Next Battle: Immigration

[Bordercop]

The link: http://article.nationalreview.com/429851/next-battle-immigration/victor-davis-hanson

Next Battle: Immigration

What we will — and will not — hear in the upcoming debate over illegal immigration.


After the health-care fight, we can expect the Obama administration to use the same template to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.” That is a euphemism for permanently ceasing construction of the still-incomplete border fence; institutionalizing a large guest-worker program; treating illegal residents as de facto citizens in terms of receiving earned-income credits, health care, and general entitlements; and providing virtual amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens.

And what exactly is that model for passage of something that promises to be so unpopular?

We know the boilerplate well after a year of health-care acrimony. First, immigration policy — like health care, and cap-and-trade to come — will be cast as a civil-rights issue. That is, free access to the United States and, for some, its entitlement industry for millions of impoverished Mexicans will be redefined as comparable to ending discrimination in the South in the 1960s.

Next, skeptics will be branded “racists” and “nativists,” as is being done now to the tea partiers. A few House members will wade through anti-illegal-immigration rallies, and within minutes the media will announce “racial slurs” and “a scary atmosphere” suggesting “violence” and “hatred.”

This polarization is critical for the bill’s passage, since it does not have 50 percent public support — and won’t unless a series of constituencies can be united to see the issue in polarities such as us vs. them, whites vs. people of color, rich vs. poor. Blacks will be told it is Birmingham all over again. The Mexican-American middle class, highly skeptical of open borders, will be told that opposition to amnesty is “anti-Hispanic.”

So the debate will be personalized — and, above all, blurred. Opponents, we will also be told, are not bothered by illegal immigration per se. Rather they are “anti-immigrant” — as the issue is transmuted into one of hating real people rather than opposing an illegal activity.

Fence-sitting House members will be promised all sorts of special multi-million-dollar earmarks to allay “voter concern.” Executive orders will be pledged to override the more disturbing elements of congressional legislation. Anecdotes about starving children, and accusations of responsibility for the deaths of hundreds trying to cross the border in the desert, will pepper the rhetoric of open-border advocates.

The key will be to redefine as liberal something as inherently illiberal as illegal immigration. Thus there will be no discussion of what the surge over the last two decades of more than 11 million illegal aliens has done to poorer American workers.

We won’t hear from the Democrats that upper-middle-class suburbanites — many quite liberal —apparently see themselves as aristocratic, at least in the sense of being entitled to cheap labor for their lawn care, domestic cleaning, and child care.

They will not talk about the crisis that will occur in entitlement funding for the American poor, once additional millions of Mexican nationals overburden a finite system of health, housing, and food subsidies.

There will absolutely no discussion of the $40 to $50 billion that is sent annually back to Latin America in remittances, a great part of it by illegal aliens, who, in turn, rely on American federal, state, and local governments to make up the shortfall in their weekly paychecks. In effect, the off-the-hook Mexican government is the beneficiary of American tax dollars.

Expect silence about the current status of legal immigration from Mexico — specifically, that we accept more legal immigrants from Mexico than from any other nation in the world, hardly the behavior of a racist or nativist society.

Also, don’t mention the deleterious effects that sudden influxes of millions of illegal immigrants have on the processes of assimilation, intermarriage, and integration — the traditional mechanisms by which legal arrivals successfully melt into the American mainstream. To suggest that one’s tribe, race, or ethnicity should be incidental to being an American, or to point out that vast enclaves of unassimilated aliens live in virtual segregation, is now a heresy of the first order.

We can be sure that no one on the left side of the aisle will cite the utter cynicism of the Mexican government, which exports poor brown people from its interior, whom it does not wish to help, even as it welcomes largely rich white people to its picturesque coast. What else but cynical is it to provide little housing support for millions of your own in Oaxaca while encouraging second-home construction by foreigners in Baja?

So Obama and his congressional allies will make every effort to prevent discussion of the issues, because they revolve around a simple matter of following the law and ensuring that those who emigrate from Mexico do so in the same manner as thousands do from Kenya, South Korea, or Russia — legally and in reasonable numbers.

There would be no debate if each day freighters were arriving to unload on the coast of Texas or California 3,000 illegal aliens from Nigeria or China, most of whom did not speak English or have a high-school diploma.

So-called immigration reform, in other words, is not about the concept of illegal immigration from poor countries in general; rather, it is about massive illegal immigration from Latin America and in particular Mexico — and it hinges entirely on political considerations.

Millions of illegal aliens have become citizens through past blanket amnesties, and they are likely, at least for a while, to vote in bloc for liberal and/or Hispanic candidates. The idea of enlarging that pool of loyal constituents by another 5 to 6 million people of voting age is too great a temptation to refuse, especially given the decisive effects to be expected on close elections in the American southwest. The more entitlements are extended to illegal aliens, the more liberal politicians can remind continued generations that they alone were responsible for such institutionalized federal subsidies.

For a smaller fringe of Hispanic activists — found largely in academia, the foundations, journalism, and politics — illegal immigration is a matter of ethnic pride, some racial chauvinism (cf. the old MEChA slogan, “For the race everything; outside the race, nothing”), and a welcomed sense of irony that demography is now redefining the old Spanish northern provinces once lost through war. After all, in 2010 there is still a national lobbying organization with the fossilized name La Raza (The Race), a racially chauvinistic term that would be considered uncouth if employed by whites — but one that enhances a small group of Spanish-surnamed elites through their self-appointed representation of millions of illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, though, this is not only a left-wing issue. The corporate Right in many industries — tourism, hotels, restaurants, meat-packing, landscaping, agriculture — also welcomes illiegal immigrants. These employers are as happy to have hard-working first-generation poor immigrants on their payroll as they are willing to outsource the subsequent problems of acculturation to society at large.

[Bordercop]

Will the bill pass?

We can be assured only that the debate will be as nasty as the one over health care. Yet recent developments may suggest greater difficulty than the administration imagines.

We are in a deep recession. Unemployment is still over 9 percent in some of the southwestern states, and nearly 20 percent in the inland counties of California. The old myth that native-born Americans will not clean hotel rooms or weed gardens is fading, as the unemployed now seem willing to work at jobs once considered taboo. That trend will only increase if the recession endures and unemployment benefits finally wind down.

State budgets are in a mess, and even liberals grant, for example, that some part of the California meltdown is due to the presence of some 5 to 7 million resident illegal aliens, which drives up the cost of everything from education to incarceration. Liberal teachers — California has the highest-paid teachers in the nation while its student scores rank nearly dead last — don’t like to acknowledge that the abject failure of their public schools is due to poor teaching and administration rather than in part the presence of millions who do not speak English.

The public is sensitive to the overused charge of racism. When everything from health care to immigration law is to be defined in terms of racial prejudice, it has a dulling effect. This round of the immigration debate comes after the acrimony over Eric Holder’s “cowards,” the president’s “acting stupidly” reference in the Professor Gates affair, Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina,” Van Jones’s “white polluters” — all on top of the president’s earlier quips about a “typical white person” and rural whites’ “clinging” to guns and religion. By now millions see the evocation of race as more reflective of the biases of the accuser than his target.

In 2010 we are also subjected to almost nightly news stories of horrific violence in Mexico, much of it along the border. Fairly or not, many Americans associate Mexico with lawlessness, corruption, and mayhem — the death tolls there have been far higher recently than in either Afghanistan or Iraq — and want its problems to stay on the southern side of the border.

A wiser administration would call in opponents and, in bipartisan fashion, agree to finish the border fence, toughen up employer sanctions, issue a tamper-proof ID, deport alien felons and recent arrivals, and then work out a process through which illegal aliens who are long-standing residents of the United States could reapply for residency and embark on a pathway to eventual citizenship, contingent upon payment of fines, lack of criminality, compliance with current law, and mastery of English. Then legitimate debate could take place over the thorny issue of whether aliens would first need to return home in order to begin going through these legal channels and processes.

Instead, we will see a replay of the health-care controversy. The administration has decided that winning another legislative victory in an agenda aimed at remaking America is worth the cost of dividing the country and whipping up heroes and demons. Momentum, not compromise, is the order of the day.

[ZonieDiver]

On Saturday, March 27th, longtime SE Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was killed while investigating what he called an "illegal immigrant" near one of his stock tanks. Though armed, he never was able to pull his weapon. His dog was killed as well.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_db544bc6-3b5b-11df-843b-001cc4c03286.html

No struggle apparent before Douglas rancher shot and killed, sheriff says

BISBEE — Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever called the Saturday slaying of longtime rancher Robert Krentz a "senseless shooting" by a "sick and sorry" person and said there is no evidence to suggest there was any confrontation that led to the shooting.

Krentz, who was out checking water line and fencing on his family's 35,000-acre ranch, had weapons with him in the ATV Polaris but he did not use them, Dever said.

Investigators have determined the shooting was carried out by one person but don't know anything about who it was, including if it was a man or woman. They believe it was an illegal immigrant because Krentz was heard telling his brother on the radio "illegal alien" and because the area is a known smuggling corridor.

They have no motive.

"There is absolutely no reason this had to happen other than the bad intentions of one sick, sorry individual that we hope to be able to catch up to very quickly," Dever said.

Dever said Krentz was frustrated and fed up with the illegal activity like many ranchers in the area. But he said he was compassionate and regularly helped illegal immigrants in distress.

"There is no reason to believe anything else other than that happened that day with Rob," said Dever, who added that his interest was likely to check on the shooter's welfare.

Robert Krentz was found about 1,000 feet from where they believe the shooting occurred, dead in his ATV. The ATV still had its lights on and the engine running, Dever said. There were spin out marks in the dirt, leading investigators to believe that he was trying to get away from the shooter, Dever said.

Investigators believe the shooter was headed south toward the border when Krentz encountered him. Law enforcement tracked a single set of footprints — believed to be the shooter's — for 20 miles to the U.S.-Mexico border. They also contacted Mexican authorities but so far there is no information about the suspect.

"We are assuming he escaped south into Mexico," Dever said.
Dever admitted it will be very difficult to find the shooter, and would likely require that the shooter talk about the incident with somebody.
While investigators don't have a motive yet, retaliation has been raised as a possibility, Dever said. The day before the shooting, the victim's brother, Phil Krentz, reported drug smuggling activity on the ranch to the Border Patrol.
Agents found 290 pounds of marijuana on the ranch and followed tracks to where they found and arrested eight illegal immigrants, said Border Patrol Tucson Sector deputy chief Robert Boatright. None were prosecuted because of a lack of evidence. They were all in custody when the shooting occurred, he said.

Krentz regularly called the Border Patrol to let them know about illegal activity on the ranch, the agency said.

Dever also said there was another incident within 24 hours of the shooting that could be connected involving a gun, but he would not elaborate.
The area where the shooting occurred is a well-known drug and people smuggling corridor, Boatright said. In the summer of 2009, after seeing a spike in activity in the area, the agency opened a base staffed around the clock with 20 agents.

Dever said his deputies have responded to numerous calls from residents in the area about burglaries, property damage and even a few home invasions. Recently, the county had assigned all of the deputies working overtime hours under the Department of Homeland Security's Operation Stonegarden grant program to the area.

"There has been a prevailing sense for sometime in the community that something like this was going to happen," Dever said.
The shooting has sent a chill through county, and particularly among ranchers in the Portal/Apache area, Dever said.

"Rob Krentz was a good friend of mine. The entire family, the ranching community and all of Cochise County is deeply impacted by this horrific event," Dever said. "They are deeply saddened by the loss of a good man."
Wendy Glenn, who lives on the neighboring Malpai Ranch, said she heard Krentz radio to his brother Sunday morning on a radio network used by area residents.

“He said ‘There’s an illegal here that needs help’ and ‘I’m out at such and such windmill’ and ‘Please call the Border Patrol,’” Glenn said. “His brother said ‘I can’t hear you.’ ”

In that area, most ranchers use All Terrain Vehicles to check water supplies, fences, cattle and do other jobs on the ranch, Glenn said.
The Krentz brothers’ conversation was routine for the area between the New Mexico border and the Chiricahua Mountains, which has been an active corridor for border crossers, she said.

Agents from the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector have helped in the area, but they have difficulty communicating with the agents from the Douglas station because of differences in their radio systems, Glenn said.
Krentz was a member of the board of the directors of the Malpai Borderlands Group, an organization of conservation-minded ranchers. The Krentzes also had a conservation easement on the family’s land, meaning the land can’t be subdivided.

“They really believe that if you take care of what’s out here, it will take care of you,” Glenn said.

Krentz’s family had been ranching their property since 1907, and in 2008 the Krentz Ranch was inducted into the Arizona Farming and Ranching Hall of Fame.

Another story is here:
http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/03/28/border-rancher-rob-krentz-and-dog-found-shot-to-death-after-aiding-illegal-alien/

[jw74]

On Saturday, March 27th, longtime SE Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was killed while investigating what he called an "illegal immigrant" near one of his stock tanks. Though armed, he never was able to pull his weapon. His dog was killed as well.

Sickening.

[greenberetTFS]

Sad,very sad indeed...................:(

Big Teddy :munchin

[armymom1228]

Seems to me I remember reading, a while back, that the last time we offered amnesty to illegals, less than half eligible took benefit. Still less actually qualified.

Immigration has been a controversial subject in this country almost since the founding. PBS did a great special on it, if you can find it. In the late 1800's it was thought that the Irish were going to 'take over' the country due to mass emigration.

Part of the problem, as I recall, with the border fence in Texas, was the ranchers who owned property on both sides of the border, that the fence would have denied them acess to. I believe there are lawsuits pending on that issue as well.
I haven't really followed it much since Miss Liz died and her kids sold her property down near Brownsville.

It is not just the Mexican border problems that have to be resolved. We need to stop, for a time, letting anyone emigrate until our economy bounces back. At the moment we still are giving out 1,000 perm resident visas via lottery in Nigeria.. that is another 1,000 people who need jobs. Multiply that times how many countries, at the moment, I don't feel (my opinion only) we can continue this unless our economny bounces back bigtime.

We are a nation of immigrants. I am all for immagration, but with wisdom and thougth for our own citizens first.
AM

[Sigaba]

From the Los Angeles Times on-line edition. Source is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration14-2010apr14,0,832428,print.story).Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act
The bill directs police to determine the immigration status of noncriminals if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented. Immigrant rights groups say it amounts to a police state.

By Nicholas Riccardi

6:33 PM PDT, April 13, 2010

Reporting from Denver

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday approved what foes and supporters agree is the toughest measure in the country against illegal immigrants, directing local police to determine whether people are in the country legally.

FOR THE RECORD: A story in Wednesday's Section A on a new law against illegal immigrants in Arizona incorrectly reported that a federal court had found unconstitutional a New Hampshire law making illegal immigration a crime. The ruling came from a state court. Additionally, the story stated that the Arizona GOP primary was next month. The primary is in August.
The measure, long sought by opponents of illegal immigration, passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representatives.

The state Senate passed a similar measure earlier this year, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.

The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, said it simply "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and lets them do their job."

But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposing the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.

Immigrant rights groups were horrified, and contended that Arizona would be transformed into a police state.

"It's beyond the pale," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "It appears to mandate racial profiling."

The bill, known as SB 1070, makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. It also requires police officers, if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status.

Currently, officers can inquire about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.

Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called sanctuary orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.

The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.

Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said the legislation was a logical extension of the state's previous enforcement efforts.

"It makes sense that they would be the first to do it since they're ground zero for illegal immigration," he said.

Krikorian added that he doubted the law would be used much. "Obviously, their prosecutors aren't going to go out and prosecute every illegal alien," he said. "It gives police and prosecutors another tool should they need it."

Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor.

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The ACLU and other groups have vowed to sue to block the bill from taking effect should Brewer sign it. They note that a federal court struck down a New Hampshire law in 2005 that said illegal immigrants were trespassing, declaring that only the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration. Another provision of the Arizona law, which makes day laborers illegal, violates the 1st Amendment, critics contend.

The issue of local enforcement of immigration laws has been especially heated in Arizona, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has taken an aggressive stance, conducting sweeps in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods to round up illegal immigrants.

His actions have drawn a civil rights investigation from the Department of Justice but strong praise from Arizonans. Other agencies have argued against Arpaio's stance, saying that they need illegal immigrants to trust them enough to report crimes.

Brewer, a Republican, has not taken a public stance on the bill. She replaced Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who became President Obama's Homeland Security chief last year. Napolitano had vetoed similar bills in the past. Brewer faces a primary challenge next month; most observers expect her to sign the measure.

Some Republicans have privately complained about the bill, which Pearce has been pushing for several years, but were loath to vote against it in an election year. The House was scheduled to approve it last week but the vote was delayed until Tuesday to give sponsors a chance to round up enough votes. It picked up steam after the killing late last month of a rancher on the Arizona side of the Mexican border. Footprints from the crime scene led back to Mexico.

In an impassioned debate Tuesday, both sides relied on legal and moral arguments.

"Illegal immigration brings crime, kidnapping, drugs -- drains our government services," said Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican. "Nobody can stand on the sidelines and not take part in this battle."

Democrats were just as passionate. "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we profit from," said Rep. Tom Chabin.SB1070 is available here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).

[akv]

Immigration reform seems to be the one issue few lawmakers want to touch. I hear the arguments most Americans won't do the jobs illegal immigrants do, but I don't think they should be rewarded for bucking the system and sneaking in.

The irony of it, is with changing demographics and aging populations, several established industrial nations are on track to face economic problems due to population loss going forward, Japan and Russia (folks are just leaving) come to mind. I definitely think the illegal border crossings are dangerous with the cartels etc, and hearing of a rancher being killed is sickening.

I knew a girl who taught at Stuyvesant High School, a gifted school in Manhattan who told me the vast majority of my kids are second generation Americans, many from Asia or Eastern Europe, they are the ones who still take it seriously, study, and want to become doctors, engineers, scientists etc. She said kids whose families have been here longer are often more complacent and less ambitious.

The legal immigration side for whatever reason has become much more intense since 9/11. For whatever reason, several of my friends ended up marrying girls from overseas, two from Poland and one each from China and Brazil. Their experiences with Immigration Services have been something else. All of these girls have masters degrees, one has a PhD in Biology and one is a nuclear engineer. The nuclear engineer was already working here on her own. America needs talented professionals, especially in medicine and science. These couples have to constantly go to verification meetings and provide pictures with other folks proving they are married.

One of America's greatest strengths is the moral appeal of our freedom and opportunity. We didn't have the best nuclear scientists in the 1930's, Einstein and Oppenheimer came over here, and the result was we got the bomb first, we have to educate our kids, as well as retain the option of drawing the best and brightest from across the world, though granted most aren't crossing the Rio Grande at 2am...

[1stindoor]

As I'm sure ZonieDiver can tell you, this is a very hot topic down here in the border region. I'm still serving time in El Paso and on any given day our population is increased by thousands from Juarez...some legally...some not. The lines are pretty blurred here...especially given the murder rate in Juarez which stands at roughly 8-10 a day. Even the mayor of Juarez...a city in Mexico...which is totally seperate country...lives in El Paso and commutes.

[1stindoor]

... All of these girls have masters degrees, one has a PHD in Biology and one is a nuclear engineer. The nuclear engineer was already working here on her own. America needs talented professionals, especially in medicine and science....

We need those people here!

They increase the tax base to support the others.

[Defender968]

Seems to me I remember reading, a while back, that the last time we offered amnesty to illegals, less than half eligible took benefit. AM

Completely concur, have been interacting with many illegals for years now in the construction industry, in law enforcement, and in my military duties....(I had troops married to illegals.....you really can't make this stuff up :D,) and I completely concur with what you read.

And really who can blame them, I mean why become a citizen if you can work without taxes for many times what you could earn in your home country. By not being a citizen you don't have to worry about all those hassles of citizenship like drivers licenses or insurance, or paying for medical bills, you can go to the ER and get seen, and then if you need to go back later you just give another name or go to a different ER, after all many of them only have the ID from their home country, (many of which don't even have a picture on them, and which are very easy to make.) Your kids get a better education, and are citizens if you drop them on US soil. If you happen to get scooped up by LE you can just bond out and change your name (yes fingerprints don't change but if it's a minor crime in my AO it doesn't go into NCIC so it's a local record and really doesn't mean much) if it's a serious beef, then you might be deported, many months/years later and/or after serving your time. It's a joke really, these politicians who think the illegals will just line up for a green card/citizenship are legislating from their heart without any idea of the facts of the matter or with giving the issue any real critical thought. I know I know that's a shock :rolleyes:

I shudder to think what nonsense our "representatives" in DC will pass when they address this issue, I'm guessing an amnesty program at least, probably water points in the desert and making it illegal to ask a person’s citizenship status including during elections voting. :mad: I’m sure that hasn’t…..er……I mean won’t have a negative effect on our country..

[GratefulCitizen]

The irony of it, is with changing demographics and aging populations, several established industrial nations are on track to face economic problems due to population loss going forward, Japan and Russia (folks are just leaving) come to mind.


This is the real issue behind the push for more immigration.
It's how they intend to fund social security.

Perhaps there should be open immigration to women of child-bearing age.

[Sigaba]

Comments about "illegals"Your views on illegal aliens have changed significantly over the years. At one time, you offered an eloquent caveat against the type of generalizations that you now offer.

[ZonieDiver]

Your views on illegal aliens have changed significantly over the years. At one time, you offered an eloquent caveat against the type of generalizations that you now offer.

So have mine, to some degree.

When the gentle wave lapping at your feet as you walk along the beach becomes a series of giant breakers crashing repeatedly against the seawall, it could well be time to re-evaluate one's position.

YMMV

[Defender968]

Your views on illegal aliens have changed significantly over the years. At one time, you offered an eloquent caveat against the type of generalizations that you now offer.

Sigaba I don't remember the remark in question, though I will admit I have become much less tolerant of those who choose to defy our laws than I had when I was younger. I guess at this point in my life with the past few years of experience I don't view the term illegal as a generalization, as much as a statement of condition. What should I/we call people who are in this country illegally, not thought to be here illegally, but known to be?

[dennisw]

I believe one of the items in the proposed legislation is if the illegal immigrant promises to vote a Democratic ticket, they get immediate citizenship and a new car from GM. :D

[1stindoor]

I believe one of the items in the proposed legislation is if the illegal immigrant promises to vote a Democratic ticket, they get immediate citizenship and a new car from GM. :D

How about instead of a GM...we give 'em a Toyota?

[Sigaba]

So have mine, to some degree.

When the gentle wave lapping at your feet as you walk along the beach becomes a series of giant breakers crashing repeatedly against the seawall, it could well be time to re-evaluate one's position.

YMMV

Sigaba I don't remember the remark in question, though I will admit I have become much less tolerant of those who choose to defy our laws than I had when I was younger. I guess at this point in my life with the past few years of experience I don't view the term illegal as a generalization, as much as a statement of condition. What should I/we call people who are in this country illegally, not thought to be here illegally, but known to be?I appreciate both of your perspectives.

Here in SoCal, one can see the negative impacts of illegal immigration in political, economic, and legal terms.

At the same time, I don't know if looking at people in terms of residence status is the best way to go. Which activity costs Americans the most and at whom do we voice the greatest amount of displeasure?
Undocumented residents who don't pay taxes or their medical bills;
American business owners who hire illegal aliens in order to maximize their profits and limit their costs;
"Generation X-ers" who steal digital content via P2P networks;
Bankers on Wall Street who brew and sell digital snake oil;
Middle class home owners who build their pricey homes in areas prone to fires and floods and also take a NIMBY approach to development that drives construction costs through the roof;

As for the use of the term "illegal", I understand the point. However, let me throw the following into the mix.

In his stand up routines, the comedian George Lopez often 'riffs' about American politics, culture, and society. Over the years, he's gotten to the point where he absolutely rails on America. He now hurls vitriol towards certain Americans to the point where audience members begin to hold back in their laughter.

A week or so ago, during an interview on Show Business, Peter Guber* asked Mr. Lopez about the "edgieness" of his stand up. Mr. Lopez replied that it came from a deep rooted sense shared among people of color that they are systematically and habitually disrespected by main stream America. (Lopez mentioned both his memories of his childhood but also the more recent revelation about Senator Reid's comments about a "Negro dialect.")

While Mr. Lopez is now fantastically wealthy and greatly respected in Hollywood, he made it clear that he was still stung by this disrespect. This is to say that the perception of disrespect was not only rooted in a shared historical memory and cultural experience but also re-enforced by life experiences.

To me, the comment you wrote a few years back showed an enviable amount of empathy in which you explained a complex dynamic. IMO, that post reflects the type of rhetoric that will allow Americans and their guests to confront head on the multi-faceted issue of immigration reform without torquing off further fellow citizens like Mr. Lopez, and without bowing to the conceits of political correctness. (What ever that is.)

Just my $0.02.

_____________________________
* FWIW, a serviceable if not also self serving bio of Peter Guber is available here (http://www.amctv.com/originals/shootout/smso_guests/biopage_guber).

[ZonieDiver]

At the same time, I don't know if looking at people in terms of residence status is the best way to go. Which activity costs Americans the most and at whom do we voice the greatest amount of displeasure?
(* my numbers added)
1) Undocumented residents who don't pay taxes or their medical bills;
2) American business owners who hire illegal aliens in order to maximize their profits and limit their costs;
3) "Generation X-ers" who steal digital content via P2P networks;
4) Bankers on Wall Street who brew and sell digital snake oil;
5) Middle class home owners who build their pricey homes in areas prone to fires and floods and also take a NIMBY approach to development that drives construction costs through the roof;

If I had to prioritize your list as to those who "hurt" our economy the most (generally), it would be:

4)
2)
5)
1)
3)

However, that does not make illegal entry into the USA right, or lessen the bad impact it can have. Anyone who thinks that the ONLY jobs "undocumented workers" take are "those Americans won't do" doesn't get out much.

When I first arrived in Panama in 1971, I was struck by the beggars on every street corner, the bars and/or roll-down screens on every store front, and the ubiquitous lottery sales to give the downtrodden poor a hope for a life.

Strange that my city now reminds me more of Panama City in '71 than it does the Phoenix I knew in '71.

[mojaveman]

Strange that my city now reminds me more of Panama City in '71 than it does the Phoenix I knew in '71.[/QUOTE]

Have you been to Los Angeles lately? It's become a Third World city.

[armymom1228]

Strange that my city now reminds me more of Panama City in '71 than it does the Phoenix I knew in '71.

Have you been to Los Angeles lately? It's become a Third World city.:munchin

Miami has long been joked as South America north. There is also, "little Haiti' that looks as bad as thier homeland.

[Defender968]

I appreciate both of your perspectives.

Here in SoCal, one can see the negative impacts of illegal immigration in political, economic, and legal terms.

At the same time, I don't know if looking at people in terms of residence status is the best way to go. Which activity costs Americans the most and at whom do we voice the greatest amount of displeasure?
Undocumented residents who don't pay taxes or their medical bills;
American business owners who hire illegal aliens in order to maximize their profits and limit their costs;
"Generation X-ers" who steal digital content via P2P networks;
Bankers on Wall Street who brew and sell digital snake oil;
Middle class home owners who build their pricey homes in areas prone to fires and floods and also take a NIMBY approach to development that drives construction costs through the roof;

As for the use of the term "illegal", I understand the point. However, let me throw the following into the mix.

In his stand up routines, the comedian George Lopez often 'riffs' about American politics, culture, and society. Over the years, he's gotten to the point where he absolutely rails on America. He now hurls vitriol towards certain Americans to the point where audience members begin to hold back in their laughter.

A week or so ago, during an interview on Shootout, Peter Guber* asked Mr. Lopez about the "edgieness" of his stand up. Mr. Lopez replied that it came from a deep rooted sense shared among people of color that they are systematically and habitually disrespected by main stream America. (Lopez mentioned both his memories of his childhood but also the more recent revelation about Senator Reid's comments about a "Negro dialect.")

While Mr. Lopez is now fantastically wealthy and greatly respected in Hollywood, he made it clear that he was still stung by this disrespect. This is to say that the perception of disrespect was not only rooted in a shared historical memory and cultural experience but also re-enforced by life experiences.

To me, the comment you wrote a few years back showed an enviable amount of empathy in which you explained a complex dynamic. IMO, that post reflects the type of rhetoric that will allow Americans and their guests to confront head on the multi-faceted issue of immigration reform without torquing off further fellow citizens like Mr. Lopez, and without bowing to the conceits of political correctness. (What ever that is.)

Just my $0.02..

Sigaba respectfully I would argue that your are confusing the issue here.

I understand, if only a little bit the frustration that Mr. Lopez feels, I've personally been discriminated against because of the color of my skin as well as my status as a veteran, and I believe very strongly that discrimination of ANY KIND is wrong....but discrimination or racism is not that issue here, and with that being said if he or others cannot see through their own race issues to see that the illegal immigration is not a race issue but an issue of a systematic failure of our government to enforce our laws, which is having a serious and very negative effect on the security and stability of this nation, then personally I don’t care if we torque them off or not.

I have nothing against people of other races/colors/creeds/religions, and the reality is we need people of all kinds to come to this country, as we've discussed in other threads we are no longer reproducing at a rate of 2.0 which could also lead to a security issue, not to mention the financial issues due to programs like Medicare which were designed under the premise that there would always be more people working than taking benefits.

But the problem as I see it is that many of the people coming to this country now are not interested in assimilating or becoming a part of our culture, they are more interested in coming here, to get what they can, to take advantage of our education and medical systems, yet they don't pay the taxes or even the bills for those things. They don't follow our laws, or participate in our system (except of voting, a privilege they have not legally earned or are entitled to, but take advantage of anyway) on top of these abuses they also expect us to change to meet their needs....just press 2 for Spanish, and to add insult to injury they ignore our laws to do so by coming here illegally to begin with.

On top of these FACTS.....we have people yelling racism because we want to enforce our laws???? Well frankly, my empathy wears thinner and thinner every time I hear the discussion derailed with the racism card, and I don’t think I’m alone in this.

[Sigaba]

Sigaba respectfully I would argue that your are confusing the issue here. IMO, I don't think that I'm confusing the issue. I think we're looking at it from different perspectives.

To paraphrase Olivier Roy, "immigration reform" isn't what specific bills, acts, and laws say, but rather what Americans and immigrants think they say. As is often said in the private sector, "perception is reality."

A specific law may make sense to many (if not most). Yet, if a law strikes others as "misguided," "bad," or "racist," a question becomes: how do we respond to this dissent? Do we take a "well, the law is the law" approach? Do we say, "Well, you're shit out of luck; we got the political power to keep this law in place"?

Or do we take a chance and engage in dialog that may cool tempers and alter perceptions and expectations--if not also change minds?

My view is that somewhere out there is a solution to the immigration mess that embodies a core value in American politics--compromise. This compromise may end up being short of what many ideally want but may still offer solutions that are "good enough" for most. Or, it can end up being part of a much larger project that addresses an even wider range of issues.

Going hand in hand with this compromise will be the type of dialog that gets a firebrand like Mr. Lopez to say to himself, Well, this isn't exactly what I had in mind...but close enough given the circumstances. (My pie in the sky scenario sees Mr. Lopez incorporating bits into his routine where he lampoons the experiences of Americans and immigrants interfacing with federal bureaucracies, and presents fanciful dialog in which Americans tell their kinfolk back in the old country: "Sure, you can come--there's plenty of work--but your paperwork better be in order before you do because The Man does not play.")

IMO, the following article from The Economist highlights the risk of not doing more to find this middle ground and also the possible advantages that may follow efforts to build consensus. Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15213228).Latinos and American politics

Power in numbers
Jan 7th 2010 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition


Hispanics, long under-represented as voters, are becoming political kingmakers

THE choice of John Pérez to take over as the new speaker of California’s state assembly later this month has been hailed as something of a breakthrough—but only because Mr Pérez is openly gay. That he is also Latino is not considered newsworthy. Kevin de León, who competed with Mr Pérez for the post, is also Latino, as are several of Mr Pérez’s predecessors, including his cousin, Antonio Villaraigosa, who is now the mayor of Los Angeles. The weight of Latinos in the politics of states like California and Texas (where the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus claims 44 of the 150 members of the state House of Representatives) is already understood to be not only large but normal.

This year, after the decennial census that will confirm the huge growth of America’s Hispanic population, this influence will become both evident and normal in even more parts of the country. Arturo Vargas, the executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), reckons that during the last census about 1m Latinos were left out of the statistics because “if you live in a garage or on somebody’s couch”, as many Latinos do, it is easy not to be counted. This time there is a concerted effort to change that. And if the Census Bureau’s estimates are corroborated, almost 16% of America’s population will be shown to be Hispanic (since the label refers to ethnicity rather than race, anybody who considers himself Hispanic is deemed to be so). That will compare with 13.4% for blacks, according to the estimate.

Along with the ageing of the baby-boomers, this Latinisation is the most important demographic change in America, at least according to William Frey at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank in Washington, dc. Hispanics have accounted for half of America’s total population growth since 2000, he notes. To see the America of the future, he says, look to its youth and its cities. White children are already a minority in 31 of America’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. For America as a whole, whites will become a minority in preschools by 2021 and in the general population by 2042.

One result is more Latino officials and politicians. Mr Vargas counts more than 6,000 in the country, mostly, it is true, on the boards of school and utility districts and other branches of local government that are “the first rung on the political ladder”. But there are also two Latino cabinet members, 26 Latino representatives and a Latino senator. The governor of New Mexico is a Hispanic. Since Sonia Sotomayor became a justice on the Supreme Court, says Mr Vargas with a wink, “there is only one office that has eluded us”, and it is oval. In the fictional world of “West Wing” (see above), Matt Santos has already made that dream true.

And yet, Latinos have so far punched below their weight in American politics, in contrast to blacks, who have punched above theirs, says Paul Taylor, the director of the Pew Hispanic Centre. Many are undocumented immigrants, many more are too young to vote, and others yet have simply not bothered. Moreover, Latinos are “notorious for not getting organised,” says Mr Frey, since many consider themselves to be Mexican, Guatemalan, Salvadorean or Puerto Rican, say, rather than Hispanic. As a result Latinos have been less strong as a block than the Irish were after the immigration wave of the 19th century, or than blacks have been recently, he says. That may partly explain why Texas has never had a Latino governor, and California has had only one, back in the 1830s.

But this is changing. “Latinos respond to anger and fear,” says Mr Vargas. In California during the 1990s, Latinos read the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Pete Wilson, a Republican governor, as racist and were outraged when voters passed a ballot measure (later ruled unconstitutional) to bar undocumented immigrants from non-emergency public health care, welfare and education. Californian Latinos decided to fight at the ballot box and registered in huge numbers, recalls Monica Lozano, a third-generation Mexican and the publisher of La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language newspaper in America. A similar, and national, surge has been ongoing since the anti-immigrant media frenzy of 2006.

The presidential election of 2008 was the first one in which Latinos played a large, and perhaps decisive, role. They voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of more than two-to-one—not as large as Mr Obama’s margin among blacks, but of greater importance in states with lots of Latinos, which happen to include swing states. Latinos helped Mr Obama to carry Florida (where they had favoured George Bush in 2004), New Jersey, Nevada and New Mexico, in particular.

In future elections, Latinos will be “the centrepiece of the election, the kingmakers,” says Samuel Rodriguez, a pastor and the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, an evangelical association. They will be able to tilt the electoral balance and turn many red—or, conceivably, blue—states purple. That is because Latinos are the quintessential independents, he says.

Latinos tend to place faith and family at the centre of their lives, and are thus naturally conservative on many social issues, from gay marriage to abortion, says Mr Rodriguez. But the same values also incline them, in contrast to, say, white evangelicals, to communitarian economic policies usually considered liberal (by the American definition of that word). In California, say, they tend, as renters rather than homeowners, to be against Proposition 13, a law that caps property taxes, and instead to favour taxes that pay for better education. They consider themselves the future, says Ms Lozano, and want to invest in it. To me, the article highlights my ongoing concern that the American political right is (again) pushing away groups of voters whom we could just as easily be welcoming under the Big Tent.

YMMV.

[Paslode]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/?hpt=T1


Arizona deputy shot by alleged undocumented immigrant, officials say
By the CNN Wire Staff


(CNN) -- A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by an alleged illegal immigrant, authorities said.

The shooting comes amid a national debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law that allows police to demand proof of legal residency. Arizona lawmakers say the law is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing more than 450,000 illegal immigrants to move into the state.

The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.

At one point, the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

KNXV: Deputy stopped five suspects

A spokeswoman at Casa Grande Regional Medical Center confirmed that the deputy was being treated there Friday evening. He was in good condition with stable vital signs, conscious and comfortable, she said.

KPNX: Deputy expected to survive

The search for the shooter continued into the evening.

Pinal County is between Phoenix and Tucson and has been described as a key transit point for illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. Sheriff Paul Babeu said an estimated 80 percent of illegal immigrants eventually pass through his county along the way to other locations.

Earlier this week, a CNN crew spent 12 hours on patrol with Pinal County deputies. In that time, the deputies captured more than 50 suspected illegal immigrants and about 2,000 pounds of marijuana.

Deputies in the department routinely patrol for illegal immigrants and smugglers, and it is not uncommon for them to be in the field alone, officials said. It was not immediately clear what led the deputy to engage with the shooter Friday.

The shooting is sure to heat up the debate around the new Arizona law. Critics say the law is unconstitutional and will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal. But Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and others who support the bill say it does not involve profiling or other illegal acts and will cut down on illegal immigration.

"Frankly this is just a very horrible story, but we should not generalize," Alfonso Aguilar, former chief of the U.S. Citizenship Office, told CNN's Rick Sanchez when news of Friday's shooting broke. "We should focus on the criminality of the drug traffickers ... not scapegoat undocumented immigrants who do not pose any threat to society."

Brewer on Friday signed a bill that makes changes to the immigration law, saying the changes will ease concerns about racial profiling.

The law, which will go into effect in 90 days, has already drawn at least two lawsuits and condemnation from the Mexican government and other Latin American nations. Prominent entertainers, including Shakira and Linda Ronstadt, also have spoken against the law. Some critics are calling for a boycott of Arizona, urging tourists to stay away and that no one do business with companies in the state.

CNN's Casey Wian contributed to this report.

[Richard]

Interesting to compare the content and 'tone' of the Fox vs USA Today versions of the story. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Arizona Deputy Shot By Suspected Drug Smugglers From Mexico
USAToday, 1 May 2010

A sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert — a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon. The officer had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious and he was doing fine.

The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.

The deputy was found in the desert Friday afternoon — after a frantic hourlong search — suffering from a gunshot wound from an AK-47, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. He was flown by helicopter to a hospital in Casa Grande, about 40 miles south of Phoenix.

Villar said the deputy had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.

"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."

The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.

"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," he said.

The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.

The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.

Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.

"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and B) looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-30-arizona-deputy-shot_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News