“Illegal Immigrant” Is the Real Euphemism
Published July 02, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT
illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans.
Is Senator Chuck Schumer taking his talking points on immigration from far-right anti-immigrant websites?
Last week, Schumer (NY-D) gave reporters an indication of the administration’s rhetorical strategy as Congress prepares to draft immigration reform legislation. From the Washington Post:
Schumer said legislation should secure control of the nation's borders within a year and require that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation. Rejecting the euphemism "undocumented workers," he said: "Illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
McClatchy described Schumer’s comments in similar terms:
Schumer said Democrats no longer can afford to use soft, euphemistic language about illegal immigration.
"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose."
So either Senator Schumer himself used the word “euphemism” to describe the phrase “undocumented workers,” or two media outlets did in describing his comments. Regardless, his message is clear. According to Senator Schumer, “undocumented” is a misleading term, and he intends to be straight with the public by using accurate language.
But Senators and their speechwriters rarely construct their own arguments from scratch. So where did this meme come from?
The top result in a google search for “undocumented” and “euphemism” right now is a blog post about Schumer’s recent remarks. But the second and third results go to far right-wing nativist websites VDare and 24Ahead (formerly Lonewacko). From 24Ahead:
Is “undocumented immigrant” a euphemism?
Yes, it's just a politically-correct way of saying the legally correct term: "illegal alien". They're "aliens" - people who are citizens of some other country - and they're here illegally.
The post goes on to quote a thinly-sourced portion of the nativist site illegalaliens.us (scroll to the bottom) which argues that "illegal alien" is a more accurate term than “undocumented” or “out of status,” but doesn’t bother to cite to any case, statute, or legal document.
I’ve often seen in comment threads on immigration stories or blog posts the assertion that the terms “undocumented” or even “illegal immigrant” are politically correct euphemisms for the legally correct term: "illegal alien." This is the meme that Schumer picked up on last week.
Unfortunately for Schumer and the nativists, the meme is wrong. “Illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” are not recognized terms of immigration law.
"Alien" is a legal term defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act and used in immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions day in and day out. "Illegal alien" and “illegal immigrant” are not.
Conservative legislators wrote federal legislation in the 1980s and 1990s that uses the term "illegal alien," but most of these laws are not immigration laws, they deal with eligibility for public benefits and reimbursement of states by the federal government for incarcerating immigrants. And this was part of an effort to give credibility to the term.
The term "illegal alien" itself makes two brief appearances in the INA: in Sections 280 and 286, both dealing with accounting arrangements among the federal agencies. The term, though, is not defined in the INA and is not part of the terminology used by immigration judges and lawyers to communicate with each other about a person's immigration status during the course of removal proceedings (now there's a euphemism for you: "removal").
"Illegal alien" is an incoherent term from the standpoint of immigration law. It assumes the thing that is to be proven: status under the immigration laws. Immigration judges, the BIA, and even ICE attorneys don't use it because it is meaningless in the context of immigration proceedings.
The point of having a legal process to determine immigration status is to exhaust claims and defenses in an adversarial setting. A person who crossed the border or overstayed a visa might have a valid asylum claim, could qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal, might have a current family-based or employer-sponsored petition, may have been the victim of a serious crime in the U.S., might have had grandparents who immigrated back when immigration from within the Western Hemisphere was much less restricted, might have been the victim of domestic violence, or could even be a citizen through their parents without having realized it. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge must review all allegations made by the government and claims for relief made by the respondent before coming to a decision as to whether or not the respondent should be deported under applicable immigration laws.
Using the term "illegal alien" waves away that whole legal process and assumes a predetermined result: guilty, lawbreaker, criminal. That is why restrictionists favor the term, not because it is legally accurate.
Immigration restrictionists know that language matters, which is why they have pushed so hard to discredit accurate descriptors and inject their preferred terminology into the discourse on immigration.
Representative of this effort is the site referenced above, Illegalaliens.us. In addition to “undocumented,” the site lists other supposed euphemisms for illegal aliens, including “foreign students,” “residents,” and “Mexicans.” The site also lists “possible euphemisms” such as “Hispanics,” “Latinos,” and “Spanish speakers.”
It may come as a surprise to the millions of Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens, myself included, to learn that we are actually illegal aliens, or to the millions of Latin@ citizens living in the U.S. Likewise, the 100 million Mexicans in Mexico may not realize that they are living euphemistic lives south of the border.
Deborah Howell, former ombudsman for the Washington Post, got snowed on this issue by a State Department officer who even told her that “he was not speaking for the State Department” when giving her his legal analysis.
On terminology, Chip Beck, a State Department officer and former U.S. consul, believes it's important to use "illegal alien." Beck, who said he was not speaking for the State Department, said, "Foreign nationals who come across the border without papers or who overstay their visa are deemed 'illegal aliens.' Those are the legally correct terms."
Beck may deem them to be “illegal aliens,” but the legally correct term is “alien.” He continued:
"The correct terminology is not derogatory but carries precise meanings under law." He sent a copy of the federal law [ed.: looks like a broken link from the problematic USCIS website] that says: "The term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."
So let’s be precise, then. “Illegal alien” is a nonsense term in the context of U.S. immigration law. It is not defined anywhere in the INA. It’s no more accurate than the terms I prefer: “undocumented” or “unauthorized,” [ed.: link fixed] which also appear in the INA. In my experience, you are much more likely to hear the terms “entered without inspection” or “out of status” come out of the mouth of an immigration judge than “illegal alien.”
Now somebody just needs to let Chuck Schumer know he should be getting his immigration analysis from the Sanctuary or AILA, not from Lonewacko and Steve Sailer.
Next up: How did the term “Native American” go from describing this to describing this?
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Feinstein, Boxer, Sotomayor Establish Mainstream Cred at Immigrants' Expense
-
Flipping the Narrative: Conditions Ripe for Immigration Reform
-
Kris Kobach Appears on Colbert Report
Comments (71)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
Dave, please tell us then. What is the politically correct word or expression to describe a person Who is not in a country legally? Perhaps I should ask straight out. Do you believe in the concept of a nations' right to control it's borders at all?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 03:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The constitution does call them just aliens with out the illegal. is that what they prefer?
Posted by Hilary Johnson on 07/02/2009 @ 03:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mince, mince, Mr. Bennion. "In Pro Per," aka "I'm too poor to afford an attorney." Please don't try to add more unnecessary stipulations to our laws. Instead, reject anything that is written, or abbreviated in Latin. (Our native tongue is English, right?) This way, normal, everyday-people can read, and comprehend it.
For those of you who get angry when you see things written in Spanish and English.......Try reading a set of immigration papers, written in "English." Or, any kind of legal document, for that matter. (I think I would get farther in the Spanish version.)
Undocumented worker, fine by me. What about the ones that aren't working? "Unauthorized squatter"?????? Pick your battles Mr. Bennion.
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/02/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ignorantia juris neminem excusat.
(I've got my tongue planted firmly in cheek ;-)
Posted by a d on 07/02/2009 @ 05:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(What about the ones that aren't working? "Unauthorized squatter"??????)
I know alot of people that are squatting these days...fortunately they are collecting unemployment checks and "rightfully so" because they paid into the system.
I suppose that some of these Unauthorized Squatter's might be squatting like the rest of us "without work" only to find that they are not eligible to collect back from the tax system they paid into like we can. I suppose that is part of living undocumented in the fear driven underground society that takes ones cheap labor and leads to a system of jails and inhumane detentions that separate family's.
I also suppose they are squatting because if they exit our country they may never be able to come back; which is another reason why Common Sense Comprehensive Immigration Reform needs to pass. Does it make sense to trap people in the US and make them fearful that they can never come back if they leave?
Then of course I was thinking that maybe they are squatting with their family's; US born children, spouses and friends. Something worth squatting for until work is available living in the shadows of fear until this Sensible Common Sense Immigration Bill does pass.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 09:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(I've got my tongue planted firmly in cheek ;-)
Mary Poppins...likes to get cheeky!! hehe
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 09:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, I guess I can see, how you, might have thought I was being rude; not really though. I was just pointing out, that no matter how you piece words together, they'll still imply the same thing. Is it really worth the fight?
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/02/2009 @ 11:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My point is that the claim that "illegal alien" is the legally correct terminology, which is repeated ad nauseam by restrictionists, doesn't hold water. Undocumented, unauthorized, out of status, or how about "human being." The words used to describe immigrants say more about the speaker than the subject.
"Politically correct" is a tired and tendentious way of saying "liberal." Just come out and embrace it: you're a conservative, I'm a liberal. We have different views.
Do you believe in the concept of a nations' right to control it's borders at all?
Under the existing international system based on sovereign states, under international law and domestic law, the U.S. has the right to regulate entry by citizens and non-citizens alike. This system has not always existed and may not always exist. I could ask an equally unhelpful question, like "do you believe babies should be ripped from their mothers' arms by law enforcement?" Doesn't do much to advance the discussion.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/02/2009 @ 05:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First you use a defenition, illegal from a comment from the kos site? Why not from the dictionary?
Second, your links to “undocumented” or “unauthorized” are more in line with what they should be called. Directly from your "undocumented" link USC 8, 1231 = undocumented criminal alien, and from your "unauthorized" link; USC 8, 1365 = illegal alien, there is no "unathorized" in that particular link, but there is "illegal alien".
Did you get your link wrong, or did you shoot yourself in the foot?
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/03/2009 @ 12:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wrong link. Sorry. Linked to 8 USC 1365 by mistake--not part of the INA--instead of 8 USC 1324a (INA 274A) which is. Should be fixed now.
Also, I like the Kos commenter's definition, which is why I put it up.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/03/2009 @ 12:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe the more correct term would be to call them "Deportable Aliens".
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/03/2009 @ 12:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
From INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY
(6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators.-
(A) 8/ ALIENS PRESENT WITHOUT admission or parole.-
Maybe they should be called Illegal Entrants or Immigration Violators?
But then as is described, an Illegal Entrant could also be described as an Illegal Alien since the defenition is: Aliens present without admission or parole.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/03/2009 @ 12:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Illegal entrants and immigration violators
Those are descriptive headings, not defined terms.
But then as is described, an Illegal Entrant could also be described as an Illegal Alien since the defenition is: Aliens present without admission or parole.
But then I could be the king of spain if I just start making stuff up.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/06/2009 @ 10:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They sure look like Defined terms to me since 212 is classifying the GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY.
It's right there in black and white, nothing need be made up.
Illegal entrants and immigration violators.: The term(s) to be defined is/are known as the definiendum.
ALIENS PRESENT WITHOUT admission or parole.: The words which define the definiendum are known as the definiens.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/07/2009 @ 12:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I came across this little ditty. As used by the California COURT OF APPEAL,THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. Page 3, footnote 2.
[2] Defendants prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” However, defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien” are interchangeable. We consider the term “illegal alien” less ambiguous. Thus, under federal law, an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).) Under federal law, “immigrant” means every alien except those classified by federal law as nonimmigrant aliens. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).) “Nonimmigrant aliens” are, in general, temporary visitors to the United States, such as diplomats and students who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), (G); Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664-665 [55 L.Ed.2d 614, 627-628] [under pre-1996 law, held the question whether nonimmigrant aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland for purposes of in-state college tuition was a matter of state law].) The federal statutes at issue in this appeal refer to “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present in the United States.” (8 U.S.C. §§ 1621(d), 1623.) In place of the cumbersome phrase “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present,” we shall use the term “illegal aliens.”
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/14/2009 @ 04:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, here's the link:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C054124.DOC
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/14/2009 @ 04:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's the opinion of one intermediate state appeals court in California and has little relevance to the practice of federal immigration law. Let me know when the BIA or a federal circuit court cites to that decision. Also, the decision is under review by the state supreme court and could be reversed. The court itself notes that the legally correct term under federal statute is "alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present," but uses the term "illegal aliens" as a shorthand.
Also, California unfortunately has long had a xenophobic streak. The state was the driving force for national Chinese exclusion in the 19th century and Prop 187 in 1994 was as much a disgrace as the more recent Prop 8. I can only hope that nativist strain begins to change as the state's nonwhite majority finds its political legs.
Wondering idly, Liquid, whether you think Chinese exclusion was a good idea due to Chinese workers' ostensible refusal to assimilate like you claim of Jewish Germans pre-WWII.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/25/2009 @ 06:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dave, I think You get the idea that because Americans want their borders secure We hate immigrants. For the overwhelming majority of us that is simply not true. I don't think there are too many wanting to throw out the people already here either. I even doubt there are many Who want to stop all future immigration. We just want sanity at the borders and for other countries to respect Our soveriegnty. No rascism, no hate, mate!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 06:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You can 'secure' the 'borders' all you want. And yet, if the US continues to operate in a way that decimates latin american economy, more and more migrants will come to where the money is. Just as if you could only afford to live in Jersey by making a paycheck in Manhattan. Grow ya mind, kid. It ain't all about barbed wire up in here.
Posted by Joaquín R. Herrera on 07/02/2009 @ 06:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie I can understand where you are coming from. Most Americans want secure borders and I believe they are going to secure the borders. This is part of the plan.
*Secure the Border.
*Bring all of the Undocumented out of the shadows and give them a path to citizenship.
*Open the legal immigration system and allow reasonable quotas that also lead to a path to citizenship if desired.
We do not ever want anyone to be trapped into the system without a path again.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 10:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. Herrera, Mexico is the one violating NAFTA right now, not the U.S. Maybe, they could donate some of the, "tariffs," they are charging U.S.- trucks, entering Mexico, to some of their, needy-citizens at the border. FYI: The Latin economy has the upper-hand. There is no minimum-wage, so to speak, they can use insecticides/herbicides, that have been out-lawed in the U.S. since the 60'S. Plus, they sell their products to the U.S. for "U.S. prices", and pay no import tax!!!
Get it right kid! Mexico exploits its own people. They come here to be treated better!
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/03/2009 @ 12:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with Mr. Herrera but I like to point out a political reality here. Americans are into Border Security and they are also into a path to citizenship. Americans have been brainwashed that the terriorists came in through the Border and I think it isn't easy to convince them otherwise therefore if they want to spend there taxdollars on it...Then have Border Security! If this is what it takes to get the slave workforce documented and on their way to a path the let it be.
Honestly, I happen to like immigrants alot and many of us do here posting but I don't think I do have a typical American way of thinking but I do think I have an idea of what the mainstream thinks because I talk to them all the time.
First of all they don't care about Immigration all that much and once I talk to them and educate them they are for Sensible Common Sense Immigration Reform "They do not oppose it." It's all about awareness and unfortunately "retrictionists have brainwashed them with the work Illegal and all the other rhetoric that goes along with it. The "retrictionist" has beaten you to awareness and education when it comes to Americans and the issue but at this point the jig is up.
I think now they know the system is broken and that its been broken for way too long and they are sick of the issue "like many other issues" they want the CHANGE they voted for furthermore they want it off the plate. The polls are showing that 63% of Americans are in favor of a path to citizenship and our current administration needs to move on it faster.
Americans do not want an underground slave work force in their country. It is unexceptable in the eyes of an American "Its Un-American."
They also realize Immigrants are not going home and they do not want to spend their tax money on jailing workers in an in-humane detention system. Americans want rapists, murders...and real bad guys in jail. Putting little kids and their moms in jail is also "Un-American."
Americans know that the "retrictionists" ideas are not a solution. Its been over 20 years and enough is enough with the same old "retrictionist" rhetoric.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 06:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(the work Illegal)
Typo..I meant to say word Illegal.
Also, The immigrants are scared and alot of them do speak English but many do not and this has given the oposition such an upper hand...they know it is difficult to mobilize a movement with this barrier and they also use the "ethnic background" of the majority of the immigrants to rally up a following of hate groups throughout America.
These tactics "Remind me of the schoolyard bully" picking on all the defenseless kids way back in grade school. The "retrictionist" really is a coward at heart because they know the immigrant can not fight back because they are undocumented.
Support groups are growing nationwide with a grassroots movement to support these immigrants that have been so horribly exploited.
*All Americans want is a Common Sense Solution with: Border Security, All Immigrants in the US document and on a Path to Citizenship and to have our Labor Laws Inforced.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 06:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mary, you cling to the PEW poll to much. It is too narrow in its choice, when broadened as many other polls have done you find the majority of American people will allow some sort of path for legalization, but the majority do not want granted citizenship.
Everybody agrees that some form of CIR is needed, the question comes in as to what form, and as their is no bill at this point it is impossible to say. The last CIR failed due to many things, even many advocates didn't want it to pass due to some of the reforms made.
To say the system is broken, how is it broken? because it doesn't conform to what you or people like you want it to be? Many portions of the immigration system have failed simply due to lack of involvement. The system wasn't important, it was a low priority, then one day it bubbled up and exploded.
Americans do not want an underground slave work force in their country. It is unexceptable in the eyes of an American "Its Un-American."
Everybody agrees to this 100%, its the path that is taken that we are not all on the same. Many directions can take us there, so don't discount the "others" path.
Some illegal entrants and immigration violators have gone home, some have moved to other portions of the state, others have moved into crowded houses to attempt to outlast the economy or for the thought of an amnesty.
"retrictionists" ideas are not a solution
Again, you're right, following the laws are the best solution.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/03/2009 @ 07:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
[MARY POPPINS]
So people say
Each virtue virtually knows no bound
Each trait is great and patently sound
I’m practically perfect from head to toe
If I had a fault it would never dare to show
I’m so practically perfect
In every way
Both prim and proper and never too stern
Well-educated yet willing to learn
I’m clean and honest, my manner refined
And I wear shoes of the sensible kind
I suffer no nonsense and whilst I remain
There’s nothing else I feel I need explain
I’m practically perfect in every way
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 09:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Illegal alien" is an incoherent term from the standpoint of immigration law. It assumes the thing that is to be proven: status under the immigration laws. Immigration judges, the BIA, and even ICE attorneys don't use it because it is meaningless in the context of immigration proceedings.
I think we're all aware of how language shapes people's perceptions, just as Dave points out. So there is a big battle going on between both sides to frame the terms that are used. But if you are truly interested in the actual legal terms, I think Dave knows this better than any one of you (he does happen to be an immigration lawyer). So you look a bit foolish arguing with him. Just my perspective. Now, people accuse our side of being dishonest because we refer to undocumented peoples as immigrants, leaving out the term "illegal." But if you respect their dignity as human beings, this is who they are. Nothing more nor less. Honestly, they are just human beings like you, and as such, they deserve to be treated with respect.
Posted by a d on 07/02/2009 @ 07:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
* leaving out the term "illegal" was a poor choice of words, since I don't believe that term is a legitimate way to talk about a human being. (doh!)
Posted by a d on 07/02/2009 @ 07:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, Analisa...I agree with you that it is a foolish argument and it is "retrictionists" that like to exploit these people with harsh words rather than using respectful words to address people.
If Attorneys describe the "undocumented" as "out of status" or "entered without inspection" than it makes sense that the legal terms would be the correct proper term. Dave is correct.
And you are correct when you say: Respect their dignity as human beings, this is who they are. Nothing more nor nothing less. They deserve to be treated with respect.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 09:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Joaquin, You have jumped to conclusions. I happen to be a person Who believes that instead of sending manufacturing to China and India, manufacturing (besides keeping more in the U.S.) should be built in Mexico and Canada. Help the neighbors and friends before helping those across the ocean that hate Us. I have commented accordingly more than once!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 07:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, Dave has actually diverted the argument away from the real problem. It isn't that people want to come here to make a better life. Who could blame Them? Of course Dave knows that few Americans care if They are here. He wants us to forget that Our entire border is completely defenseless, as We have absolutely no control over Who is coming in, and no control over what They bring in. It is most disingenuos because overwhelmingly most victims of border crime as far north as Phoenix are immigrants themselves! Do not these people deserve protection from Their adopted new home?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 07:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie, I hear what you're saying, but I don't believe that any terrorists ever came through the border with Mexico. We're talking about poor workers here. A lot of this talk about the border problems is hyperbole, which you would know if you read Dave's blogs on a regular basis. Don't forget: The perpetrators of 9/11 came here legally. We are actually creating an much bigger problem for ourselves by militarizing the border, because all that hardware and money ends up in the hands of the cartels. We need to look at the demand side on the United States. Even if we could stamp out the problem in Mexico, it would pop up somewhere else because there is a demand here. Please educate yourself about what happened with Plan Colombia that we are about to visit on Mexico with the Merida Initiative. If you are going to go the route of militarization of the border, you are going to end up with an even bigger problem with cartel violence. We need to learn from our history with this, otherwise we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Posted by a d on 07/02/2009 @ 07:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, Analisa...terriorists didn't come through the border of Mexico. The perpetrators of 9/11 did come here legally. 9/11 was a good excuse to turn the detention of immigrants into a profit making business. As time goes on the American public wakes up slowly and learns that our prior administration really didn't protect us from terror.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 09:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Good Point Analisa, Terriorists did not come through the border of Mexico. They came into our system the legal way. Terriorism was the excuse used to build a business detaining workers for a profit off our tax dollars.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 10:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, now that I've been labelled a conservative, and I'm dealing with liberals; Can I be an Illegitimate-Conservative? Or do I have to be an Illegal-Conservative? (Who knows?)
Ms. Analisa, so, only poor workers come across the border? No, killers, or drug runners? Hmmm... that's strange, because my son's, friend's father, was a sheriff, and he was ambushed by an, "undocumented worker;" shot in the head, and died. Is this the kind of work, "poor workers," come here for?
Don't sum it up ,like all the , "statusly challenged," (How do you like that one, Mr. Reed?) people that come here, are saints. Or, your the one that ends up looking ignorant.
I'm not a conservative or liberal. I'm a realist. I say, "the law right now, isn't working!" I don't want reform, I want a solution. The right solution, the first time! You can, "poor-people," me all you want. I get it!!!! They need help!!!
You can sit here, and agree with each other all you want; give each other, "pats on the back"........(You do forget, in all of this,) You may be liberals.....but on the, "immigration issue," most Democrats run for the hills. So, you can either work with people like myself, and Mr. Reed, or, count on the support of the Democratic Party----that might be there????
Analisa, please, take off the rose-colored glasses. Get real! Mr. Bennion, stop writing Dream Acts, and write Real Solutions!!!!!!
P.S. I don't have a diplomatic bone in my body, so, everything I write, looks really mean, but I don't intend for it to.
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/03/2009 @ 12:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We have absolutely no control over Who is coming in, and no control over what They bring in.
I just don't think that's true. We've tripled border patrol agents in recent years, to nearly 20,000. We're building a wall there. People routinely die in the desert b/c it's so difficult now to cross in other places. The southern border has got to be one of the most defended, militarized peace-time borders in the world. The border is controlled. It's time to (1) cooperate better with Mexico to bring peace and prosperity to its people and (2) move forward with immigration reform.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/03/2009 @ 05:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dave, I don't think We differ on that.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/03/2009 @ 06:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
L.S. Hope, I'm glad you don't intend to be mean. I do wonder why you appear to have such hostility towards us, if we are indeed on the same page --that is, pro-migrant, and I do hope you mean that you support or feel empathy for undocumented peoples. If you do, I have trouble understanding why you would be against the DREAM Act. Please explain your views on that a little better. What real solutions would you like to see?
Just personally, I am grateful that you turned the other cheek to the girl who called you güera. This is like calling someone Blondie, so she probably didn't intended to hurt you at all. Or if she did, it may be because some folks had been flinging cruel slurs at her that made her feel unwelcome in this country. And so she flung one back at the first "white" person who came along. That doesn't make it right, but people are human. It's good that you reacted with compassion. The whole point of this blog is that language has power, and we need to be careful about the words we use because words have the power to wound people...just as you felt wounded by the word güera.
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 06:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
*didn't intend (sorry I get a little careless sometimes)
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 06:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yep!! You guys are right. The Borders seem to be secured not. So....isn't it then time to move on and get Sensible Comprehensive Immigration Reform passed. The excuse the Borders are not secure than is not an excuse anymore!! It's time to move on to CIR.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 06:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, I have educated Myself re: border security. Kinapping,assault, and murder are all up in the border areas, and it is almost all immigrants sufferring from it. Am I supposed to not care because I am not recently immigrated? Quite a few actual terror attack attempts have been stopped at both the Northern and Southern borders. It is just a matter of time before one succeeds with the border now unguarded. Practically all other nations on earth guard Their borders. Why are We evil for wanting too?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 07:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Please check out Dave's post on April 18, 2009: Border Violence Not Spilling Over
http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/border_violence_not_spilling_over
I do not think you're evil Charlie. I don't words like that to describe people (although I do think that some of the nativists' ACTIONS are despicable...I'm not talking about you, though :-)
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't *use words like that to describe people... (typo)
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, I am a regular reader, and I have defended immigration vigorously. i thought you had visited regularly also. Perhaps You missed these comments? I am not trying to stop poor immigrant workers!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 07:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm glad to hear this, Charlie. What is your view of undocumented peoples? Do you consider yourself a restrictionist? I am happy to debate you because you keep the discussion civil and don't engage in personal attacks. I wish we had more folks like you on this site, whatever their views (and I am working on myself to be more respectful, too).
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, the only immigrants (documented or otherwise) I would really deport are convicted felons. (actually mostly just the violent ones). Immigrants are usually an asset to this country. Iwould insist they be paid at least as well as non immigrants though. It hurts labor, both imm. and non imm. When They work for slave wages. I do insist on secure borders because attempted terror attempts have been stopped at both borders, and kidnapping and murder are up in the border areas as far north as Phoenix. I have read police stats on both, and I'm sorry but this is fact. This does not have to stop immigration though, We just need to I.D. people Who are coming here. I'm willing to be the first person to carry a national I.D.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/04/2009 @ 11:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you, Charlie.I am happy to hear your view that immigrants are an asset. I agree with you, and I commend you for compassionate . As far as border security is concerned, I think we are reacting mostly out of fear rather than common sense. Remember how the Iraq War was sold to us? I knew some very intelligent people who absolutely believed in the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction. And what happened was that we are now embroiled in a debacle that has no rhyme or reason. Thousands of our soldiers have died and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. So when we are fearful, we often apply solutions that amout to overkill. And then we find ourselves embroiled in a situation for which there is no easy way out. This is what will happen if we militarize the border with Mexico. We need a much more nuanced understanding of the problem if we truly want to find solutions that will actually work. Recently, a Latin American commission headed by Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia called on the U.S. and Latin American governments to acknowledge the insufficiencies of current policy and to engage in a debate about new alternatives. Read about it here:
http://mamaradio.blogspot.com/2009/02/drug-war-failure-news-item-from-ips.html
The report cites Columbia and Mexico as nations where U.S. prohibitionist policies, despite the large investment of resources and loss of innocent lives, have failed to put an end to drug trafficking and narco-violence. It cautions other countries from adopting these kinds of policies and urges them to search for innovative alternatives.
The long-term solution for the drug problem is to drastically reduce the demand for drugs in the main consumer countries, the report states. As U.S. and European domestic markets are the main consumers of the drugs produced in Latin America, the report calls on the U.S. and EU to share the responsibility faced by Latin American countries to design and implement policies leading to an effective reduction in their levels of drug consumption.
We should have learned by now, through our experience with Plan Colombia, that the "drug war" model (i.e. militarization) has been a complete failure.
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 07:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I commend you for your compassionate *response.
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 07:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Putting Chuck Schumer in the nativist camp! now I know you people are extreme.
Posted by Wire Paladin on 07/02/2009 @ 08:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm confused Wire. Are you trying to tell us you agree with Schumer and you are not an extreme nativist?
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/02/2009 @ 10:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, I agree with Schumer and I am not an extreme nativist.
Posted by Wire Paladin on 07/03/2009 @ 03:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's telling him, David! Punish the champion of immigration reform in the US Senate for his words and ignore his deeds (and discourage him from moving forward on the immigration reform agenda). He only will be the leader of the effort to legalize 12 million immigrants who had no legal way to come in the first place, will drive the final coffin nail into the fantasy of mass deportation/mass expulsion, will reunite families and re-establish legal immigration so that immigrants come with rights and protections and not smugglers or risking their very lives, and take the wind out of the smuggling and the incarceration industries at the same time. He should be made to cower before the progressive blogosphere even if he is preparing to expend a career's worth of political capital to shepherd vitally needed and demcracy- and freedom-restoring legislation to passage.
Okay, that's a little harsh, but immigrants and the American people don't have many better friends than Chuck Schumer on this issue (and many other issues), even if he can be a tad blunt and bullheaded. I, for one, am willing to cut him some slack if he helps secure the justice we need, the reform we deserve, and the change we have been waiting for for too long.
Posted by Douglas Rivlin on 07/02/2009 @ 08:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree that immigration reform depends on moderates in the Senate like Schumer. But words have consequences, and so far Congress is woefully short on deeds. The main point, though, is that Schumer and other reformers are only making their job harder by reinforcing central tenets of restrictionist ideology. As we've now been pointing out for a year and a half, the rhetorical strategy dreamed up by Greenberg Quinlan is not only morally wrong, it's strategically misguided. And it comes from not understanding the history of the issue, and especially the political history of immigration policy over the past 30 years.
And if Schumer gets criticism from the left, is that really so bad for immigration reform? I think it will give us a better bill. Take a page from the antis ... they're not all honey and kisses with the GOP, but their tactics have been very effective.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/03/2009 @ 05:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
But I like your image of Schumer cowering before the mighty pro-migrant blogosphere Sadly, I don't think they're paying that much attention to us :)
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/03/2009 @ 05:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
central tenets of restrictionist ideology More like central tenents of common sense.
Posted by Wire Paladin on 07/03/2009 @ 03:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, almost 100% of the military hardware used by Mexican cartels has been traced back to weapons and material stolen directly from the Mexican military and police. The only American originated weaonry (most of it) was purchased by the Mexican military from Us legimately and then stolen from Them. It has nothing to do with Our practically non existant military on the borders. That is Why that lie died so quickly when the sickeningly liberal press of this nation tried to sell it. Too many people laughing at it!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/02/2009 @ 08:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie, I understand your concerns. We all care about being secure within our borders. But sometimes our fears can lead to a mindset that is counterproductive. Now, I hate repeating stuff I've already said before, so I hope you won't mind if I repeat my comments from an earlier blog. Please check out Dave's post on April 18, 2009: Border Violence Not Spilling Over
http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/border_violence_not_spilling_over
Politicians and pundits are adept at stirring up fears of so-called "spillover violence" along the border. This then provides the rationale for misguided policies that engender more violence (i.e. terrorizing immigrants and border residents, fueling the "drug wars" through militarization, misguided sentencing laws, etc). It’s a vicious cycle, and people should think twice about what it means for their communities.
I like what Roberto Lovato has to say about the implications of this policy:
"At a time when less than 18% of the U.S. population believes it is living the American Dream, according to one poll, the state needs many reasons to reassert control over the populace by putting more gun-wielding government agents among the citizenry."
***
"By framing such militaristic measures as targeting noncitizen immigrants makes it easier for citizens to swallow the increased domestic militarism inherent in increasing numbers of uniformed men and women with guns in their midst. As David Cole put it in his Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (The New Press, 2005): ‘What we are willing to allow our government to do to immigrants today creates a template for how it will treat citizens tomorrow.’"
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/what-will-obama-do-about-terror-incognita-immigrants-and-the-homeland-security-state/
We should have learned by now, through our experience with Plan Colombia, that the "drug war" model (i.e. militarization) is a complete failure. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) coca cultivation has actually risen 15 percent since 2000, when Plan Colombia first went into effect.
In addition, we need to revamp our criminal justice system and institute more enlightened policies and programs that deal with the root causes of substance abuse and drug-related crimes. In sum, we need to get beyond the hype and start implementing real solutions to this problem.
Politicians and pundits are adept at stirring up fears of so-called "spillover violence" along the border. This then provides the rationale for misguided policies that engender more violence (i.e. terrorizing immigrants and border residents, fueling the "drug wars" through militarization, misguided sentencing laws, etc). It’s a vicious cycle, and people should think twice about what it means for their communities.
I like what Roberto Lovato has to say about the implications of this policy:
"At a time when less than 18% of the U.S. population believes it is living the American Dream, according to one poll, the state needs many reasons to reassert control over the populace by putting more gun-wielding government agents among the citizenry."
***
"By framing such militaristic measures as targeting noncitizen immigrants makes it easier for citizens to swallow the increased domestic militarism inherent in increasing numbers of uniformed men and women with guns in their midst. As David Cole put it in his Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (The New Press, 2005): ‘What we are willing to allow our government to do to immigrants today creates a template for how it will treat citizens tomorrow.’"
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/what-will-obama-do-about-terror-incognita-immigrants-and-the-homeland-security-state/
We should have learned by now, through our experience with Plan Colombia, that the "drug war" model (i.e. militarization) is a complete failure. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) coca cultivation has actually risen 15 percent since 2000, when Plan Colombia first went into effect.
In addition, we need to revamp our criminal justice system and institute more enlightened policies and programs that deal with the root causes of substance abuse and drug-related crimes. In sum, we need to get beyond the hype and start implementing real solutions to this problem.
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
oops, I must have copied that comment more than once (doh!)
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(In addition, we need to revamp our criminal justice system and institute more enlightened policies and programs that deal with the root causes of substance abuse and drug-related crimes. In sum, we need to get beyond the hype and start implementing real solutions to this problem.)
You are so right about this Analisa. We need to try to rehabilitate these people. This is something that Senator Web from Virginia is an advocate about.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/03/2009 @ 07:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...almost 100% of the military hardware used by Mexican cartels has been traced back to weapons and material stolen directly from the Mexican military and police. 100% of the military hardware used by Mexican cartels has been traced back to weapons and material stolen directly from the Mexican military and police.
...the US is also the source of approximately 90% of drug cartels’ guns (Mexico doesn’t manufacture guns). In addition to US military-issue weapons, which are supplied to the cartels by corrupt elements in either the US or Mexican military, cartels also arm themselves with weapons that were legally purchased in the United States before being illegally turned over to the cartels. The Brookings Institution estimates that about 2,000 guns travel south across the US-Mexico border every day.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2008/12/why-plan-mexico-will-crash-and-burn
Kristin Bricker's article Why Plan Mexico Will Crash and Burn will give you some real insight on all the connections between the various players in Mexico and the United States who are fueling the cartel wars. It's a long article, but it's well worth reading to the end.
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
okay, just to clarify: Charlie's comment is on top, while the second italicized block is Ms. Bricker's comment. sorry!
Posted by a d on 07/03/2009 @ 05:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ms. Analisa, I've ran a few ideas by Mr. Bennion, that I think could work. Of course, there is much more, but way too much to write here. I've talked my ideas over with conservatives, and liberals alike, of course, each points out discrepancy's, they would like to see changed. On the basic principals though, both seem to agree. (Yes---the far left, and far right, actually agree on an immigration issue.) Ask Mr. Bennion to forward it to you. It's a 5 year plan to complete-citizenship.
As far as The Dream act, I do, and don't support it. The animosity that it will create, if it's passed, will lead to more bigotry, racism, upheaval, in our already, "over- hyper sensitive," country. Many more underlying issues, must be addressed, before our country/majority of our country, will embrace it.
If I appear hostile, it's because I want compromise. I feel like the key people, in the middle, are being over looked. The left wants it their way, and the right wants it their way. People like myself, are simply saying, "we want it to work! Lets find a way." By pointing out, only the, "benefits," of immigration, your not any better, than the people pointing out only the, "negatives," of immigration.( I see both.)
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/03/2009 @ 09:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
L.S. Hope, I hope you see this. Dave sent me a copy of your ideas for immigration reform (I'm sorry it got buried in with a lot of actions so I didn't see it right away). You asked him if it could work. I have to be honest: I think it creates a two-tiered system which is inherently discriminatory. I don't see how undocumented migrants making minimum wage salary are going to be able to pay for their own social security, education (if they have kids) and possibly health care under such a system. When we all pay into the system, it helps to keep these costs down. That is, the costs are spread among tax payers all across the country. When you have fewer people paying into a system (as you would with migrants), the costs will be higher. At least, that's my understanding. And I don't really relish the idea of creating a second class of people in this country. Sorry, I just have to be honest about that. I think we would be much better getting people completely out of the shadows and into the system. We would all benefit from this in the long run. Just saying.
Posted by a d on 07/17/2009 @ 07:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Okay, L.S., I'll ask Dave to forward it to me. I would like to see it before I comment. I will just say that you may find that we are more flexible than you think. But keep in mind that the previous administration has set up a system of for-profit detention centers, conducted raids that have torn immigrant families apart, and instituted the policy of ‘crimmigration’ where immigrants are treated like criminals. This was a radically different approach to immigration policy and it was instituted by the same extremists who brought us the Iraq War and the Wall Street meltdown. So we would very much like to see these issues addressed in by the CIR bill. At the very least, we would like to see discussion and debate of these issues – not just talk about legalization while the same morally questionable system remains in effect.
Now, I hope that the DREAM Act can be passed as a separate bill so that it won’t get (potentially) torpedoed in the wrangling over CIR. Keep in mind that politicians have a different role from activists. The politicians job is to effect compromise and reach consensus, but as activists our job is to advocate for people and get issues on to the table that ordinarily would never be considered (take single payer health care, for example). If enough of us are willing to work hard to demand change, we can move mountains, just as we did for Walter Lara. That’s my view. I would be very intersted to learn more about the different perspectives/camps in the immigration debate, especially on the "pro" side. I think what we all want is good bill, so that we’re not fighting the same battles five, ten or fifteen years from now. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Sorry, we got so far off topic, Dave.
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 06:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Speaking of which...check this great interview with Roberto Lovato:
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/death-detention-and-the-dream-of-legalization-grittv-panel-on-immigration-reform/
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 06:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(I just want to be sure that Charlie sees this, so I'm posting it in two places.)
Thank you, Charlie. I am happy to hear your view that immigrants are an asset. I agree with you, and I commend you for your compassionate response. As far as border security is concerned, I think we are reacting mostly out of fear rather than common sense. Remember how the Iraq War was sold to us? I knew some very intelligent people who absolutely believed in the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction. And what happened was that we are now embroiled in a debacle that has no rhyme or reason. Thousands of our soldiers have died and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. So when we are fearful, we often apply solutions that amout to overkill. And then we find ourselves embroiled in a situation for which there is no easy way out. This is what will happen if we militarize the border with Mexico. We need a much more nuanced understanding of the problem if we truly want to find solutions that will actually work. Recently, a Latin American commission headed by Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia called on the U.S. and Latin American governments to acknowledge the insufficiencies of current policy and to engage in a debate about new alternatives. Read about it here:
http://mamaradio.blogspot.com/2009/02/drug-war-failure-news-item-from-ips.html
The report cites Columbia and Mexico as nations where U.S. prohibitionist policies, despite the large investment of resources and loss of innocent lives, have failed to put an end to drug trafficking and narco-violence. It cautions other countries from adopting these kinds of policies and urges them to search for innovative alternatives.
The long-term solution for the drug problem is to drastically reduce the demand for drugs in the main consumer countries, the report states. As U.S. and European domestic markets are the main consumers of the drugs produced in Latin America, the report calls on the U.S. and EU to share the responsibility faced by Latin American countries to design and implement policies leading to an effective reduction in their levels of drug consumption.
We should have learned by now, through our experience with Plan Colombia, that the "drug war" model (i.e. militarization) has been a complete failure.
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 07:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
sorry, my tags aren't working...the first two paragraphs after the url should be italicized.
Posted by a d on 07/04/2009 @ 07:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, this is where I suspect that a liberal and a conservative will never be able to agree. I happen to believe secure borders are the very definition of common sense. All the time, no matter what is going on. I completely trust the only competent portion of Our government to do it. (military) If You feel The military needs more training on this subject, We ask the Mexican government for training. From what I hear They guard Their southern border quite tightly. Most nations guard Their borders. We should also. All the time, regardless of politics.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/04/2009 @ 09:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Analisa, Please understand I do not make the above comment in the attempt to bait You for argument. Quite the opposite. I hold You with significant respect, but just feel We will never agree on this point. That's a good thing Analisa. It means We both have functioning brains in Our head.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/05/2009 @ 06:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I understand, Charlie. I respect that you have the your own point of view, and I realize that I can't change everyone's mind. You're right, we all have our own way of reasoning things out (i.e. functioning brains). I have the deepest respect for people who are kind to immigrants -- that's the most important thing to me. So thank you for that. And as for the rest, I think we can agree to respectfully disagree on occasion. :-)
Posted by a d on 07/05/2009 @ 04:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans
back on topic...just love that quote! :-)
Posted by a d on 07/06/2009 @ 06:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
L.S. Hope, I hope you see this. Dave sent me a copy of your ideas for immigration reform (I'm sorry it got buried in with a lot of actions so I didn't see it right away). You asked him if it could work. I have to be honest: I think it creates a two-tiered system which is inherently discriminatory. I don't see how undocumented migrants making minimum wage salary are going to be able to pay for their own social security, education (if they have kids) and possibly health care under such a system. When we all pay into the system, it helps to keep these costs down. That is, the costs are spread among tax payers all across the country. When you have fewer people paying into a system (as you would with migrants), the costs will be higher. At least, that's my understanding. And I don't really relish the idea of creating a second class of people in this country. Sorry, I just have to be honest about that. I think we would be much better getting people completely out of the shadows and into the system. We would all benefit from this in the long run. Just saying.
Posted by a d on 07/17/2009 @ 07:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.