Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Immigrants Occupy! Broadening a Movement Culture
The Occupy movements around the country have touched different communities in different ways, resonating with local issues as well as bringing local folks to the front lines of a national struggle for economic justice. For many immigrant communities, everyday struggles with the legal system and the economic crisis encapsulate some of the core issues driving the Occupy ethos. Yet those same issues can be a hindrance to organizing.
As the protests picked up momentum back in October, John Michael Torres, an activist from McAllen, Texas, a low-income largely Latino community, told NPR’s Latino USA:
[L]ittle by little people are starting to understand that this is a big deal… But at the same time you have people who maybe don’t have a TV in their house. Who don’t have the Internet… So in a very poor area of the country, you have that disconnect from what’s going on in the rest of the country. Which is why it’s so important that we’re out there in public spaces, that we’re not relying on the mass media to tell our own stories, but we’re inviting people to come and sit down with us, to participate, to share their own stories as well.
Back at Ground Zero of OWS, Fox News Latino reported:
Occupy groups, who have said they need Hispanics and other immigrants to rally to their cause, have realized that the growing number of arrests could frighten undocumented immigrants – and they’ve taken steps to make sure they aren’t a neglected group.
Mariano Muñoz, who is part of the Spanish assembly for Occupy Wall Street in New York, said it is an issue they are aware of and trying to address.
He said immigration training classes are offered to undocumented who want to join, where legal experts and lawyers address any questions they may have, any issues they could face and how to deal with worst-case-scenario cases. The classes offer police procedure and immigration rights instruction.
“Once they know the issues and are aware of the risks, it is up to the people to make up their mind,” Muñoz said. “Sometimes, the issues and the cause are more important than deportation.”
Teresa Puente recently wrote in In These Times that the convergence between the immigrant rights struggle and Occupy is growing increasingly profound, even as rifts within the movement–across culture, ethnicity and class–grow more apparent:
In New York, protests have attracted individuals who are passionate about immigration reform. Natalia Fajardo, 27, traveled to the city from Burlington, Vt., to spend a Sunday afternoon at Zuccotti Park with her sister, Laura, who came up from Florida. Fajardo works for an organization called Justicia Migrante, a group that advocates for lettuce workers in Vermont.
“The [Occupy] movement was started by mostly middle-class and white people who are impacted by the high cost of education, cuts in public services. These are things that people in the immigrant community have dealt with for a long time,” says Fajardo, a native of Colombia. “We all know these themes impact us equally.”
Tania Unzueta, a leader of the Immigrant Youth Justice League in Chicago, is among the DREAM Act activists protesting immigration policy locally and nationally. She says her family–her father and sister are also activists–and many immigrant youth are not joining the Occupy movement because there is so much work to do in the immigrant rights movement. “All of a sudden people are saying ‘We are part of the 99%,’” Unzueta says. “But we have been saying that for a long time, and nobody has been listening to us.”
But is Occupy speaking to them? New America Media’s round-up of coverage in ethnic community news outlets shows ambivalence, but also growing consciousness, among California’s Asian American community:
Oakland Chinatown Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council president Carl Chan said the shutdown of the Oakland Port has diverted cargo ships to ports in Los Angeles and other cities. That’s forcing many businesses to have to pay for transferring the cargo to the Bay Area. Small business owners belonging to the 99 percent are financially hurt.
Still, some ethnic media say the Occupy movement has captured the imagination of readers, and brought the issues of class, the wealth gap and poverty to the forefront of public debate.
Giao Pham, managing editor of Nguoi Viet based in Westminster, Calif., said his Vietnamese daily continues to track the Occupy movement, because there’s interest in the community.
“People recognize that the movement is getting bigger and they discuss the meaning of the movement,” he said. “The Vietnamese community here in the U.S., we’re new and not rich. People discuss the one percent and the 99 percent, which they belong to.”
The obstacles to organizing stem from social barriers ranging from race to geography, but they also reflect the shortcomings of a movement culture that fails to be as inclusive as it claims. Fortunately this is turning around on the new cultural front that the Occupy protests have generated. Participants are by necessity constantly inventing new modes of communication, dialogue, and creative protest. On December 18, International Migrants Day, Occupy activists will march in the Immigrants Occupy! Rally, led by the Immigrant Workers Justice Working Group of Occupy Wall Street. The poster for the event says it all, and in more than one language.
- 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...
131 Comments so far
Show Allbigotech: If I'd seen this thread earlier I would have known you were a bigot sooner.
Always nice to see the racists at CD show their true colours.
I don't think Two Americas is actually racist, though some of his comments could be interpreted that way. I prefer to refute them with facts and logic, and not resort to demonizing labels such as 'racist'.
WTF?
Are people losing their minds here?
I am being accused of "playing the race card" too much, of objecting too often to racism. People are objecting when I point out racist statements they have made.
The other person did not call me out, and what you just did is a sleazy and dishonest trick.
What comments of mine "could be interpreted that way?"
Two Americas,
I will be honest with you and tell you straight up - your 'parody' was done in bad taste! I was a little disappointed in the way you chose to deal with the situation. Here's why, almost every person that were not born in the U.K. have had a bad history here. To talk about the blacks, yet, use the term Negroes, and insert plantations, well, that was a painful legacy of the victims/families that have stained this country. And what I don't understand, why is blacks always dragged into a lot of mess? You know, the Native Americans, Irish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Welsh and numerous other racial groups have not had it all that good. So you'll know, Irish allegedly came from a history of enslavement as well. Look up St. Patrick's day for a start - they used to kidnap Irish kids to enslave them in the Caribbean. Native Americans/Aboriginals went through a similar type situation. Men from Mexico was brought here with the Bracero Program. I can personally say it was shocking for you to attempt to pass this off as parody and as a way to make the other commenter realize what he/she wrote, like a tit-for-tat, especially when I see the way some talk about the Pres - I find it insulting and offensive. You can't say it's parody if this was something that inserted the disabled or LGBT. Maybe you didn't understand the message or power of your words, but, I can tell you, that was definitely below the belt. And for people to keep thinking that this is the only way the blacks arrived in this country, through slavery, I guess they really don't know this country's history at all! All I can say is, once you say something, sometimes you can't take it back - and that is why I tell my friends when they are angry with the husbands/boyfriends to walk it off, because once they say something whether out of anger or spite - the receiver of the message will never forget it.
You misrepresent what I said, as well as my intentions and the potential effects.
Yes, it would still be a parody no matter what persecuted and targeted group I inserted in the other poster's rant.
It is not "insensitive" or hateful to respond to racism and hatred with biting parody. It just isn't. It is not a crime to shock or jar people, especially in opposition to the tidal wave of racist hatred we are seeing in the US now.
I see nothing wrong with working class immigrants joining OWS as they will further help this nation in healing itself of the rugged individualist mentality that got us and this planet to where it is at. Thank you Ms. Chen and pay no attention to the racist warmongers whose only solution is to scream "illegal aliens" and call for "border walls". Besides, nearly all USAns are IMMIGRANTS or descendents of immigrants.
Thank you.
As we debate this issue here today the government is in the process of setting up mechanisms whereby any one of us, or all of us, could be declared "illegal."
There are those here insisting that their opposition is not toward immigrants, not toward people of color, but rather they oppose "illegals."
Therefore, by their logic - if we are to believe them - the harassing, rounding up and detention of white people who are not immigrants would be fine with them, so long as they are "illegals." After all, they claim that it is not about race and it is not about immigrants.
Wow, you're pulling out all the stops, aren't you? Conflating illegal immigration with over-reaching gov't. It's this very diversion that keeps us from focusing on what's important to CITIZENS. Well done, Agent Two, the plan is going as expected.
citizens are all those who live in a city, nation, or planet. we are all citizens of this country, no matter what our legal status. if occupy makes a distinction between the needs and rights of citizens and non-citizens, it will be doomed to fail. global capital exploits citizen and immigrant alike, exploits US and foreign worker. if we do not recognize that and fight together, it will be like fighting with one arm tied behind our back. they (the 1%) got the power of the government and all it's might. we only have each other.
also, to the whole legal and illegal business, anyone who uses the term illegal to refer to those who've crossed the border without permission (therefore breaking the law, therefore being "illegals") should look at themselves and ask, "am I an illegal for not stopping for three seconds at every stop sign? for texting or using the phone while driving? for speeding? for ever having drank alcohol underage?" all those things are illegal. by that logic, anyone who's partook in such activity are "illegals." I don't think i'm an illegal and i don't call undocumented immigrants illegal either.
OK Juan-Miguel, it is my choice to distinguish between "illegal" or "legal". And it is my choice to disagree with your self-imposed rules of dialogue.You would have much more credibility if you had the courage to go to Mexico and help make fundamental change in that country. But you're quite comfortable here, aren't you. "Fight together" -laughable. I know too much about your culture.......
I'm the guy (John-Michael) quoted up there and wanted to draw attention to another structural barrier to participation of immigrant communities in the Occupy protests, namely the reliance on the internet. it's not like how i described it any more down here, with us being in public spaces so that those poor people (mostly immigrant, documented or otherwise) without internet access can see what's going on and share in the movement. now that the cold and rainy weather is hitting, we don't have a regular outside, public space to meet. and the fact that we are all doing this on our free time means that we rely heavily on the technology that is must efficient for the organizers/facilitators to schedule meetings and events, which is the internet. that cuts out a whole sector of the population from finding out where we're at each week. we're pretty much only public on the net now a days.
now that most of the occupations have been pushed out of public spaces, for this movement to continue to grow to include poor and immigrant communities, that problem needs to be overcome. but because there are few private spaces in this country that are regularly available for organizing, it will be difficult. locally there are few spaces that we can use regularly and none we can use on a weekly basis for this kind of work. therefore, it will be hard to overcome the problem any time soon. we will have to continue moving around and continue relying on internet to coordinate and promote meetings/actions.
Michelle Chen has long been an advocate of one of the issues closest to the hearts of the richest 1% - flooding this country with poor immigrants to further drive down wages and weaken unions. How anyone can say they are "progressive" and advocate something that is so anti-American worker is beyond ridiculous.
The fact that some OWS members and other "progressives" agree with Chen shows how clueless they are. They are tools for the very people they claim to be against. While I generally agree with OWS, this blindness when it comes to illegal immigration is mind-boggling. It seems too many of them are terrified of being labeled "racist" rather than doing the right thing.
Even if many illegal immigrants did join OWS, a rather ridiculous and self-defeating idea, what, exactly would they do? Demand higher wages as illegal aliens? Then they would get displaced by other illegal immigrants from south of the border who would be happy to take their job.
How many people know that of all the jobs created in Texas since 2007, about 80% went to immigrants(both legal and illegal) - http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/immigrants-obtained-more-jobs-texas-natives/
In a way, the "Two Americas" idea is very much real. The reason the richest 1% are such big advocates of more immigration(besides the fact that they profit from it) is because they live in their own virtual country, insulated from the negative effects of mass immigration. It is the 99% and especially the bottom part of the 99% who experience more of the negative aspects of mass immigration with lowered wages, and overcrowded schools. Why do you think local and federal government is so much more enthusiastic about shutting down OWS protests all over the country rather than shutting down businesses that hire illegals? The illegals are the "reserve army" of the rich who do a terrific job of helping the rich get richer; hardly people the OWS should befriend, unless it wants to destroy itself, which, unfortunately, it surely will, due to all the tools and fools of the 1% co-opting the movement. What next, protesters of OWS demanding abolishing ALL taxes for the 1%, since the 99% and 1% are such natural friends and we should help the 1% so they will help us in turn? I mean, why be so divisive, why not abolish taxes on the super-rich to get them to join the movement?
Rather than mass deportation, there should be a lot more enforcement of the border and heavy fines for those hiring illegal immigrants. I want to be humane to the illegals, so their employers should get the brunt of the punishment, including jail time for repeat offenders. Amnesty would just repeat the disaster of 1986, except so much worse this time. For those who recognize the connection between immigration, both legal and illegal, and wages, unions and quality of life issues, ignore those calling you "racist". The people using it are puppets of the 99%. It is so overused that is has become meaningless and is laughed at by those who know better.
Agreed that Chen and others are trying to co-opt OWS, and ironically with Wall Street's own low-wage-policy rhetoric! Duh. Few are buying it though. And, I think you meant that those using the "racist" smear are puppets of the 1%.
peaceistruth: "The reason the richest 1% are such big advocates of more immigration(besides the fact that they profit from it) is because they live in their own virtual country, insulated from the negative effects of mass immigration."
Excellent point. I made a similar argument in a different thread on immigration issues. I pointed out that even if you open up the U.S.'s national borders and allow immigrants to flood in at will, you will only end up creating NEW "borders" WITHIN the U.S. --borders between the ultra-rich and the vast underclass. Mega-slums with all their attendant pathologies will arise, as in other overpopulated developing countries . Yet the wealthy will be safely esconced in their gated communities. They will have the freedom to travel anywhere in the world and join up at anytime with their transnational capitalist class brothers and sisters. The U.S. underclass will be trapped in their new cages, even though the national "borders" are open.
I do however disagree on the issue of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already established in the country. IF truly effective and strictly enforced sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants is implemented, and border security is substantially increased, illegal immigration will virtually become a thing of the past; practically all new immigrants would be legal, with full rights and protections as workers.
Under THESE circumstances it makes sense to provide a path to citizenship (with reasonable restrictions) to illegal immigrants who have worked hard and have not broken the law, except by illegally entering the country. The thing is: it would be terribly inhumane if not practically impossible to deport some tens of millions of people--it is just not going to happen, period.
And if they are not deported, they would remain as a super-exploitable subclass or workers without full legal rights and protections--that is not a good situation either, on moral, social and political grounds.
Politically, there needs to be a historic COMPROMISE on immigration--combining an effective moratorium on immigration (legal and illegal) PLUS effective sanctions against employers hiring illegals PLUS increased border security PLUS a new agency or organization to rationally study the issue and determine the optimum number and type of immigrant flows that would be best for the *quality of life* in America, not best for the profits of the 1%.
There is another moral-legal argument for a path to citizenship for established illegal immigrants. Anti-amnesty folks argue often that "illegal immigrants broke the law, so it wouldn't be fair to reward them, while others who played by the rules get passed over".
This argument may sound reasonable to some, but it is actually specious. If a transgression of a law is to be actionable, that law must one that has been enforced in some reasonable fashion. A law that is on the books, but which is never or rarely enforced, ceases to be an actionable law. It becomes a dead law.
For example, if you ever find yourself driving at night through rural parts of Pennsylvania, state law requires that you stop every mile to send up a rocket signal (http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/more-us-law/top-craziest-laws-still). That law is not enforced, and because of that it is a dead law, not actionable, with NO moral or legal force.
Now if we look at illegal immigration, we can see that for many years, laws against hiring illegal immigrants were simply NOT enforced. The U.S. as a nation basically said, " come on in here folks, we will not enforce the laws against employers hiring you--just ignore those laws, we need your labor". Thus many of the immigrants that came here didn't really violate laws that were being reasonably enforced, so they really were not committing any actionable crime. Of course, some laws against illegal immigrants recently begun to be enforced with more vigor--but that doesn't change the basic fact that many immigrants came here to find jobs, that they were encouraged to come here, that they were hired to work, and that laws against their hiring were not enforced.
What this adds up to is: most of the long-established illegal immigrants in the country should not be held accountable morally or legally for breaking laws that were in fact not being enforced or very weakly and intermittently enforced.
The time has come to change this. Long-established illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship and full civil and human rights. They deserve that! But that's it. No more illegal immigrants. Stiff employer sanctions. Perp walks. Heavy sentences. Professionalized, competent and effective border control. Any NEW illegal immigrants after a certain date --there would be very, very few--would be subject to strictly enforced laws and held morally and legally accountable for their legal transgressions.
In countries around the world that have stiff employer sanctions and effective border control, there is hardly any problem of illegal immigration. So the fears that if a path the citizenship were granted, this would encourage even more illegal immigration, are unfounded. When amnesty was implemented in the past (1986) it was NOT combined with strict employer sanctions. Therefore, that experience cannot be used to argue against what I have just proposed.
"IF truly effective and strictly enforced sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants is implemented..."
If??? If pigs could fly the world would be covered in shit.
The point is (as I said to you in an earlier post), employer sanctions were provided in the 1986 law. They are rarely enforced. How do you think amnesty for another 12 million would change that?
Why do you want to make the same mistake all over again?
And by the way, all of the rationale you offer for amnesty combined with "no more illegal immigrants. Stiff employer sanctions, etc." is exactly the same rationale used to persuade Congress to pass (and Reagan to sign) the 1986 law. Exactly the same! It's as if you are deliberately mocking the 99% of us who want economic justice.
And please stop repeating the canard that "deporting millions is impossible." Since we know that up to eight million have left under their own power in recent years due to the recession and lack of jobs, we know there is no need or reason to deport anyone.
We should enforce the employer sanctions in current law and grant no further amnesty or normalization (thereby turning off the "jobs magnet"). Illegals will self-deport.
Speed the process along by reporting illegal employers at wehirealiens.com, or directly to ice.gov, and by calling your Congress critters.
Repeating the mistake of amnesty would only encourage yet another round of illegal migration, followed by yet another round of calls for amnesty, ad infinitum.
The answer to this fear is clear: don't pass one part of the "compromise" without the other. Don't support a path to citizenship UNLESS it is combined with stiff employer sanctions that have BINDING enforcement methods. Don't be fooled by simple promises of enforcement.
Your argument boils down to: something didn't happen in the past, THEREFORE it can never happen in the future. That is perfectly illogical. You have left the realm of rational argument and entered into pure dogma.
Finally, if as you claim, all the illegal immigrants are leaving on their own accord, what's your problem? What are you all bent out of shape about? Like the neoliberal Economist magazine claims, the problem is "fixing itself"--the "free market" and the laws of supply and demand are simply working their invisible magic.
I don't believe that is true, but even if it is, the problem will simply reappear if and when the economy picks up again.
NOW is the time for rational, compassionate, politically feasible immigration reform. Thinking that the problem will "fix itself via the invisible hand of the "free market" is a dangerous illusion, imho.
You didn't answer the question. Again, strict employer sanctions were provided in the 1986 law. They are rarely enforced. How do you think amnesty for another 12 million would change that??? Tell me how! And don't ignore the question to tell me about some other "part" of your proposed law.
The answer is obvious. Another round of amnesty would not have any positive impact on enforcement of employer sanctions at all.
In fact, the only impact on enforcement would be negative. Scofflaw corporations with 3000 illegals on their factory floors would be rewarded for their lawbreaking and instantly transformed into law-abiding employers. Law enforcement agencies and officers would be substantially stymied and greatly demoralized.
The truth is there is no reason to tie law enforcement to amnesty at all. None! We could simply enforce the current employer sanctions, or we could pass a law to strengthen employer sanctions, or we could increase budgets and throw more resources at the enforcement of employer sanctions, or we could do all three. A new round of amnesty is not required to pursue any of these options.
You claim your "new" employer sanctions would be "binding" and the 1986 sanctions are not. How? How do you force the enforcers to enforce the law? The executive branch enforces federal laws, or it does not. The president appoints the attorney general and all the other cabinet secretaries, and he can fire them. The president can even issue executive orders instructing federal agencies to ignore new legislation (called "signing statements") AND court orders, and that has been happening with great frequency during the past two administrations. Tell me how Congress can REQUIRE the president to enforce a law, short of amending the Constitution.
Next, you say you "don't believe" that the high of 20 million illegals in the U.S. is now down to 12 million? Or, you "don't believe" the U.S. did NOT deport those 8 million? In either case, the facts are the facts. And, the facts prove that mass deportation is not required, there is no need or reason to deport anyone, and your oft-repeated canard that "it's impossible to deport" millions of people is misleading rhetoric.
Finally, "what's my problem?" My problem is you, masquerading as an advocate for economic justice in the Ralph Nader tradition, while simultaneously making Wall Street's low-wage-policy arguments for them.
Some of your points don't reconcile. A path to citizenship for long-established illegals? That is amnesty. Amnesty is a reward and worth any risk to an illegal.
And in another post you would grant citizenship to children born here? In my neck o the woods that is the typical MO by the illegals. So widespread that one-third of the children in Albuquerque Public Schools come from non-English speaking families.
The naivety here is astounding. But let's deal with the reality. The corporate masters want a new compliant demographic, more consumers, more cannon-fodder for empire, grateful wage-slaves. It's gonna happen. In the meantime the " lowest-common denominator" will prevail as Latin America's excess population (look at their birth-rates) pour in. Maybe the US becomes half-billion or more, AGW continues, migrations/displacements continue, environment exploitation continues, CO2 blooms, water is scarce. The illegals and their enablers are only too willing to accommodate all of it.
Here's my thoughts: Send Chen and all of these other pro-amnesty hacks to Latin America to work for change.
Revoke the US citizenship birthright in regards to illegal immigration
Fine and imprison employers who hire illegals
Increase border security
Think it's gonna happen? Of course not, so no need for any pro-amnesty types to get their panties in a bunch
I put forward a reasonable proposal,; you say it's not possible.
What then is your proposed solution that is realistic, and politically imaginable?
"What then is your proposed solution that is realistic, and politically imaginable?"
Kind of a loaded question, don't you think? I mean, come on Prog, "realistic" and "imaginable". A sucker's bet........
Okay, what is your proposal, period? I'm not trying to play games here, just find out what your position is.
Deductive reasoning will tell you that I disagree with only two of your positions -amnesty and birthright (14th amend). We already have data on the ineffectiveness of amnesty. Would we trust policy-makers to get it right this time? I can't remember when Con-gress actually did anything for the benefit of the American people. I don't remember rewarding my children's bad behavior with amnesty either.
Illegals have made a mockery of the 14th Amendment. They've gutted any moral value it might have had. It's been reduced to nothing more than a loophole that needs to be closed. That has been mentioned by some politicians and it gets good reception by the general public. Perhaps a compromise of amnesty and revocation of the 14th would be "imaginable'.
The majority of American people are opposed to illegal immigration mainly on the grounds of fairness to legal immigrants. Here on the border it's a bit more visceral. We're seeing changes that are having profound effect on schools, tax-base, crime, the environment and just basic civility. Ever been to Mexico (not the resorts)?
"Perhaps a compromise of amnesty and revocation of the 14th would be "imaginable'."
Well, were making some progress! -:)
I think if there are no compromises the status quo will remain unchanged, and all the problems you rail against will not be solved.
It's still a long-shot though-- Big Business will shoot down any reasonable compromise proposals if left and right-wing demagogues haven't already made them DOA.
"I think if there are no compromises the status quo will remain unchanged, and all the problems you rail against will not be solved."
Compromise solves problems for the illegals, not us.
No,principled compromise could solve problems for everybody, including the problem of too much immigration AND the problem of super-exploitation of illegal immigrants.
No compromises-=no solutions= problems for everyone remain (except for the elites who benefit from a low-wage, high-profit regime)
ProgressivePopulist,
Here, I offer my apology to you as well as Two Americas. Here's why, Logitech, wrote that it appeared my comments were a 'political scolding.' That is never my intent. Sometimes I do realize later that when I say things, it may seem a little harsh - however, please note that I usually try to just get to the point, explain my position. I did read your points on how you described that the system/procedures/policies set forth didn't work - and I agree with them.
I just don't agree that we should place restrictions as far as treatment of the immigrants. But please, let me explain this. This is why I don't think this way, and why I think they should be treated as citizens while they are here. First off, I believe it would be discriminatory in nature. Now, I'm not saying put them in a mansion...Now, I have been to Italy, and saw first hand how the Roma (people some refer to as Gypsies) are homeless, as they are not entitled to anything since they are not residents. I've seen how they beg and while they are begging someone else, sometimes children will pickpocket you - sometimes they do the pickpocket themselves while they are begging. To me, this in itself is class/social warfare, it creates divisions...so again, with telling people they are entitled to only, let's say, maybe housing and medical and to look to charities for food - well, this in itself can create crimes - people will do what it takes to survive, whether they have to steal or rob. With housing here in Califas - some of the housing projects are being privatized, then there's the famous SRO (Single Room Occupany), motel rooms are being converted to housing for one-person only, but they are either state or federal funding - meaning it is like a section 8 or income restricted type housing for low income.
The other problem this creates is we have the one-foot type policy for Cuban nationals based on the pretext that they come from a 'communist' country. Well, we see what is happening in Mexico. Something that is not getting much attention is Honduras, right now, people are being killed - students...not sure what it's all about, but some of the residents are saying it's suspicious because they feel some are being targeted.
Something that caught my eye was this article printed at the site legitgov.org, it was a story 'Alarm as Dutch Lab Creates Highly Contagious Killer Flu,' 12-20-2011, and the info she pointed out was outright scary - this article is on other websites, but, again, please see what she wrote.
"I just don't agree that we should place restrictions as far as treatment of the immigrants. But please, let me explain this. This is why I don't think this way, and why I think they should be treated as citizens while they are here."
I agree completely. That's why I support a path to citizenship and full legal rights for illegal immigrants already established in the country. But I also support strictly enforced employer sanctions etc. to put an end to illegal immigration completely, so these problems never arise again. All immigration should be legal, and controlled rationally to enhance the quality of life in America, not support the needs of Wall Street and their low-wage policy.
Virtually all employers, workers, immigrants, and those concerned about the inherent threat to civil rights associated with the crackdowns want nothing more and nothing less than what you suggest here - a path to citizenship and full legal rights for illegal immigrants already established in the country, and consistent and clear - and fair - policies and procedures for employers and employees.
As it is now, immigration law is strongly weighted to favor the wealthy and connected, as well as those politically right wing. I think that it is clear that wealthier immigrants and transients moving across borders are doing tremendous damage to every country, and even if all of the claims about damage being done by poor working class immigrants were true, it would still pale by comparison.
I am willing to consider any plan that does not tear the Bill of Rights to shreds and coddle and encourage the most racist and hateful minority in this country. Current law and the enforcement practices are about as far away from those conditions as could be imagined.
Delete. Wrong place