EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
Popular content
Today's Top News
Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Crusade Continues
Though Arizona's SB 1070 went into effect without its most controversial provisions, the legislation's stated intent-attrition through enforcement-is nevertheless gaining traction among anti-immigrant legislators across the nation. In the wake of the law's enactment, other states are coming out in support of Arizona, some developing policy modeled after SB 1070. Others even hope to alter the U.S. constitution to deny "birthright citizenship" to children of undocumented immigrants.
Arizona stands firm against injunction
After federal judge Susan Bolton blocked numerous elements of SB 1070, Arizona governor Jan Brewer wasted no time and swiftly filed an appeal against the injunction.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for his part, has assured the public that he intends to continue enforcing state and federal immigration laws through "crime sweeps" and immigration status checks. After Arizona's 287(g) agreement expired last year, effectively stripping local law enforcement of the right to detain individuals on suspicion of their immigration status, Arpaio similarly refused to comply, brazenly maintaining his immigration enforcement campaign.
Jamilah King of ColorLines reports that on the day that SB 1070 went into effect, Arpaio and hundreds of deputies arrested 50 protesters before completing their 17th immigration raid. Those arrested included clergy, journalists, and attorneys. Local civil rights leader Salvador Reza - a particularly outspoken critic of Arpaio's contentious enforcement tactics, was also taken into custody, as was former state Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez.
No citizenship to "anchor babies"
Meanwhile, Arizona legislators are taking anti-immigrant sentiment to a new level and coming out in favor of potentially repealing the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
At the Washington Independent, Elise Foley reports that Arizona senators Jon Kyl and John McCain are the latest to join the radical faction of Republican Party politicians calling for congressional hearings to reconsider the amendment. McCain's new position is particularly curious given his historical support of comprehensive immigration reform, and past advocacy of deportees' American children.
McCain's about-face may be prompted by the impending election and, in particular, the considerable popularity of his Republican opponent J. D. Hayworth, who is running on a firm anti-immigrant platform.
Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive argues that the Republican focus on birthright citizenship is a malicious attempt to visit the sins of the father onto the children. Rothschild also calls attention to the fact that a whopping 94 Republicans in the House support the extremist effort.
SB 1070 paves the way
Arizona has long been a testing ground for anti-immigrant measures in the U.S. and SB 1070 is no exception. Now that the new law has gained traction, other states are following suit.
At Talking Points Memo, Christina Bellantoni reports that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) issued an opinion stating that Virginia law enforcement, including state park personnel, have the same authority to investigate immigration status as Arizona police officers.
Written as an advisory letter to state Delegate Bob Marshall, the opinion has garnered intense opposition - in part because Virginia considers official opinions of the attorney general to be laws. Cuccinelli reinforced his opinion by filing an amicus brief to stand in solidarity with Arizona in its fight against the federal government.
He's not alone, either. Going back to the Washington Independent Foley reports that three other attorney generals and nine states have filed amicus briefs in support of Arizona's new immigration law.
Who profits when immigrants go to jail?
While SB 1070 is argued in the courts and debated in the media, Yana Kuchinoff at Truthout reminds us that 300,000 immigrants are languishing in detention centers under notoriously poor conditions. More than 100 deaths have been reported in immigration detention since 2003, sparking investigations by Human Rights Watch, Detention Watch, and even the Department of Homeland Security.
Moreover, private companies contracted to handle the rising number of detentions are making a fortune on the nation's broken immigration system. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private immigration detainer in the country, has made record profits since 2003 by billing the federal government an estimated $11 million per month and cutting costs at the expense of detainees' health and well-being. Telecommunications companies like EverCom are also profiting from detention, charging immigrants in detention as much as $17.34 for a 15-minute phone call.
The irony of our dysfunctional immigration system, Kuchinoff concludes, is that the people who end up spending the most time in detention, are those with the strongest claims for staying in the U.S.
- 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...


193 Comments so far
Show AllCriminal is a rather sanitized term for Cheney. As you know, language is organic. There will likely come a time where "Pulling a Cheney" will be universally understood as the verbiage that signifies the lowest low a character can fall to.
Damn, I swore I'd not post to someone who so villified me, but I can't help this one!
Amen!
Why should a white collared job be outsourced to India or a blue collared job be given to a Mexican for nothing? Illegally entering the country and stealing our jobs is wrong. Show some respect for hardworking young Americans trying to find a job. The immigrants should go back to Mexico and hold their own government accountable for corruption.
"Why should a white collared job be outsourced to India or a blue collared job be given to a Mexican for nothing?"
Given our capitalist theology here in the US, why not? Don't like it? You have my sincerest sympathy (seriously, no sarcasm). Change the system, move, or get used to it. I'm not sure there's another option.
'Our Jobs?' Sounds like 'our oil'. The jobs don't 'belong' to Americans.
My guess is that Mexicans would have no more success in holding their government accountable for corruption than Americans do holding their government accountable for corruption - in short - no success at all.
TIREBITER: I agree with the points you just raised. Thank you. (Although I believe there are more options possible than those related in your 2nd paragraph.)
And I appreciate your civility, thanks.
"You have my sincerest sympathy (seriously, no sarcasm). "
Ok, thanks.
"Change the system, move, or get used to it. I'm not sure there's another option."
Let's see now.
Change the system - Good option and AZ is working on that.
Move - To where? Easier said than done.
get used to it - I don't think so and I applaud AZ for doing the right thing and can't wait for other states to follow. It may not be the best thing to happen but we're not gonna settle for scraps or nothing and we're not gonna allow job theft to prevail. When nobody respects your kindness, you have no real choice but to fight like a vigilante.
" 'Our Jobs?' Sounds like 'our oil'. The jobs don't 'belong' to Americans. "
What are you talking about? Our American jobs don't deserve to be stolen or taken away and outsourced. If you're employed, I get it. Looking the other way. If you're unemployed and still saying this, what's the matter with you?
I didn't invent the available options, I only suggest that that's what's available (bowing, of course, to SR (above) who suggests you may have others). Ask her what your other options may be.
What makes a job an 'American' job? Simply because it's available in America? I'm afraid, you've naive. The jobs belong to the entities offering them. They can offer them to anybody they like. I may not like it, but I didn't invent the system.
All economic systems produce economic 'losers'. These 'economic losers' are sacrificed for the 'general good' (a problematic term). Ethical systems/governments take care of those they sacrifice for the rest of us. The US is very bad at this.
Finally, you sound like you're heading towards the ragged edge. Don't despair. Most of us are unemployed at least once in our lives (I've been unemployed a half-dozen times). It may not be easy, but nobody promised that life would be easy. And compared to most of the folks in the world, you're probably doing alright. I can only offer this bit of advice from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" - Don't panic.
I don't know where I'm heading but I admit that maybe I am getting a bit too very jealous and angry. I mean what girl would want to go out with a guy who's unemployed and has had only a history of part time employment and temporary employment with no benefits when he was employed. I had a great friend of mine who had similar struggles. We helped each other a little in college. He was about to get married but one week before that, he lost his job to an illegal immigrant. His bride to-be ditched him. One month later, he shot her and her new lover before killing himself. I tried to stop him when I unexpectedly saw him with a gun for the first time on that day I was walking by. That was 6 months ago and I still miss him. That gruesome moment when he pointing the gun to his own head and took his own life away still scares me. I would never go so low as to take down another's life and then my own but I'm afraid of bad things like this becoming more commonplace if we keep allowing open borders and outsourcing like this. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind helping a poor person on any given day but justifying robbery of any kind is just pushing it too far.
"Until then, pardon the pun, but your comments don't mean shit."
Don't forget "domestic labor" jobs changing the dirty little nappies of rich white kids - that does mean shit.
Hey, that's offensive and racist. I'm turning you in !
"The immigrants should go back to Mexico and hold their own government accountable for corruption."
Sure. And water should run uphill. It ain't a moral issue, pal. It's pure physics.
Stealing jobs is pure physics? Easy for you to say. Are you still employed? Have a family and kids? Why don't you let them steal your job and see what happens when you're dirt poor?
okay but where I live there are always openings for people who are willing to clean bathrooms and office buildings, wash dishes, do landscaping, etc. These are the jobs many undocumented workers are doing. I don't see white people wanting to do these jobs.
What was the job you lost?
I was on my last temp job working as a lab technician. I have done a variety of temporary jobs since I graduated. It's hard getting full time jobs and even they aren't guaranteed to last. In my last company, everyone who lost their job had an Indian or Japanese replacement. I have a physics degree so those jobs you listed I leave to those who weren't able to finish college unlike I who got lucky to come back and patch things up after a part time job and my parents recovering from bankruptcy.
"stealing jobs" is pure inflammatory rhetoric. Doing whatever it takes to stay alive is pure physics. If you want to know what dirt poor means, trot on down to Chihuahua.
You seem not to be the intellectual type, so I won't bother trying to explain how economic laws resemble physics. Suffice it to say that the "stealing" of jobs, like all natural phenomena, will continue whether you think it should or not.
" "stealing jobs" is pure inflammatory rhetoric."
No it is not when it's happening. You wouldn't know because you must be having a great job and a happy family so you can flaunt your know it all arrogance.
"Doing whatever it takes to stay alive is pure physics."
I already know that, god damn it ! I've survived despite my cruel parents, my two ex-es one a cheater and the other too know it all just like you, defective education, and Benedict Arnold companies outsourcing and cutting jobs and benefits.
"If you want to know what dirt poor means, trot on down to Chihuahua."
No, if you want to know what dirt poor means, lose your job, your house, your family, and go homeless in debt while the thieves laugh at you.
"You seem not to be the intellectual type, so I won't bother trying to explain how economic laws resemble physics."
Typical know it all arrogant doublespeak.
"Suffice it to say that the "stealing" of jobs, like all natural phenomena, will continue whether you think it should or not."
Easy for you to say when you're smug and rich with nothing to worry about. What do you care about hardworking Americans? You remind me of my two stupid ex-gfs. The first one had the nerve to tell me to sign up and serve in Iraq while she and her rich boyfriend she dumped me for had the nerve to work for a drug corporation. The second one tried to tell me that I shouldn't be working for big companies just because she was lucky to work for a small business and her education was totally different. Let's see you say what you just said when your job gets stolen. First they came for blue collared jobs, then white collared, next it could be you.
If you want to see dirt poor, real poverty, you'll have to go much further than Chihuahua. They are rich compared to many parts of the world.
Mexico is not exactly the poverty stricken country so many try to portray, its a rich country that is held in the grip of the very rich. Its not close to the poor countries of the world.
NAFTA, created by the USA, destroyed many, many jobs in Mexico. And before that, the US stole Mexican land. So, it would only be natural that people from Mexico would want to go where the jobs are. This is the situation we're in. Might as well accept it and look for the positive in it.
The name NAFTA sounds familiar. I know there were trade deficits with it but you lost me on the jobs. Wasn't NAFTA about trade and tariffs? Why can't the Mexicans just withdraw from the treaty and change their government if NAFTA is killing them? Why should they invade us and steal our jobs? I don't accept that and there's nothing positive about it. Why should hardworking Americans go unemployed while they get to work for less? It's morally wrong and dishonest. It hurts them and it hurts us. The US didn't steal Mexico btw. There was a war and Mexico lost and surrendered. If they want their land back, all they have to do is ask nicely and we'll see about it. Entering the country illegally and stealing jobs is wrong.
Changing your name to DEADHart would be a better fit... or shall I just refer to you as Oxymoron?
Is that what your "education" and "experience" taught you? Nothing to talk about my ideas. You can keep your oxymoron label to yourself. What do you have to worry about when you must be having a great job, family, and no worries about losing your career to a thief. Why don't you let them steal your job and see how you like that?
300,000 immigrants in detention as we speak?
I take it all the facilities are run by private Corporations? One wonders at the cost of this PER day PER immigrant. It a number that can only grow.
Without KNOWING those costs I am going to give my gut feel best guess.
The COST per immigrant per day to be kept in detention is likely a greater tax burden to US taxpayers then the cost per immigrant per day were they simply in the Workforce and paying taxes/social security etc as many of them do.
I find people so very odd. They seem to think that if money goes from the Government to the poor in the form of welfare payments, food stamps and the like , that it a "Tax on hard working Americans" with cries of outrage as to why "hard working americans have to support lazy bums" while at the same time if the Government pays 10 times that amount to a private Corporation (again TAX Money) wherein that money ends up in the hands of the Corporations...
It simply the "efficiency of the free market" in action.
Mind Boggling.
"I take it all the facilities are run by private Corporations? One wonders at the cost of this PER day PER immigrant. It a number that can only grow."
Not all, but many are. And many of them are a disgrace and operate with little oversight.
"The COST per immigrant per day to be kept in detention is likely a greater tax burden to US taxpayers then the cost per immigrant per day were they simply in the Workforce and paying taxes/social security etc as many of them do."
Simply untrue by any definition.
While we are in loud agreement about the Corporate Welfare bums,the rest of your statement is a deflection from illegal aliens which this is about to American citicens on assistance which it is not. As you know, my opinion is that hard pressed Americans should NOT be forced to provide benefits or pay for the decisions of the citizens of foreign countries.
As you also know this "Free Market" is anything but, its a perversion of a regulated free economy. This ones more like "Free To Steal"!
>>"The COST per immigrant per day to be kept in detention is likely a greater tax burden to US taxpayers then the cost per immigrant per day were they simply in the Workforce and paying taxes/social security etc as many of them do."
>>Simply untrue by any definition.
Please provide your evidence.
It costs the US about 50 dollars per day for each person incarcerated.
There are an estimated 16000000 "Illegal immigrants" in the USA so by your reckoning the total "cost" to the taxpayers is over 320 billion per year.
Given the fact "Illegal Immigrants" work and pay taxes and social security i would like to see your evidence that they are costing US Taxpayers 320 billion a year.
Persons in detention are NOT working and not paying taxes or social security. They are not spending money in a community.
Logic suggests your "simply untrue by any definition" is merely rhetoric and not based on any facts.
Finally the USA is one of the Countries most responsible for the plight of the peoples in the third world. It is US Foreign policy and military interventions that saw Governmnet after Government toppled in regions where "Socialist" governments attempted to redistribute wealth.
One singular and obvious example was Arbenz In Guatemala. His crime was trying to redistribute lands owned by a United States Corporation to the peoples of his country. The response of the USA was to sponsor a coup. This was hardly an isolated incident as this same process goes on today in Haiti and The Honduras.
We can use the example of Iraq today. Some 4 million Iraqis fled the conflict caused by the US invasion and now live in Countries like Syria and the like (Illegaly) in tents and camps and look for work. Is it your suggestion this was THEIR decision and the US not responsible?
Why do you think the USA should bear no responsibilty for its actions abroad? The Citizens the WORLD over, from Iraq to Afghainstan , from Cuba to Vietnam are PAYING for or have paid for decisions of the United States of America.
Why do you feel it a one way street?
If illegal immigrants come and steal our jobs, then it's costing us. See how your rich and smug life is like when your job gets stolen by someone who entered the country illegally. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guatemala have nothing to do with this. Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. Can't you get that through your goofy brain of yours? Maybe you should lose your job so you'll learn. Geesh !
That my point went right ever your head shows that even in it's GOOFINESS it seems in better working order then your own.
I was commenting on Mightymights long held opinion that the USA is not responsible for ANY of the wrongs it has committed the world over and that it the citizens of the United States of America that are the victims.
A coup in Haiti wherein corrupt governmnets are put in power and where the resources of the Country called Haiti are seized so as to enrich foreign corporations has EVERYTHING to do with the peoples of Haiti fleeing their country.
Mightymite claimed the US is not responsible for the decisions THOSE people make and are under no obligation to pay for those peoples decisions.
I challenged his claims.
It is the Corporations and the "Investor class" that are STEALING your jobs as they are the ones working in concert with your government and the wealthy elite of other countries to do so. You direct your venom towards the wrong people.
As does Mightymite and his "we are blameless" stance.
I don't see Mightymite talking about Haiti here. He might have done that on some Haiti article. I don't know. I only visit this site once in a while. I wouldn't agree with Mightymite's argument that the USA isn't responsible for any wrongs it committed against other nations and especially on Haiti. But when it comes to immigration, nobody has any business entering the country illegally. Now I'm already mad and flamed at the capitalists and corporations for cutting our jobs from full time to temporary or shedding them and outsourcing them. I don't hate immigrants but I get mad when immigrants entering the country illegally or foreign nationals getting their visas too easy come on over and steal our jobs. The corporations may have snatched away our jobs but the illegals or FNs chose to accept the stolen jobs offered to them and that's the same as choosing to team up and steal. Let me ask you this. If a thief wants to give you a stolen item and that stolen item could be used to help you and your family out of debt, would you accept it or threaten to turn the thief over to authorities if he doesn't give it back to its rightful owner?
So then you are willing to turn over all the lands stolen from the Natives to their Rightful owners?
If the LETTER of the treaties signed with the Native American tribes was honored almost half the mass of the United States of America should be turned over to them.
We are not talking about land conquered and surrendered by treaty. We are talking about existing treaties which were ignored by the US Government.
What gets me is this whole "Illegal" bit wherein people proclaim themselves to be considered with the rule of LAW while at the same time ignoring the rule of LAW when it benefits them.
Now back to these people "stealing our jobs". This is a fact. Most Americans were not DOING those jobs. They did not WANT those jobs. The only reason it an issue now is that the jobs Americans once had are being sent overseas. No one is "stealing" those jobs.
That is how Capitalism works. That is the "Free market". Those jobs going overseas are lost because those people overseas are seen as more "Competitive" then Americans. So now what you have is more and more jobs outsourced because workers in China are more "competitve" and Americans suddenly getting desperate for ANY job, even the ones they would not take before.
The FACT is that since the economic downturn the number of "illegal immigrants" in the USA has dropped by some 3 million according to your Governments own stats. This because even those people can not find jobs. There are too many people after the same number of jobs because people who used to work in factories at 20 bucks an hour are getting laid off so now look for the 10 and 12 dollar an hour jobs they would never take before.
Thus to claim the "illegal immigrants" steal jobs is inaccurate.
An analogy.
I am a rancher and claim to own 80,000 acres of land. The borders of my ranch are not clearly defined and there people that live on it that "squat" as farmers. This does not really bother me as I buy stuff they raise in their gardens and will hire them at roundup time or when I need extra hands. They might help watch my herd and keep them safe from predators. They even grow some hay I buy off them that I feed my cattle when grass lacking.
Of a sudden The Government declares that 40,000 acres no longer belongs to me. They seize it using "emminent domain" and turn the land over to a Railroad company.
Would I be in my rights to suddenly declare those people "squatting" on my land as thieves and criminals and low lifes stealing MY land? I was fine with them when they had something *I* needed and it to *MY* benefit but now they are "illegals" and "thieves" ?
This is what goes on here.
"So then you are willing to turn over all the lands stolen from the Natives to their Rightful owners?"
We didn't steal their land. We had a fight with them and they lost. We're making some amends though.
"If the LETTER of the treaties signed with the Native American tribes was honored almost half the mass of the United States of America should be turned over to them."
Show us what words of the treaty are being violated.
"Now back to these people "stealing our jobs". This is a fact. Most Americans were not DOING those jobs. They did not WANT those jobs. The only reason it an issue now is that the jobs Americans once had are being sent overseas. No one is "stealing" those jobs."
That's fucking bullshit. What do you care about hardworking Americans? You think Americans are lazy and foreigners aren't? Americans were doing the jobs but now those jobs are snatched away from them and some poor fools illegally entering the country or foreign nationals are taking the jobs and that's the same as stealing and you didn't answer my question about accepting stolen offers.
Capitalism and free markets, why are you using them to defend thieves? Are you some rich clown trying to play hardworking Americans for fools?
"The FACT is that since the economic downturn the number of "illegal immigrants" in the USA has dropped by some 3 million according to your Governments own stats. This because even those people can not find jobs."
The government is lying and you know it. If they can't find jobs here, they wouldn't be coming here now would they? They still have no business trespassing and stealing our jobs. They should go back to Mexico and kick their government's ass.
"There are too many people after the same number of jobs because people who used to work in factories at 20 bucks an hour are getting laid off so now look for the 10 and 12 dollar an hour jobs they would never take before."
Cut down illegal immigration and foreign nationals for cheaps and the 20 an hour jobs at the factories will come right back.
"The borders of my ranch are not clearly defined and there people that live on it that "squat" as farmers."
But the US borders are clearly defined and that's a big difference.
"This does not really bother me as I buy stuff they raise in their gardens and will hire them at roundup time or when I need extra hands. They might help watch my herd and keep them safe from predators. They even grow some hay I buy off them that I feed my cattle when grass lacking."
So you're willing to accept them illegally to do your work for below minimum wage? Aren't you sucking up to capitalism that you laid the blame on? What's the use of blaming capitalism when you're going to use it for your selfish purposes? It's wrong man !
"Of a sudden The Government declares that 40,000 acres no longer belongs to me. They seize it using "emminent domain" and turn the land over to a Railroad company."
That's a different story and I wouldn't accept that either. That doesn't excuse trespassers still.
"Would I be in my rights to suddenly declare those people "squatting" on my land as thieves and criminals and low lifes stealing MY land? I was fine with them when they had something *I* needed and it to *MY* benefit but now they are "illegals" and "thieves" ?"
Again, aren't you sucking up to capitalism that you laid the blame on? What's the use of blaming capitalism when you're going to use it for your selfish purposes? It's wrong man !
Sucking up to Capitalism?
No I am A Socialist and believe Capitalism should be discarded. It a terrible means by which to run an economy.
To the treaties dishonored. Just go and read some of them...I suggest you start with the Laramie Treaty signed by Red Cloud. The US Governmnet violated it many times over.
As example one element of that treaty surrenderd the Black Hills to the Sioux.
Do you know why the Little Big Horn happened? It all started when Gold was found in the Black Hills and the Sioux tried to prevent the Whites from moving in on it as the TREATY acknowledged the lands as Sioux.
The army started attacking the Sioux.
Virtually every treaty was ignored and violated several times over. Do you know why Oklahoma was called Indian territory? That is where the Cherokee were forced to move at gunpoint from The Eastern USA.
The US Government saw it as a wasteland.....until about 50 years later.
Read the treaty of Guadelope Hildago. That treaty was the one signed with Mexico when it surrendered its territories after the Mexican American War. In that treaty the US agreed to honor all Land claims by Mexicans and all land grants made to Mexicans in California, Arizona and Texas. Further it allowed all Mexicans who either owned lands to had lived in those terriroties the right to return to the same.
The US failed to honor this treaty. In California as example white settlers simply moved in and started lynching and shooting Mexicans. "Sutters Mill" where that Gold was found was legally owned by Mexicans...until that Gold found and the 49'ers just moved in and claimed they now owned the land.
It goes on and on.
Its just wrong man....
Socialist? Sorry man but even Europe is discarding it because they're failing from it. I hear that Europeans want some ownership of their own instead of giving too many things away. We had some socialism here when Goldman Sachs and Fannie Freddie were getting bailed out. They should have been allowed to fail but socialism got in the way.
The treaties stuff doesn't connect with immigration but here's all I have to say about them. The natives shouldn't have been exploited or attacked defenseless. But some of them didn't believe in freedom and discovery so it became a war and they lost. Maybe the treaties didn't work out as they had originally intended. Time can change anything and treaties can become useless and outdated. Wars can erupt when people violate the treaties or try to change or abolish treaties. War is a bad thing but that's how change sometimes happens. If the natives had won, I would have respected that. Exploiting California for gold sounds similar to exploiting Iraq for oil and I don't approve of the bloodshed that went on in the process.
>>We had some socialism here when Goldman Sachs and Fannie Freddie were getting bailed out. They should have been allowed to fail but socialism got in the way.
That is not Socialism. Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs are CORPORATIONS.
What you describe is FASCISM which is the end result of Capitalism.
>>Time can change anything and treaties can become useless and outdated. Wars can erupt when people violate the treaties or try to change or abolish treaties. War is a bad thing but that's how change sometimes happens
This is the forked tongue going to work. As in speaking out both sides of the mouth and why I used those treaty violation as an example.
You are simply CONFIRMING what I said.
Under your Constitution treaties are the Supreme law of the land under the Supremacy cause. You now openly admit that because of time or "how things worked out" those treaties can be ignored.
Thus when in "YOUR" best interest, the "Rule of law" is no longer that important.
I am going to suggest that "laws that claim people are illegal" are antiquated and quaint and that "time changes everything". They are useless and outdated as witnessed by the millions of people in America "Illegaly" and working.
To Socialism failing in Europe. It in fact Capitalism failing in Europe. What they are doing is trying to take the SOCIAL and in COMMON wealth of the people to prop up the Capitalists.
In the USA the Governmnet is taking the COMMON and SOCIAL wealth of the people to bail out the bankers and wealthy elite.
"No I am A Socialist and believe Capitalism should be discarded. It a terrible means by which to run an economy."
Yeah! But we are trying to bring you into the light! :)
While you are correct, I would point out that history is littered with broken treaties. How about those you guys broke with the Indians in Canada?
I'd also tell you the Spanish didn't exactly keep their word to the Aztecs.
So forth and so on.
In fact we have broken treaties with Aboriginals in Canada. I admit that. We have not broken near as many as those of the USA. Furthermore the treaties we signed were not entered into at Gunpoint.
The Courts have consistently ruled in Favor of the natives when they come to the crown indicating a treaty violated. I fully support those rulings.
As example a treaty was broken here in Vancouver with the Musqueam band wherein a chunk of land in Downtown Vancouver was illegaly taken from the tribe. The natives won that case. The natives acknowledged it would be impossible to deal with the fact that massive devlopment had happened on that land so agreed to settle fro 10's of millions of dollars in compesaation. I fully agreed with that.
There ARE Canadians who think the natives should get nothing. I vehemently disagree with them.
Now I will disagree with those who claim that the first settlers came to Canada uninvited. This simply not true. When the French first settled Canada they SOUGHT OUT an area heavily populated with Natives as they wished to trade with the same. The various groups of Indians were competing to have the French settle in their territory because they wanted access to European goods and saw an alliance with the french as giving them a Strategic advanatge over other tribes. They even helped the French find the best lands to settle and start their farms.
The early part of Canada's settlement was very much a partnership with the Aboriginals. Champlain adopted many of the Aboriginal laws and customs. It my belief the Aboriginals played the greater role in "Canada's founding".
(Some 200 years after Champlain in the Black Hawk rebellion near Chicago, the Leader of the Blackhawk tribe at the time referred to Champlain as one of the few "white men" who would keep his word)
It is also my belief that we abandoned this "partnership" to our great loss and as a nation should seek to re-establish the same.
When natives in Canada win "yet another land claim" I tend to cheer them on. We owe them a lot.
So yes we broke treaties with the Natives In Canada. At the same time *I* am not one arguing that because people might be in Canada "Illegaly" they should not be allowed jobs or social services.
Well we made a lot more treaties. So we were able to break a lot more.
"There ARE Canadians who think the natives should get nothing. I vehemently disagree with them." Thats OK thyere are xcsome ass..... down here that think the Native Americans are all doing swell and everyone owns a Casino and drives a Bently. Ignats know no border.
"Now I will disagree with those who claim that the first settlers came to Canada uninvited. This simply not true. When the French first settled Canada they SOUGHT OUT an area heavily populated with Natives as they wished to trade with the same. The various groups of Indians were competing to have the French settle in their territory because they wanted access to European goods and saw an alliance with the french as giving them a Strategic advanatge over other tribes. They even helped the French find the best lands to settle and start their farms."
Thats about the same as happened here in many areas. If they had known History would have been very different. The Aztec Empire might well be astride this continent!
Sorry readbetweenthe_lines but we won and the natives then lost so it's our but we're making amends so just shut up already.
I don't dispute the disgraceful history of the US in relationship with 'first nations' (I prefer the Canadian reference) - in fact, it's probably worse than we know. What I find interesting is that you refer to the 'first nations' as 'Native Americans'. Surely the last thing you want to be considered, given your complaints, is an American.
Finally, please, one of you back to indians types, explain to me where in nature it is suggested that the first occupants of a geographical area have a right of eternal occupation of that area? Nothing else in nature works that way.
GW NORTH: Great post! We're seeing a merger of the religious view of Calvinism melded to corporatism. Media has shaped a set of memes that reinforce the rationales behind both. And of course this is great news for profits direct from the prison-industrial/military-industrial, big pharma/big chemical/big insurance "state."
Who told them to come here and steal our jobs for less? They shouldn't have entered the country illegally. It's against the law. Hey, Mexico and Canada don't allow USAns to enter illegally. Why should we open our borders if they're closing theirs? It's not fair and it's morally WRONG !
"Illegal" or "undocumented" before all occurrences of the word immigrant. Must be the text editing software.
If we open the borders, there is no need for immigration and/or INS at all is there? Just take away the border patrol, and even customs at ports. Why try to control it at all? Why restrict ANYONE? Maybe we should discuss the reasons for doing or not doing this. My question is: if we do this, who will pay for the care of thousands and even millions of new individuals? Or is that even a meaningful question?
Should we raise taxes, provide the newcomers with a guarantee of employment? This seems to me to be at the heart of this debate. What would be the pros and cons of open borders? All other discussions about legal and illegal are essentially pointing to this, no? They really amount to meaningless debates that end in accusation and name calling. I wonder if either side is able to look at the issue objectively. The pro open border group claims that if we open the border, it will be like one big party, with no problems at all, and be completely beneficial with no or only a negligible downside, while the other side claims it will be the end of the world and US economy as we know it. So, what are the pros and cons to completely opening the borders (I say borders, plural, because only allowing one race of people to come would be highly discriminatory and racist)? What are the ramifications, good or ill?
You see, if there is no such thing as an 'illegal alien,' there is really no such thing as a citizen or legal alien--open borders would mean that anyone, anywhere who wants to come is automatically legal. Let's get off the Latino kick here too. This means Chinese, Haitians, Africans, Filipino, Indians--every nationality.
Honestly, to the open border advocates: why should we NOT do this? Also, if this is such a great idea, why has no other country yet adopted it?
I fully expect a lot of disingenuous, non-objective responses here, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
And why is it that certain people jump to such ridiculous conclusions that we have to provide a guarantee of employment or welfare or health care for "illegal" immigrants when us so-called "legal" white people aren't given any guarantee of those same things? And I don't know any serious person who advocates an open border where it would be one big party with no problems. Your invitation to a discussion itself is disingenuous and non-objective.
Given that your post is itself filled with disingenuous questions and statements, and not in anyway "objective", why should anyone give you a non-disingenuous and "objective" response?
"My question is: if we do this, who will pay for the care of thousands and even millions of new individuals? Or is that even a meaningful question?"
Disingenuous question.
"he pro open border group claims that if we open the border, it will be like one big party, with no problems at all, and be completely beneficial with no or only a negligible downside, "
Disingenuous. Strawman.
"Honestly, to the open border advocates: why should we NOT do this? Also, if this is such a great idea, why has no other country yet adopted it?"
If you were actually honestly wondering, go read the article on USAID and outsourcing on the frontpage.
RFLOH: Nice work.
The use of the "us" versus "them" frame is a particularly ugly one coming from posters on a purportedly progressive website! Where is the humanity? Find that, and then the financial questions fall into place. Having stated that, I also realize that most conduits of genuine justice (not to mention law and order as tied to viable principles) have broken down in the U.S.A today. What we're seeing is a continued upping of the ante in the use of force to control citizens. Anyone who is so color-blind as to not notice that this is precisely the process spoken about in the chilling adage, "First they came for," is entirely missing the forest for the trees. YOUR liberty is at stake, or what's left of it! Once the door is open for the boots to seize the "illegal alien," it won't be long before it opens for you!
None of that is what I was asking. The only question is: Why should we open or not open the borders? You framed it in terms of 'us' verses 'them.' Maybe there's a bigger them theme of poor versus rich, or even poor versus poorer. Let me pose another question: if this is not the right time for open borders, what must we do first to achieve it? Believe it or not, I think open borders would be awesome under different circumstances; I just don't believe it can be a 'one-country' solution, but must include global economic cooperation.
I also do think it's ugly to talk like it involves only 'one color,' as if they are the only immigrants that matter. Likewise, it amounts to a giant farce to pretend to have a naturalization process that some must follow and not others. That might appear to be a double standard and an insult to many as well. Ask any immigrant that has gone through the process if he or she thought it was 'fun,' and I doubt you'd get even one affirmative answer.
Here's Ralph Nader's response to the question of open borders:
"We cannot have open borders. That’s a totally absurd proposition. It would depress wages here enormously, and tens of millions of people from all levels, including scientists and workers, would be pouring into this country. One way is to provide work permits for people who come in and do work for short periods of time that Americans don’t want to do instead of criminalizing the border."
Clearly, Nader does not believe in open borders, but short term work permits. What I see is not a discussion about immigration, but a lot of flaming and projection. Seems like CD has it own brand of fundamentalists, just not of the religious variety.
"What I see is not a discussion about immigration, but a lot of flaming and projection. Seems like CD has it own brand of fundamentalists, just not of the religious variety."
That's about the size of it apparently.
It seems if someone has the nothing of factual value to say, they can think of nothing but personal attacks and charges of this and that. Fairly pathetic.
"Why should we open or not open the borders?"
I'll take a small swing at this for you. I'd suggest its because we cannot afford anymore environmental damage, we can't afford to keep increasing the use of fuels, we can't support the influx in almost anyway you'd name. Not economically, not medically nor educationally. Its overwhelming us just with illegal's. My state spent over a billion dollars last year on medical care for illegal's, That was money that did not come from Federal taxes and little from state taxes. Most of the burden is bourne locally. Educational costs were more than double that, once again not paid for by the Federal government, but local taxpayers.
Ralph is correct of course, except we already have many works programs. Problem is if they bring in workers legally, they cost them almost double and they are responsible if they are hurt or injured.
Yes. Shame on you chessgames for posting a direct and accurate quote by Ralph Nader. ( I have also read this quote.)
Your facts are really getting in the way of Ardent's hateful rants and are downright rude.
You didn't answer either. Not one single thing. As usual.
Mighty: they do not want to answer because in doing so they would have to concede to some of the problems such a policy would involve--the same problems many border states are presently experiencing to a greater of lesser extent. They prefer self-righteous condemnation of those who disagree with their crusade. That said, I have read some well-reasoned responses that address the trade agreements and government policies abroad. These greedy and misguided policies are starting to have serious consequences, in spite of the best effort of those in power to hide them. Desperation leading to migration is certainly one of them. Unless it's a complete fabrication, border states are facing some serious difficulties. Arizona has fired a shot over the bow, so to speak, and other states are sure to follow--while Obama and the federal government remain asleep at the wheel. Big government has no qualms about turning the other way when it serves the interest of business, regardless of who gets exploited or what gets stolen; neither business, nor government has any conscience. Let's hope things get uncomfortable enough for this administration to address immigration and related issues, though I wouldn't hold my breath.