years, there are no unanswered questions, no unknowns. So there can be no excuse for advocating criminal behavior except base ones.
Sioux Rose
Thomas: I think it's time to ask this question: Did you sustain a head wound in your Vietnam combat days? You spend COUNTLESS hours in this forum, hear from some of the best minds in our nation, evidently read arguments laid out step by step, point by point, and yet you STILL return to a viewpoint that is inordinately black or white, as if laws and rules in and of themselves trump Truth! I don't remember if you define yourself as a Christian per se, but Christ himself made it very clear that a lot of unjust inhumane activity took place under the GUISE of law/rules. This is why he advocated following the SPIRIT of the law.
You have not spoken about the conditions that have led to so many immigrants coming to the U.S. And when someone lives in this country for more than 10 years, they get established. To yank them out is like pulling out one of the roots that holds everything else in a community together.
I believe we ARE held to account for our actions when we "cross" over. The measure of a person's spiritual maturity is in seeing past the convenient fictions of any given time, or the rules used to persecute one group of persons to another group's advantage. You really are showing a dead heart when you make so much noise about the rules/laws and lose all sight of the HUMAN BEING on the receiving end of treatment that is at best hypocritical, and at worst, something far more ugly and dangerous. Wake up, man!
"I guess Mr. Quigley is suggesting that because these people were not violent they should be released."
Violent criminals out here in TX serve less time and get paroled faster than the non-violent ones unless they're on death row of course.
"This woman, who is an illegal alien was arrested for criminal activity and Mr. Quigley suggests that she be given better treatment than an American citizen."
It may be "legally" wrong to sell certain things without licenses but at a time our empire is crumbling and people are running out of hope and faith in being part of the "economic recovery", instead of arresting a mother of three and inflicting not only her life but the life of her three children, why not go after the source and not the symptom? I don't know MD very well but I here that the state government there is very corrupt and we know that very corrupt governments can lead to poverty and desperate acts.
"Yes, everyone will have to choose a side in this argument, I hope you make an honest choice, not an ideological and dishonest one."
Veritas, here's my side. No, I don't support trespassing and no, I don't believe in bringing race into this matter. However, when people commit crimes, it is not enough to punish them and leave them lost and possibly motivated to do it again or worse. People of higher status get slap-on-the-wrist punishments at the most while good people such as this great mother of three who tried to do something to stay alive in this dog-eat-dog economy. It is no different from the way the military is set up. The politicians and the military generals can make all the mistakes they want but they don't suffer any PTSD compared to the soldiers doing all the dirty work. The mother of three is one of millions of immigrants who were the victims of bad trade policies which lead to the Walmartization of both the US and Mexico, US-backed governmental oppression, and bad worker policies here in the US itself. Call it silly but I see her desperately selling $2 cards without license as an economic PTSD (http://www.alternet.org/economy/117762).
Not all laws reflect 'right' and 'wrong,' some laws and regulations are simply made to shut out some, while giving others an advantage. Sovereign borders are constructed just for that purpose. So there can be leaders who wield power. In a 'sane' world there would be no borders, or at least not of the type we have now. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In a sane world there would be economic harmony and no class divisions. Of course, the majority would have to be sane as well. No one country is guilty while another is innocent.
Given this state of affairs, dissolving the borders would be economic suicide. Before we do that we have to invalidate NAFTA and GATT and REALLY strive for economic justice. Will the US elites give up their booty--or some of their booty--to help create a sane world? Not unless the majority wakes up and forces them to. Just a few right moves could start to affect meaningful change. But individual ignorance has to go, even that which comes with idealism at the expense of practical considerations. The world must learn to walk before it can run in this regard.
And authentic compassion does not require that we throw common sense out the window.
As usual the issues such as immigration are framed in such a way that the truth is never revealed behind the curtain of lies.We buy expensive electronic gadgets, vintage wine, more clothes than closet space and balk at paying appropriate prices for food and hard physical labor. Mexico like the US has a problem with the distribution of wealth. If you have ever been there you realize it is a beautiful country with abundant natural resources, fertile land and a hard working population. Unfortunately it is owned by a few families who own and control most of the wealth. Pay American workers, fifteen dollars an hour with full benefits to harvest, grapes, lettuce, tomatoes, etc, yes they would cost more at the store and maybe people would get off their fat asses and grow some of their own delicious food. And American workers would find
agriculture a fulfilling and profitable career, not just for Agrigiants and chemical companies.
Sioux Rose
As a child I remember the phrase, "Idleness is the devil's plaything." That concept can be related to the bloated Homeland Security agencies, added to the new Orwellian, "Secure Communities" initiative. Like the TV ad for the Maytag repairman, since there's not much real work to do (in the way of rounding up all those genuine threats our terrorism-masters depend upon for their well-paying programs) they have a lot of time on their hands, and thus pick on everyday people. To secure their jobs they need to look like they are "doing something."
It's getting uglier and uglier in the "land of the free." With so much $ sent to Wall St., big pharma/insurance, and wars of resource acquisition, there's so little left in the pot... that making targets easily identifiable, so the people who see their lifestyles coming asunder, can have a ready target to blame.
One thinks it can't get much worse, but then decision after decision by the "new presidential team" only echoes all the calamitously insidious choices of his predecessor. Mother Nature certainly has noticed and is ringning all sorts of alarm bells, whether it's Gaia's Revenge, or otherwise. She's asking those with beating hearts to wake up and in large numbers alter the current course which cannot lead to anything worth having.
Thanks Sioux.
Acknowledgment and solidarity.
I hated the idea of a new Dept of Homeland Security from day one. Bush's love for big government now leaves us stuck with further intrusions on the average person's freedom, instead of focusing on regulating the 'terror' of Wall Street induced economic catastrophes, ecological horrors...
The problem is, is that all these issues are interrelated. How can we accommodate millions of new people without first changing the infrastructure and class divisions within our own country? Within this insane status quo, the majority of us are sinking fast. The rich, corps, and military get all the money, while the rest of us are going homeless and starving. Dissolving the borders at this juncture will not fix this situation, but make it worse. The first, necessary step is to see how we are cooperating and/or contributing to the whole this (Hint: we're living in denail if we claim we're not; that is part of the blame game).
Or like you told Veritas: wake up!
There are blind spots both on the left and right. Time to drop the labels and get to work.
The total amount of money poured into law enforcement to create a stazi network nation wide would stagger the American public if it was reported.
Not just the amount, but who is participating in this nation wide stazi community watch vigilante network of torture freaks is a frightening and needs to be exposed.
Give them partial immunity if they have caused no harm to American citizens,expose the staziocracy , and shut it down.
Shut down all funding for warrant less surveillance, and lets get back to constitutional rights to privacy.
Those that acted in overt gang stalking torture surveillance need to pay damages to their victims .
As a victim of such overt stalking and torture , they have done great damage to me and my family.
This is the United States of America....
not
The United Stazi of America.
I have a friend who went to England on a student visa to study Shakespeare. He loved it there and wanted to stay, but when his visa expired he had to go home. That's what he agreed to do. There was no talk about racism, nor did he commit a crime in order to come to the notice of the authorities.
After he left, I would imagine that another student was then afforded the opportunity to study Shakespeare in England.
Should he have stayed? Should he have hidden and operated "under the radar" in the hopes that someday students in England on expired visas would be allowed a "path to citizenship"?
As Veritas points out, that's exactly what our government did in 1986. Perhaps it was reasonable to expect that it would happen again.
But that's not what the American people want today. They've seen what a cheap, unprotected labor force has done to their wages and safety standards. They've seen how it contributed to the upward movement of wealth. They've seen how it increased demands on social services and infrastructure without providing a way to recoup the cost of those demands.
Now Americans want to send the message that it's not going to subsidize immigrants who have come here without proper legal protection and permission. Some of the ways we're trying to send that message seem harsh. Some actually are harsh.
But the bottom line seems to be that here is another group of people who have profited off abuses of the system, and now do not want to accept the consequences.
Before you feel too much sympathy for this poor little mom and her three kids, Google "phone card scam" and see how the Hispanic community is being ripped off the most by phone card scams.
I believe that "tens of thousands of immigrants, like Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian" are a security risk, because most of us know that real security depends on a living wage, a safe workplace, access to an education that's affordable, social services that are sustainable, and an adherence to the rule of law.
your friend wasnt encourage to go to england by english entrepreneurs who wanted to skirt the law and higher cheap illegal labor
I hope you feel good up their in your Ivory Tower, looking down at the rest of us
So England grants a visa to my friend and expects him to go home when he says he will.
But here in America, when we grant a visa to someone and expect them to honor it we are vilified.
This woman did get a work visa, which means she wasn't "illegal" labor. Basically she entered into a legal contract which she reneged on.
I'm trying to take the emotion out of the argument and draw a comparison to a similar situation.
Why is everybody willing to give this woman a pass? And by "given a pass" I mean “allowed to continue unlawful behavior without fear of consequences".
I'm all for compassion. I absolutely agree that economic hardships created by stunningly bad, corporate-influenced legislation in America, Mexico and Canada drove poor people to risk their lives to come here for work.
When we are angry with immigrants who come here without legal permission, we are blaming one of the symptoms for the disease of *The Corporate Takeover of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Processes of the American People*.
But now we're in a situation where we're forced to deal with the reality of this takeover. The federal government has ignored its responsibilities for so long, due to this "disease", that desperate communities are attempting to solve the symptoms in their own way. We have people of all ethnicities who have overstayed visas or come into the country without any documentation. How do we deal with those people?
This article and those of you who agree with it and defend this woman are saying to me that these are the rules now:
1.People who are really poor and prosper due to criminal acts, loopholes or abuses of the law, and don’t get caught should be given a pass.
2.People who are really poor and prosper due to criminal acts, loopholes or abuses of the law, and do get caught should also be given a pass.
3.People who have children who are American citizens should be given a pass.
4.People who are victims of the American and/or Mexican oligarchy should be given a pass.
5.Anyone who has put themselves in a life-threatening situation in order to get ahead in life should be given a pass.
6. People who fit any of the above categories should be looked upon as having no free will, as mere cogs in a machine and should therefore be given a pass.
We already have rules number one and two in effect, except substitute "poor" for "really, really rich". It isn't right at either end of the scale. Why are we willing to make exceptions either way? Why aren't the rules of law applied to everyone?
I don't live in an Ivory tower; far from it. For 20 years I lived in a community that had a large Hispanic population. It started with migrants coming to work in the nurseries near Lake Erie. Some of them stayed and were given amnesty. This acted as a draw for other migrants who came and stayed and hoped for an amnesty. During this time I watched my community struggle with the demands on social services that this population of poor, unprotected people caused. I saw how overburdened the WICK office, the Job and Family services office, and the Hospital waiting room became. Call me whatever you want, but I saw it and I lived with it on a daily basis. I saw how a lot of young Hispanic men rode bicycles because they were afraid to get a driver's license. I saw a lot of people driving really slow and careful because they needed to drive even though they didn't have a license. I saw integrity and pride as well as arrogance and underhandedness. I saw racial squabbles divide my community as well as heroic attempts by both cultures to unite. I've seen individuals of all types live generously and peacefully side by side.
It's precisely because I have lived down here in the dirt that I have to look at this in alternative ways, hence the comparison with my friend. I want mercy and humanity to prevail. But if I feel compassion for a crack addict, am I willing to let him steal my car? It's a fine line. Let's hear YOUR solution.
What you don't get is people don't dislike immigrants because there mexican, its because there destroying our standard of living.
When a worker is under the table they have no real rights, and will be exploited, paid-less then minimum wage. Thats a fact, and its not racism were dealing with.
Was there this type of protest when America took in hundreds of thousands of refugees in the past. No, and if there was it was no-where near this magnitude... Now there are quite a few reasons for this, but i'd say the eagerness of those refuges to assimilate and learn English helped. While I like Mexican culture overall, i can understand why some Americans might get a little pissed when they slowly see Spanish becomes the first, then only language in there towns.
But its about CONTROL, theirs alot of Korean immigrants here too , but since its pretty tough to jump a fence from Seoul and end up in Cali the situations different.
And please, stop saying Racist when someone disagrees with you, we're entering a age where people are afraid to express there views.
Watch out you're likely to get labeled a racist for your views, but thanks for honestly saying what you think. I do not think we at CD can have an honest dialog about this whole affair without the discussion descending into juvenile name calling, condescending bravado, and the attitude that you are simply wrong because you do not agree with their talking points.
Oh, and of course, you must not argue with their tediously researched and brilliant historical analyses as to why you are wrong. Throw in some new age beliefs and there you have it. When they call you 'fascist' be reminded of how vigorously they police and attack contrary views, like a progressive-Stazi force always poised to strike. No wonder why so many people are going independent. The extreme left is as nutty as the extreme right.
-I believe that "tens of thousands of immigrants, like Ms. Lorenzo-Desimilian" are a security risk, because most of us know that real security depends on a living wage, a safe workplace, access to an education that's affordable, social services that are sustainable, and an adherence to the rule of law.
I like, and share your stated goals. I don't see, however how the proposed arbitrary arrest of dark skin people, or, here, the breaking up of families serves those goals. There will still be millions of "aliens" as Americans like to call new arrivals, driven further underground, more fearful of the state, less likely to get help. I understand that the same people the government spends tax money to deport, return again and again to work for US companies.
America has a long border. It is not like there is one turnstile that can be closed off. And people will find a way back and forth. It is worth it apparently. The only way this won't happen is if you make conditions in America at least equaly as miserable as they are in the countries from which immigrants arrive from. So, you can hurt people and families and your society, by carrying out cruel stunts to get politicians elected, or you can take actions that actually make your country a better place to live. You can't do both.
As you can see by my response to djb at 1:49 above, I am struggling with this.
If we could declare, "Hey all you slimeballs who made a boatload of money off the excruciating process of taking a living wage away from half a continent full of people, give it all back now" I'd be for it.
I would also be for it if we could say, "Hey all you slimeballs that came here to take advantage of a free ride could you please leave now" and all those slimeballs would leave.
Obviously not gonna happen.
I don't agree with the arbitrary arrest of dark skinned people, and I don't think that's what this particular incident was about. People do get arrested and fingerprinted for misdemeanors. But the question remains, how do we actually go about dealing with people who haven't got permission to be here and have also committed a crime? Are there other ways to find people like that without looking at their skin color?
I don't like to see families broken up either but we all know that we are responsible for our children, and for keeping our families together. Why should I respect someone's family unit when they are the ones risking its safety? In other words, if I put my family at risk through my actions, should I expect YOU to then protect my family? I absolutely support children's services and medicare and good education for all. But I feel that if someone's family is broken up the blame falls on the person who knowingly took actions that put the family at risk.
I don't think its right, in our rush to protect and defend, to reward unlawful behavior. I could certainly get on board with changing the consequences, but not removing the consequences altogether. I certainly wouldn't support allowing Wall street gamblers to reap the rewards of their unlawful behavior.
But maybe you've actually hit on something when you say "The only way this won't happen is if you make conditions in America at least equally as miserable as they are in the countries from which immigrants arrive". Aside from my first thought that those conditions are well on their way to being met, I would suggest that perhaps if we strive to make conditions in the countries from which immigrants arrive as good as immigrants perceive conditions in America to be, there wouldn't be a desperate need to come here.
To do that we'd have to cure the "disease", as I mentioned above, then the symptoms might just take care of themselves.
The best way to at least reduce the incidence of illegal immigration into the United States is for the USA to release its grip on these foreign countries.
"I absolutely support children's services and medicare and good education for all. But I feel that if someone's family is broken up the blame falls on the person who knowingly took actions that put the family at risk.' - In other words you support "children's services and medicare and good education for all" in theory, but not in practice.
"Perhaps if we strive to make conditions in the countries from which immigrants arrive as good as immigrants perceive conditions in America to be, there wouldn't be a desperate need to come here." Here is how other people do it:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/article_
24269af4-43f2-11df-ad63-001cc4c03286.html
I am in favor of taking care of children, I am just not willing to accept the blame for a situation that their parents put them in.
The blame? What does the blame have to do with it? Would you say the same thing about children in your community whose parents abuse them? Would you deny them the help they need, because it's not your fault? Would you say it's their problem? Are you saying that providing children with healthcare and education is dependent on their parents behavior?
Bea, here is the statement by jlocke that I was responding to: “I like, and share your stated goals. I don't see, however how the proposed arbitrary arrest of dark skin people, or, here, the breaking up of families serves those goals.”
This comment makes it seem like my goals for true national security are what are causing families to be broken up. It sounds like my desire for the rule of law to prevail is to blame for this woman’s family being broken up, and I disagree with that. Not wanting to see families harmed has never been a legal reason not to prosecute someone. How about if we stopped arresting or prosecuting anyone whose family could be broken up if they received punishment for their actions?
Yes, I would say the same about parents who abuse their children: I am not to blame for that. No, I would not deny children help just because I am not responsible for their situation. I am not saying that I would deny this mother’s children help. I am saying that I would deny her the opportunity to use the possibility that her family might be broken up as a defense that justifies or excuses her bad acts.
I would say that yes, providing children with health care and an education does depend on the parent’s behavior. It would be silly to say that it’s not a big part of a parent’s job to educate and care for their children. But I think you are asking if I believe that society should decide whether or not to provide for the welfare of children based on their parents’ actions. No I do not.
Should children suffer due to their parents faults? Should or shouldn’t doesn’t matter, the fact is that children do suffer for their parent’s faults, and it is the parents that bear the blame.
Should we suspend the rule of law for “humanitarian reasons” like family suffering? I could actually get behind that, but how much are we willing to forgive? How many times could a person cite humanitarian reasons to get leniency? How weighty of a crime would someone have to commit in order to tip the scales in favor of rejecting any humanitarian concerns?
I don’t think I’m being unreasonable when I say that we all depend on a structure and order so that we may co-exist. We agree which side of the road we’ll drive on so that we don’t kill each other. When we suspend structure and order, for whatever reason, I'm afraid it will be impossible to get it back.
Elaine, like a lot of people you only see that far into the past: "they" broke the law. How about going a little further back and asking yourself these question: what caused them to break the law? Does my own country have anything to do with it? Does my own country (or interests in it) encourage their breaking the law? What about NAFTA (and other trade agreements), what about abusive labor practices by American companies (here and abroad)? What about your government's foreign policy in regards to South America undermining democratically elected governments that don't quite embrace the idea of American exploitation? What's your responsibility in all that? None?
Can't you see that you are blaming the victim? You burn someone's house and then you blame them for being homeless and needing food and shelter. - "Gee it's not my responsibility if they freeze in winter in Ohio! I'm not to blame!"
You might feel like you have done nothing wrong as an individual. But laws have been broken, and unjust laws have been imposed by your own government.
Make sure that the government that represents you respects the law, and then expect others to do the same.
Bea, I appreciate your response. Indeed I have gone farther back; I try to take a very broad view of the entire situation. I absolutely do understand the actions that led up to our current sad state. Did you know that one of the original authors of NAFTA is Rahm Emanuel, now Obama's chief of staff? This group of corporate lackeys has been working very hard for a long time to bring about the corporate control of our nation, and all of the nations we come in contact with are affected. Did I call my representatives in Washington, in Congress and the White House and urge them not to pass NAFTA? Why yes I did, but what a surprise; they did it anyway.
I adamantly refuse to agree that I am "blaming the victim." I am asking this: "Does being a victim justify lawlessness?" Is it a legitimate defense that can be used in court to dismiss a criminal charge? Many people all over the world, as you pointed out, can claim to have been victimized by the American Military Industrial Corporate Complex. Perhaps even you and I could make that claim. Does that entitle us to then, say, go to Wal-mart and shoplift with impunity? It would only be fair, since Wal-mart has been an agent in the destruction of wages and workers rights, correct?
If I have to take responsibility for what my government has done, then immigrants have responsibility for what their governments have done. Are Chinese and Russian immigrants responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of Communism? Did Mexicans have an opportunity to protest NAFTA? Certainly they must have had the opportunity to change their government just like we have.
Does the degree to which one has been victimized relate to the severity of the crime one will be forgiven for? Let me remind you that this article is about a woman whose status in the USA was questioned because she committed a misdemeanor. As far as I know, domestic violence is also a misdemeanor. Would you be willing to excuse a person who abuses their spouse on the basis of victimhood? You can't say "governments must adhere to the rules" but "victims do not".
I actually think your attitude is a bit condescending, that us superior Americans are held to a higher standard of personal responsibility for our government's acts than the immigrant, as well as a higher standard of personal responsibility regarding our own acts.
I don't know what to say to this, Elaine.
Demand that your government pays reparations for economic, environmental, and other damages due to American companies' activities in Mexico, repel NAFTA, and then expect others to act responsibly. Then I will believe that you are sincere.
Just saying over and over "it's not my fault", or even "I'm sorry", with no intention of paying for damages, is not enough. It's just empty words.
Presumably, England didn't ruin your friend's country, so he had a place to return to.
You seem to be able to identify the problem correctly, Elaine, but you sure miss the boat when it comes to the responsible party.
most of these people are encouraged to be here by rich and powerful people who want cheap labor
go after them and you wont have an illegal alien problem
For the record:
No matter upon which piece of soil one stands on any given day for whatever reasons there is no such thing as an "illegal" human being. The degradation involved in ascribing such a label upon any human is profound and those who perpetuate this labeling are doing the work of the house negro.
One thing I've always found stunning in all of this is how many so-called liberal/progressive folk vary only slightly in their language when compared with the most reactionary right-wingers when talking about immigration. How readily they slop up the language of the State and regurgitate it and how easily they seem to align themselves with their oppressor.
Please remember this and burn it into your skulls- The "Illegal" Immigrant is A VICTIM. Also know that this is not happening only in Arizona. Just look into the ICE raids in Michigan for one example, there are many other examples.
On a personal note I lived in Southern Arizona for 3 years, from 1998-2001 and lived only 7 miles from the US-Mexico border, which is more accurately called a scar. I watched the scenes unfold up close and personal every day. There are many stories I could recount here, but please just think about this one question before you dare to slander these people who are fighting for their lives:
"Why would a man walk miles and miles through the desert with little or no food holding a gallon jug of water in each hand knowing all the risks involved and the likelihood of failure and/or death? What conditions would call for such a radical decision?"
Those who side with blatantly racist and colonial structures make me sick. Having seen all of this up close and personal and having heard all of the reactionary slurs against these migrants as well as the liberal attempts at rationalization for the Master I have no patience for those who support the workings of the State and attack the poor people struggling to survive. Shame on you.
First they came for...
yes...
if we all did our own work, spent our time and energies taking care of our own immediate, basic needs, and those of our immediate loved ones and neighbors, this would not be an issue...
only when some attempt to disadvantage others, to sequester resources, offload their own responsibilities, force others to do their labor and deliver their necessities or meet violent punishment or economic ruin, do we arrive here...
yes, there is no 'illegal'...there is also no 'homeless'...
as we are all about to find out, there is only now, and your immediate environment, and your immediate needs...
we are well on our way to permanently eliminating our ability to meet our needs...
blaming others for, what?, seems so...useless...
There should be open immigration (only dangerous criminals and infectious disease carriers should be banned). A fence is both immoral and impractical, as it would restrict our freedom to use the land, water, and travel, and is the wrong way to fight foreign threats (you do that by fighting a war on the enemy territory). Once we allow open immigration, we know anyone trying to come in through unauthorized points has criminal intentions.
But for open immigration to work, it requires the welfare state to be repealed entirely. American citizens, and immigrants, should have to support themselves, and if having trouble, ask for private voluntary financial assistance.
To prosper, we need freedom, individual rights to be protected, and more purposeful, honest people--we'll only get those kinds of people when each individual is treated as an end in himself and has to produce and trade for values, not sacrifice and force others to give him things he needs.
For a good article on immigration, I recommend reading "Open Immigration" by Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger.
http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm
A good excerpt:
"American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such a thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others. "
Copyright © 2006 TOF Publications, Inc. www.hblist.com/immigr.htm Permission hereby granted to republish, in whole or in part, provided no changes are made in the wording of material used, Harry Binswanger's authorship is stated, and this notice is carried.
IF we move to open immigration, you are correct in saying all types of government welfare would need to end. That is one reason why I, and the majority of people, oppose totally open immigration.
Well...we could always build more tent cities in parks and abandoned parking lots. Or make a law that if you have some empty rooms in your house, you are required to provide shelter to those in need, by penalty of fine or imprisonment. Also, make a law that requires doctors to give a certain amount of free medical care to the newcomers but, of course not to the citizenry who must pay in full. While we're at it, require that supermarkets and big box store donate some of their profits to the new needy. That should about fix it.
I'll repeat. This is the philosophy of a mafia virus. And a virus is nature's most relentless stalker.
Objectivism makes a fine personal philosophy. It is useless in the real world. Ayn Rand proved this when she bought an island, set up radar towers and declared a pure capitalist state and banking system. Things went well until the king of a island in the neighborhood discovered her. HE and his warriors paddled their way to her island, just to find out that the king wasn't kidding and they escaped by plane.
All things they brought were destroyed by the king's warriors and that was the end of that experiment.
The fact of the matter is that public property belongs to We The People. If anything we deserve to receive royalties from minerals, oil, gas, timber, radio waves and fish. They do this in Alaska under the Alaskan Permanent Fund that takes five years of royalties from State land, then invests it and the five year average profit is sent to every man, woman and child in the state.
Last year every person in Alaska got a check for $3000.00= dollars.
Our property is sold all the time and we don't get a dime.
But for open immigration to work, it requires the welfare state to be repealed entirely. American citizens, and immigrants, should have to support themselves, and if having trouble,they ask for private voluntary financial assistance, which if you don't receive then you die.
This has never worked. Open immigration would be a disaster. How are we to keep up and test people for diseases.
The problem here is well regulated requests for entry has not been done and a flood of people came in and upset the social fabric in their home state and in their destination state. The one country is destroyed for a lack or workers and culure they move to is destroyed by loss of their culture.
These people have no citizen rights in
Arizona. The crime level has become intolerable with murders and grand theft regularly happening.
The state of Arizona is over 30 percent Hispanic if not more. The Hispanics largely support this law. And we as outsiders have no say in what they do in their own state. It is a mirror image of the Federal law.
It is not racist in Arizona, it would not matter if it was the French or the English. It is survival.
And while you are at it, check out the effects this has had on Mexico. With out young men no one can stand up to the Narcos. Mexico has been destroyed by our greed. And no one has noticed and no one seems to care.
The extreme left does not want to discuss the difficulties Arizona is facing. They only want to get on their soapbox about how unconstitutional the new law is. Even if you concede that and point out the dilemma border states are facing, they call you a bigot, xenophobic, etc. There are real practical concerns here. The individuals crossing the border are no better or worse than anyone else. And they are not entitled simply by virtue of their desperation. Like it or not, deny it or not, there are limits to how much any 'cup' can hold. What we are witnessing now is that cup spilling over.
I guess we need to return the Statue of Liberty.
Return the Statue of Liberty?
Au contraire, mon ami!
All it takes is simple retrofitting to replace that sappy, preposterous poem about the "wretched refuse" with a simple "Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted", and turn that torch into a flamethrower!
They could probably design one that shoots fireworks on Independence Day!