# Home Invasion at the National Level



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

"Some Mexicans and Mexican-Americans," writes John Tiffany, "want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the United States given to Mexico. They call it the &#8220;reconquista,&#8221; Spanish for &#8220;reconquest,&#8221; and they view *the millions of Mexican illegal aliens entering this country as their army of invaders to achieve that takeover.*"  Emphasis added is mine.  Tiffany points out that, as we've heard in recent news reports, armed Mexican soldiers (in league with or impersonated by drug traffickers, we are told by Mexico's smirking, lying government, which publishes cartoon tracts explaining to Mexican serfs how to sneak across the border into the U.S.A.) have _fired on American Bortder Patro officers.  Illegal immigrants have terrorized American ranchers in border states and the porous Mexican border is an ideal point of entry for Islamist terrorists impersonating Hispanic illegals.

The organization US Border Control reports that, according to something called the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, DC, fully 30 percent of the nation's two million prison inmates are illegal immigrants.  Heather MacDonald, in her 2004 report in the City Journal, wastes no time framing the problem.  "Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," she writes.  She goes on to report that 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (1,200 to 1,500 murders) "target" illegal aliens.  Up to two thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.  What's worse, according to MacDonold, is that the Calfiornia Department of Justice has known since 1995 that at least 60 percent of the vicious 18th Street Gang in southern California comprises illegal aliens.

As I write this, it is almost April Fool's day of 2006.  We Americans certainly are fools, as our politicians debate a law that is essentially amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.  What's worse, the ingrateful national home invaders who are our illegal "immigrant" population consider even this law too harsh, claiming it is a cruel and xenophobic attempt to kick these "immigrants" out of the country, deny them the American dream, prevent them from obtaining health care and education, and generally oppress these hard-working, well-meaning, other-than-white fellow travelers.  One presumes these evil lawmakers had to take time out of a busy schedule consisting largely of kicking puppies, to hear the illegal "immigrants" wail and moan over the idea that we might actually start enforcing our borders just a little.

In the last week or so, demonstrators ranging from indoctrinated, ignorant leftist high school students and their former hippie teachers to hundreds of thousands of "reconquista" supporters and their frequently communist sympathizers (waving Mexican flags, no less) marched, chanted, and bitched across the country.  The AP reported that tends of thousands of students walked out of schools in California and elsewhere Monday, waving flags (the AP didn't bother to report that these flags were Mexican flags) and chanting slogans to protest "legislation to crack down on illegal immigrants."  Protestors at the Capitol in D.C. were arrested and hauled off in handcuffs.  California actually celebrates Cesar Chavez day, for pitys' sake, and on that Monday 36,000 brainwashed or Mexican children walked out of school in the Los Angeles area.  Perhaps a thousand of these students surrounded Los Angeles' City Hall in order to intimidate L.A. mayor Antonoia Villaraigosa into a meeting at his office.

In Santa Ana, the kids threw rocks and bottles, resulting in 24 arrests.  In Detroit, protesters waving Mexican flags marched from city's Hispanic area to the federal building downtown.  The message in all these protests -- heralded as a new "civil rights" movement by our nation's more self-destructive pundits -- was clear.  If you oppose the invasion of the United States by hordes of illegal immigrants who feel entitled to the social services we provide and for which they do not pay a dime, you oppose "immigrant rights" and you will be intimidated with threats of violence (or silenced through naked, initiated force) until you no longer stand in the way of the foot soldiers of the reconquista.

Communist Venezuelan President Hugo Ch&#225;vez characterized the United States as a "dictatorship" and said that all "Latin American revolutions" (as reported by the Miami Herald Wire Services) "must clash with Washington."  He is part of what the AP's Traci Carl calls a "new wave of Latin American leaders -- variously labeled leftist, populist, nationalist, or socialist -- [that] is redefinining politics" south of the US-Mexican border.  As these barbarian hordes gather at our southern gates, they share a common belief system -- that the richer, more powerful, more prosperous United States is an "imperialist" and "fascist" nation that should be opposed for daring to deny illegal aliens (and their countries of origin) an equal share of the fruits of U.S. labors.  These fruits are, of course, taxes confiscated from U.S. citizens, who are shouldering the terrible social burden of the education, healthcare, and even incarceration of the millions of illegal immigrants burrowing like tapeworms into the American digestive tract.

The American government has failed to solve this problem on many levels.  It has failed to preempt the reconquista by failing to protect our borders.  It continues to fail by refusing to support programs that target, identify, and imprison or deport illegal aliens who commit violent crimes on U.S. soil.  It has further failed by vilifying those who try to defend this nation's borders and culture through direct action, such as the Minutemen (citizens who watch the border in their states in an attempt to prevent further incursions by Mexican and terrorist invaders).

Illegal aliens in the United States are repeatedly, incessantly, characterized as innocent, hard-working people who just want to find a better life for themselves and their families.  The imagery of these invaders as hapless would-be citizens fleeing poverty, willing to "do work that Americans simply will not do," is so pervasive that it constitutes a de facto propaganda campaign.  Just as "bums" and "winos" have become "the homeless" (who are repeatedly mischaracterized as misunderstood and disadvantaged people who are simply "down on their luck," rather than as the unpredictable, frequently diseased, often drug-addicted or mentally unstable societal predators that they too often are), illegal aliens have become "undocumented immigrants" in an attempt to equate them with the huddled masses yearning to breathe free who walked wide-eyed through the gates at Ellis Island.  The fact that they crawled past barbed wire fences, raped a few ranchers' wives along the way, and now accept under-the-table wages while dodging the beleaguered police forces seeking them on murder charges, is dismissed as irrelevant; it does not, after all, fit in with the imagery our popular media strive so hard to create.

The fact is that, legally and morally, illegal aliens have no *right* to be in the United States.  There is no entitlement to a "better life" at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.  If you wish to immigrate to this country, you must do so legally or not at all.  You are not entitled to anything simply because you have successfully crossed the border without permission; I don't care how long you've been here or whether you've had children since you arrived.  We need, quite frankly, to change our citizenship laws.  Birth in this country should not be enough to establish legal citizenship if your parents are here illegally in the first place.

I have no right to live and work in Canada, no matter how nice I might find Toronto.  I cannot expect to benefit from Canadian social services if I cross the border and then stay in the country instead of returning home.  I should not expect not to be ejected if I am found without documentation working as a dishwasher in Ottawa.  No matter how entitled I might feel to be there and to stay there, even if I've had illegitimate Canadian children and I've been living in the country for years, I have no right to these things.  When I am arrested or deported, my rights are not being violated.  Those who protest on my behalf are not fighting for "civil rights" -- they're marching in support of criminal behavior!

If we're going to make utilitarian arguments about amnesty for illegal aliens, the outcome is the same.  We may, in fact, be economically dependent on an illegal underclass to perform certain low-end jobs for less than minimum wage.  If these workers are removed from our economy, however, the economy will not end.  Prices for certain goods will simply rise.  I don't know about you, but I'll pay more for an apple if it means there's less chance my wife will be raped by migrant workers.  I'll pay more for just about any consumer good if it means the employees I encounter in the store are less likely to be violent felons.  I'll pay higher prices at the gates of the New York State fair if it means the toothless carnies running the rides at least speak English.  

The crimes committed by illegal aliens completely undercut any argument made for the utility of allowing these invaders to remain within the country, but the economic argument is even more convincing.  We simply cannot afford to keep paying for welfare, social services in general, education, and healthcare for "undocumented immigrants" (who, for example, are treated in hospital emergency rooms despite the fact that they have no insurance and cannot pay for treatment).  The waves of illegal aliens swamping us are already overrunning our ability to foot the bill for all these things.  If we do not protect our borders the financial burden of illegal "immigration" will only become worse.

A home invasion is a particularly brutal crime in which innocent people, believing themselves safe in their dwellings, are attacked by lawbreakers who violate the sanctity of their victims' homes in order to prey on others.  The need for self-defense in the face of home invasions is obvious.  When violent criminals enter your home uninvited in order to take from you what you do not wish to give and what these criminals have not earned, no reasonable person would fault you for using force -- even lethal force -- to repel the invaders and preserve your family's lives.  How are the invading forces of the reconquista any different?  Illegal aliens are national home invaders, entering the country without invitation and taking from U.S. citizens what those citizens do not wish to give.  The disporportionate population of illegal aliens imprisoned or sought for violent crimes is chilling proof of the very real danger these invaders represent; the financial burden they create, even when on their best behavior, is no less real.

We must engage in self-defense on the national level.  We must protect ourselves from these invaders.  We must fight to keep our families safe from these criminals -- and we must work to ensure that our children and their children have the chance to do the same.  The problem is not "immigrants."  Illegal aliens are not immigrants at all.  

They are home invaders and should be dealt with accordingly._


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

Can you say xenophobe?  I knew you could.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

> Can you say xenophobe? I knew you could.



That's very incisive, Ron.  Such a response is certainly easier to formulate than would be a substantive rebuttal of the arguments that the crime and financial burdens of illegal immigration should not and cannot be tolerated.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 29, 2006)

Eh, the market demands cheap labor. Supply and demand and all that. I say eliminate social programs (so nobody gets a free ride) and allow non criminals to come on in.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil,
            You do make valid points and I wish I knew the answer to this problem.  The world is changing and it is going to be tough.  As our cultures blend together and we have a land of freedom, I think that we are going to have to accept more immigration.  I realize that our country has to burden the financial cost but it goes against our founding principles to be xenophobes.  I work in a university, a very multi-cultural environment, and the one thing I have learned is that everyone is the same.  What I cannot condone is hate toward another culture.  I am sure that you are the same.  What do you think some middle ground might be?

ron


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 29, 2006)

> I realize that our country has to burden the financial cost


-This is my only problem with immigration. I'm all for open borders, just don't come here to sit on the dole.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

MSUTKD said:
			
		

> Phil,
> You do make valid points and I wish I knew the answer to this problem. The world is changing and it is going to be tough. As our cultures blend together and we have a land of freedom, I think that we are going to have to accept more immigration. I realize that our country has to burden the financial cost but it goes against our founding principles to be xenophobes. I work in a university, a very multi-cultural environment, and the one thing I have learned is that everyone is the same. What I cannot condone is hate toward another culture. I am sure that you are the same. What do you think some middle ground might be?
> 
> ron


 
Demanding that our borders be secured against illegal immigration is not hatred.  This is the propaganda of those who would see our nation swamped with aliens.  Recognizing the burden this creates -- socially, financially, and with regard to crime -- is similarly not hatred, nor it is a violation of anyone's "civil rights."

The solution to the problem is simple.  It is aggressive enforcement of our borders and our citizenship laws.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 29, 2006)

So Phil, you support increasing the size of the Border Patrol by a factor of 10? Because that's what it would take. Why should the US economy absorb the cost to do that when it's simple supply and demand economics that demands they come here to work? The $ doesn't add up.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The solution to the problem is simple. It is aggressive enforcement of our borders and our citizenship laws.



And this, I think, is the key - the laws we have are not being enforced, and passing new laws will not change that.  This country was founded on the concepts of freedom and equality, and those concepts draw people who don't have them like moths to the flame.  People who, for whatever reason, cannot enter legally will enter illegally, to try to access those concepts, and that is certainly understandable - not acceptable, but understandable.

Having said that, however, I must say that, while your article was certainly thought-provoking, I found the slant toward Mexican immigrants to be prejudicial - although I suspect (or, at least, hope) that at least some of it was intended as a wake-up call, and not a condemnation of an entire group for the errors of a few.  Many illegal immigrants are desparate for what they find here - and they enter illegally because the potential reward outweighs the potential punishment.

There are several components that add to this problem:

- Illegal immigrants are willing (and generally constrained) to work for very low wages - both because the employer has them over a barrel, and because employers are willing to take the legal risk for the cheap labor.  This is a social issue as well as an economic one - at some level, in some facets of society, it is *acceptable* to break labor laws to improve one's economic standing - just like it is *acceptable* at some level to speed - or societal pressures (not legal pressures) would prevent people from doing it, both because it would be morally wrong, and because others would report it more frequently and fully.

- The societal pressures of "keeping up with the Joneses" require that one continue to buy and buy and buy - despite the cost and potential negative future effects on one's life of being perpetually in debt.  Cheap labor can help with this purchasing frenzy on the front end - and by the time cheaply made, shoddy items are breaking down, something newer and better has been produced anyway - so just call it planned obsolescence and let it go.  Buy a new one instead of fixing the old one - it's out of date anyway, and cheap labor (in this country and others) means that it will be cheaper (or nearly so) to buy a new one than fix the old one - even if you can find a qualified repair technician (a sadly vanishing breed in the quest to send all students to college - but that's a discussion for another thread).

- Market forces lead to marketing in the languages spoken in the community in which one advertises - thus the proliferation of non-English languages which dot the landscape in stores, advertisements, TV shows, and so on.  But market forces are a response, not a cause.  If this country were less driven by market forces, and signage, advertising, and labels were printed only in English, and stores and businesses only hired people who could speak English, immigrants (legal or otherwise) would be forced to learn English... thus ending the need for enclaves in which other languages are spoken, allowing for greater inclusion and diversity across wider areas, rather than the self-contained, often self-sufficient neighborhoods in which immigrants and their descendants find it unnecessary to learn English to survive - thus maintaining their solitude, solidarity, and feelings of lack of acceptance.

There are many forces at work here, some social, some economic, and all needing detailed, dedicated attention - not knee-jerk responses.  If a law is not producing the desired effect - find out *why *- writing another, more restrictive law may not be the answer, if the problem is that the first law is not being properly enforced.  In this situation, entering the country illegally is attractive, and the potential rewards are great - and generally easier than entering the country legally, despite the fact that the rewards for that are even greater.  Amnesty programs, while socially acceptable, encourage illegal immigration - the key is to make legal immigration easier, more attractive, and more acceptable than illegal immigration.  Until that is done, we will continue to have to fight with this issue.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2006)

Build a wall, not a fence.
Man it 24/7/365 like Hadrians Wall.
Allow for roaming patrols of well armed and trained troops.
Use scanning devices to look for tunnels under the wall, and other boarder areas.

Use the National Guard as well as Regular Military as the manpower.

Yes, it will cost some money, but if we are serious about our border security, a serious lockdown must be done, as if a lettuce picker and sweatshop worker can sneak across, so can a shoe bomber, or jihadic kamikaze.

At the border crossings, use all technology possible to scan and search each and every vehicle for smuggling, as well as safety issues, and turn back all that fail to meet regulations. Staff and equip those crossings properly.

Build 1 less bomber a year. The money to fund this will be there then.


----------



## hemi (Mar 29, 2006)

I know there isnt an easy answer to this problem. We as a nation need to look more at the big picture and not go on the whim of the media. I am in a job position where I have to deal with contractors on just about a daily basis. I would say of these contractors 80% are Hispanic and the other 20% mixed bag of races. In my opinion the Hispanic workers work very hard, will work for less money, never complain, strike, and do a good job at the trade they work in. Also if you have ever had a house build, re roofed, tiled, framed, siding put on, carpet installed or most any work done on your house. The chances are that the General contractor you hired turned around and used/hired a crew of Hispanic workers to perform this work. If this was not the case how much more would same repair cost if the contractor had to pay $22- $30 per hour vs. $8 to $10? I dont think we could afford to have a house build if this was the case. I dont have a problem with a work program of some sort where every one that enters this country to work will have to pay taxes. I do however have a problem with the free ride system we seem to have in place as of now. Instead of spending tons of money to secure the borders and now allow anyone in. Spend the money that is generated from the taxes to police the people coming in. Use that money to beef up the personal and make sure that it is truly a Mexican worker and not some Hamas Terrorist. 

Oh and just for the record I am not of Hispanic decent.

Just my .02


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Correctly identifying the source of a problem is not "prejudice."  This, too, is the propaganda of those whose policies will destroy us.  The illegal immgration problem is overwhelmingly a problem of illegal _Mexican_ immigrants, who enter illegally with the explicit help and encouragement of their government.  It is not "racist" to recognize this as a fact.  I'm all for any number of people from whatever ethnic background entering this country -- as long as they do so LEGALLY.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow Phil.  Just, Wow.

The immigration issue is tremendously complicated, as so many people here have already pointed out, so I won't go into that.

What I do notice is this:  For someone like yourself, who spends so much time thinking about, writing about, and preaching about, self defense, nation defense, defense against criminals, defense against hippies, defense against terrorists, defense against immigrants, defense against communists, defense against liberals, rights to defend yourself, rights to be armed, etc., the world must indeed look like a huge scary place.  Yes, these are real issues, but most of us don't live our lives in a state of constant, vigilante fear and paranoia.

Stop being afraid, Phil.  Trust me, the world is really not such a frightening place to be.  Once you manage to shake off your irrational fear of everything and everyone who walks the earth, you might actually find yourself making some friends and having some fun.  Stop being afraid, Phil. Leave the dark side.  Come over to the light.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow.  Just wow.

Instead of substantively addressing an issue you consider "complicated," you choose instead simply to attack me.  That's tremendously intellectually bankrupt.  No offense.

There is nothing _fearful_ about recognizing the need for self-defense and choosing to devote oneself to writing about and furthering that goal.  To consider someone paranoid for bothering to devote their effort to productive contributions to this field is like telling someone who sells life insurance for a living that he or she has a morbid desire to see people die.  Here I am, writing under my own name rather than hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.  Here I am, with my phone number in my signature, my mailing address on my web page, and my opinions on display for all the world to see and to criticize.  Yes, these are the actions of someone very fearful, indeed.

The grasshopper always considers the ant uptight, fearful, paranoid, and whatever else.  The ant, in turn, goes about his work shaking his head, knowing that there are others who understand what needs to be done -- and knowing how useless the grasshoppers of the world ultimately turn out to be when the time for work arrives.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Correctly identifying the source of a problem is not "prejudice." This, too, is the propaganda of those whose policies will destroy us. The illegal immgration problem is overwhelmingly a problem of illegal _Mexican_ immigrants, who enter illegally with the explicit help and encouragement of their government. It is not "racist" to recognize this as a fact. I'm all for any number of people from whatever ethnic background entering this country -- as long as they do so LEGALLY.



Where you live, Mexican immigrants may well be a large part of the problem - but they are not the *only* source of the problem, and concentrating on them to the exclusion of all other sources is, in my opinion, short-sighted.  As a teacher, I see a representative sample of immigrants to this country - and the two language families I see rising rapidly are Cyrillic (Russian) and Asian.  Are as many of these illegal as Mexicans?  Not yet.  But it behooves us to watch all borders equally.  In addition, many Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) are *not* Mexican - a concept you did not address.  These immigrants come _through_ Mexico, true - but the are from central and South America; their expectations are different, they come from a different culture, and, while they are Hispanic and do speak Spanish, they are *not* the same population, and they represent different problems.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

The _illegal immigration_ problem in this country is _overwhelmingly_ a problem of immigration across the Mexico-US border.  It occurs with the explicit encouragement of Vincente Fox and the Mexican government.  It is not Russian soldiers who are crossing into the United States and firing on the border patrol; it is _Mexican_ soldiers who have done this.  Yes, there are exceptions -- but if we start staking our arguments on irrelevant semantic points ("X percentage of illegal Mexican immigration consists of immigration from countries farther south") we're really wildly missing the point of what I wrote.  (If you read carefully, you'll see I mentioned Latin America in general and Hugo Chavez in particular.)

Identifying exceptions doesn't change what I wrote.  Reading "racism" or "hatred" or even "fear" into the recognition of this very real problem likewise does not change what I wrote.  The United States is in very real danger financially and socially -- based on social services budgets and crime rates -- because it has not and still refuses to protect its borders.  The problem is primarily the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than the U.S.-Canadian border (though real issues can be raised there as well, particularly with regard to entry points for terrorists).  This is a fact that is not and should not be in dispute.  We can argue the appropriate solutions to the problem, but trying to pretend that the problem doesn't exist, or isn't as bad as all that because exceptions can be identified, doesn't change the problem itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 29, 2006)

well, if you feel that strongly about your work, by all means, carry on.

I am just a liberal, sort of hippy-minded person who believes in both human rights, and the right to defend oneself, including the right to be armed.  But I also believe that most people have _no need_ to be armed and find it somewhat silly that many people feel they have to be armed so much of the time.  Coincidentally, I happen to live on Cesar Chavez Street in San Francisco.  I guess I am one of the people you are afraid of.  Pity, because I'm actually a pretty nice guy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't really care who it is sneaking across. I just think it should be stopped.

And, if Mexican soldiers or cops are firing at our defensive line, I think an aggressive reminder of the stupidity of that action should be demonstrated.  Perhaps as a battery of 60 cal emplacements?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

> I am just a liberal, sort of hippy-minded person who believes in both human rights, and the right to defend oneself, including the right to be armed. But I also believe that most people have _no need_ to be armed and find it somewhat silly that many people feel they have to be armed so much of the time. Coincidentally, I happen to live on Cesar Chavez Street in San Francisco. I guess I am one of the people you are afraid of. Pity, because I'm actually a pretty nice guy.


 
That is the problem.  This is an attitude of wishful thinking.  It is not a recognition of _reality_.  To see prudent preparation as paranoia is a mental defense -- a way of compensating for the cognitive dissonance created when we realize someone is better prepared than are we.  What you think you _need_ has no bearing on what _is_.  It is my hope that you will go through life never learning that your belief system is ultimately naive and self-destructive, for I'm sure you are a perfectly nice person (apart from your somewhat annoying tendency to project onto others your own latent fears or inabilities).  I would only ask that if you cannot be part of the solution, you not project contrived psychological misinterpretations on those of us who are trying to contribute to others' safety and wellbeing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That is the problem.  This is an attitude of wishful thinking.  It is not a recognition of _reality_.



Why not consider opposing views for a change?  Why always right them off as leftists hippy crap and wishful thinking?

Reality doesn't appear to everyone the way it does to you.  

Apart from when I was in the army, and then only when I was on duty, I have never carried a weapon.  Never felt the need too.  Winnipeg has the wonderful title of "Murder capital of Canada", and I have worked in some of its worst areas.

Because of my job I spend a lot of time working with the same people you tend to be afraid of, and they are actually quite nice


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

You do not contribute to anyones safety.  I am not a liberal and I think that some of the thoughts you have brought up are indeed paranoia and fear.  That is the propaganda on your side of the fence.  You need those two things to support your thinking.  I think you have read too much of Jacques Ellul.  Reality, you bring up reality?   I have to ask, whose reality?  Now you sound like Nietzsche, we all know where that ideology goes.  I agree that it is a problem but we have far more things to worry about.

I really do appreciate your thoughts, though I do not always agree.  Have you ever been outside the country?  Have you ever been a foreigner?  Not a judgment just as question of viewpoints.  I have been both and it really gave me an insight, and love, for the place that we get to live.  Just to be able to talk about this is a gift most citizens take for granted, except those who do not live here.  When youre the big kid on the block you have to take some responsibility and hopefully some tolerance.  

ron


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

> Why not consider opposing views for a change? Why always right them off as leftists hippy crap and wishful thinking?


 
There is an opposing view, still held in certain circles, that the world is flat.  This, too, is wishful thinking -- a failure to recognize reality.  Standing in the middle of a riot with your fingers in your ears claiming, "This is not happening," is not an option.  So, no, I won't consider "opposing views" that are flatly wrong.  Anyone who cannot recognize the need to prepare, prudently and reasonably, for self-defense, who cannot see the potential problems he or she could (but hopefully won't) face, and who therefore _refuses_ to prepare because he or she does not wish to acknowlege these facts, is _evading reality_.  This evasion is not just foolish; it is morally offensive.

Your _feelings_ are irrelevant.  What you think you do or don't _need_ doesn't concern me.  Your choices don't matter to me.  Reality doesn't care what you think you do or don't need.



> You do not contribute to anyone&#8217;s safety


 
Spoken like someone who contributes little but criticism and commentary.  When you make the decision to devote your time to productive, constuctive contribution to the field of self-defense, your assessment of what I contribute may or may not have meaning to me.  It certainly doesn't now.  Again, it is much easier to take petty shots at me than it is to address an argument substantively.

Oh, and no, I can honestly say that I've never not been a citizen of the United States.  I've never been a woman, a potted plant, a shoe tree, a glass of water, or a microwave oven, either.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 29, 2006)

I have issues with illegal immigration.

I live in what I would consider a hispanic neighborhood, and like Andrew pointed out, many of them are nice people.  However, our neighborhood is also full of latin gangs... and it seems whenever they try and prosecute these guys... they simply "go home" to mexico... so they have no fear of our legal system or responsibilty for their crimes.  If they could not come and go as they please, I have to believe that MIGHT not be the case.

The same is true of traffic problems.  I personally know the widow of a man killed in a car wreck, he was hit by an illegal alien, who was drunk at the time.  No licenece, no insurance, She got no JUSTICE, because, again, he fled back to mexico.  

A coworker of mine was in a similar situation, only no one was killed, just totaled his car... and again, fled back to mexico.

THIS is a problem.  The first action these people do in coming here is a crime, so why should we assume they are not criminal? The ease of access across the border in both directions is a liabilty when it comes to aliens coming here and commiting crime at random with no fear of justice.

Iv'e said it before and I will say it again... if its too difficult to come here legally, we need to revisit those laws and limitations.  I'm all for diversity and cultural integration.  But on the flip side, its far to easy to come here illegally, and THAT needs to be revisited and stopped as well.​


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil,

I will make my question clear.

Have you ever traveled outside the US?  Have you ever lived in a foreign country?

ron


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 29, 2006)

If you outlaw immigration, only outlaws will immigrate.

Open the borders. Let anyone who wishes to come to America, come and participate, and breathe free. Study, work, visit or contemplate the universe; we are the richer for it. There are more spices in my cabinet than salt, sea salt, and kosher salt.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I'll pay more for an apple if it means there's less chance my wife will be raped by migrant workers.


 
Now that we've categorically established that migrant workers are all rapists, I don't understand why there's a debate at all.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

That is just &#8220;pure&#8221; ignorance on his part.  Debate is not his forte.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 29, 2006)

Ahh my good friend Phil.

Great article of discussion.  

As much as I want to make this a reality of having a completely sealed border and have it so those that wish to enter our country in the future, do so the legal way.

Big issue is the families that are already here.  A wall will do the trick of helping to keep new illegals out, but the ones already here are another story.  The mother could be a illegal but the kids legal citizens because of their birthright.  I know that latino families value family over pretty much anything...so its gonna be more or less the biggest cluster F$%K in history if the government wants to declare all of those older/heads of households as illegal and ship them out.

Agreed we need to enforce our borders in this everchanging world.  But if one things is for sure....the cost of this wall that will span all of our southern border will cost a LOT.  How about just loading the rio grande with sharks with freakin lasers on their head...that will reduce the cost some.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2006)

sharks with freakin lasers on their head"

Only if we can control them from a giant Big Boy command centre.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 29, 2006)

Ill-tempered sea bass?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2006)

_*Moderator Note. *_
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy and general posting rules at the "RULES" link on the blue menu bar.  Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

MSUTKD said:
			
		

> That is just &#8220;pure&#8221; ignorance on his part. Debate is not his forte.


 
I think we've established that taking cheap shots is what _you_ do, Ron, rather than addressing an argument.  Taking a single line out of context does not do justice to the point being made, which is the reality that _illegal aliens represent a signficant threat of increased crime rates, as supported by the statistics I cited._

Also, note the difference between _protecting the borders and enforcing our citizenship laws_ and "sealing" those borders.  I am not arguing for _sealing_ the borders.  I am arguing for the enforcement of the laws already in place.  I am arguing for vigorous prosecution and removal of illegal aliens because of the harm they are doing to American society.  You can mischaracterize any number of ways; you can take personal shots because you don't wish to argue the issues; you can be petty and childish if you must.  the problem of illegal immigration remains.  The solution remains clear.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> There is an opposing view, still held in certain circles, that the world is flat.



He world has always been known to be round, Even the Ancient greeks knew that.  Ptolmeny & Aristotles models of the universe both had it as a sphere in the middle.



> So, no, I won't consider "opposing views" that are flatly wrong.



Yet from many people's point of view it is you that is flatly wrong, and talking to you is like telling 1 8th century Christian that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Why are you so sure that it is everyone else that is wrong?




> Anyone who cannot recognize the need to prepare, prudently and reasonably, for self-defense, who cannot see the potential problems he or she could (but hopefully won't) face, and who therefore _refuses_ to prepare because he or she does not wish to acknowlege these facts, is _evading reality_.  This evasion is not just foolish; it is morally offensive.



Well, I find it morally offensive when someone feels the need to carry weapons everywhere, feels threatened by everyone not like them and refers to anyone with different view points as leftist wishful thinkers.

But back to the topic, which is not about how you feel considering my feelings aren't allowed in as stated by you:



> Your _feelings_ are irrelevant.  What you think you do or don't _need_ doesn't concern me.  Your choices don't matter to me.  Reality doesn't care what you think you do or don't need.


 
How prepared are you for a lightening strike?  a earthquake? A tornado? A alien invasion? Nuclear War? Flood? a gas leak? Someone loosing control of there vehicle and comming right through your front window? A virus outbreak? Getting cancer? A stroke? Radiation? Ozon layer dissapearing? A meteor strike?

Shall I continue?

The list of things that "could" happen is endless, why do you signal out self-defence?  

Living your life preparing for horrible things that will likely never happen is pushing paranoia in my view.  I'd rather live without fear and enjoy myself then sit in the basement wondering what evil lurks around in the world.

Truthfully, it's not that bad out there.

Why not leave the weapons at home for a day, go out and look for the good things, maybe give some change to some homeless people?





> Spoken like someone who contributes little but criticism and commentary.  When you make the decision to devote your time to productive, constuctive contribution to the field of self-defense, your assessment of what I contribute may or may not have meaning to me.  It certainly doesn't now.  Again, it is much easier to take petty shots at me than it is to address an argument substantively.



Constructive is debateable and a matter of opinion, some will likely consider your contributions counter productive.  And for people taking shots at you, did you not compare the views of those that disagree with you to "thinking the world was flat"?



> Oh, and no, I can honestly say that I've never not been a citizen of the United States.  I've never been a woman, a potted plant, a shoe tree, a glass of water, or a microwave oven, either.



Well, that wasn't his question.  Have you ever been outside the US?  Not a citizen of another country, just a foreigner somewhere else? (Yes, American's are the "foreigners" when outside the US  )


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Defeatism is not a solution.  Simply because we cannot prepare for everything does not mean we should not recognize what is likely, prioritize our preparations, and take responsibility for ourselves and our families.

Wishful thinking is not a solution.  Deriding copers to make us more comfortable with our lack of ability to cope is likewise no solution.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Defeatism is not a solution.  Simply because we cannot prepare for everything does not mean we should not recognize what is likely, prioritize our preparations, and take responsibility for ourselves and our families.



But there is the problem, different people are going to feel different things are likely.  

Pollution?  I'd call that a likely problem, as it alreasy is one.  Causing cancer, that is a threat to my well being, so am I within my rights to expect people to recycle, not drive SUV's, turn the lights off when they aren't in a room, etc?

I know your answer, and that is no, I can't stop them from doing what they want.  But we could make a law about it, what people cannot do in order to protect the environment and ensure my safety can't we?

Again, I'm quite sure you'll say no as it is taking away personal rights.

But, why can we not restrict what people can do (carry weapons, pollute, etc.), things that endanger my safety.  Yet we can restrict where people can go because you feel it endangers yours?

You see, your opinions are opinions, they are how you feel about things, they are not univeral truths.   And if you want to tell everyone else they are being childish and there feelings are irrelevant why would you expect them not to return that in kind?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2006)

_*Mod. Note.  - SECOND WARNING

*_ Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful and return to the original topic.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 29, 2006)

I think Andrew is right, and has made some very good points.  Phil, you are presenting your opinions as fact, and brush off other's opinions as unworthy nonsense.  Many here feel your opinions are nonsense.  OK, once again, these are all opinions, everyone is going to have one.  looks to me like this is going to be a disagreement no matter what, plain and simple.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 29, 2006)

Lets try to discuss what economic problems, illigals cause to society. Also possible solutions such as building factories in latin countries ansd helping their income grow so some people want to stay there.
There are reasons people come here so how can we as a nation raise the standard in those countries and help build a better economy there.

Now I have lived in an area where I knew that half the population of the complex I lived in where illegal and I have seen 4th generation americans who did or would not speak english ( to me that was a crime) but they worked and paid their rent out of their earnings (maybe not taxes)  and there where as many Americans in the complex on welfare as illegals.

Now as to Gangs  yes the members run back across the border but hell I knew more than one american that did the same thing then crossed back when things cooled down

As for the wall I have wanted to see it built for 25 years and I belive if you are here illegaly you are a criminal under our laws and do not deserve any free handouts  but I will not begrudge anyone who wants to work for a liveng and say they can not


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Taking a single line out of context does not do justice to the point being made, which is the reality that _illegal aliens represent a signficant threat of increased crime rates, as supported by the statistics I cited._


 
Even in the context you provided, there is no valid support for the conclusion that your wife will be raped by migrant workers if the status quo remains unchanged. It's cheap rhetoric that blunts the point, or worse, co-opts it so that the point really becomes "Be afraid!". It'd be interesting to see someone present this point of view rationally for a change instead of retreating to fearmongering scare tactics from the title onwards. Reality isn't just hysterical shrieking.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2006)

There are some real problems with immigration and the solutions are not easy.

1.  Immigrant labor drives wages down because businesses hire them for so little.

2.  Companies that hire illegals outcompete companies that do it all on the books...thus getting an unfair advantage.  

3.  Businesses are often forced to hire illegals in order to compete with the global market which is paying third world workers rediculously small wages for "low low prices everyday" Walmart style businesses.

These problems, however, are not being caused by the immigrants.  They are being caused by the society in which we live.  It's as simple supply and demand.  In order to supply certain things we need, we demand cheap illegal labor...maybe not directly, but our dollars certainly are voting whether we like them to or not!

Here are some solutions to this problem that I think would work a whole lot better then building a huge fence along our side of the Rio Grande.

1.  We need have a living wage in this country.  The minimum wage in this country should reflect an amount that will help a person live above the poverty level.

2.  We need to crack down *HARD* on businesses that hire illegals and pay them diddly squat.  We need to crack down so hard that the risk of doing so far outweighs the benefits.

3.  We need to stop buying imported goods that are made by workers who are working in conditions that are illegal in the US.  

These three things would do more to solve this immigration problem then any sort of militia or posse or Berlin-esque wall.  The first one would ensure that people in this country can live off of the jobs they have.  Thus, it is more attractive for people to work and more people WORK.  This would reduce the amount of jobs that are being filled by illegals.  The second would hit a business so hard with penalties for hiring illegals that it would not risk doing so for fear of being caught.  And the third reverse the current "race to the bottom" in working conditions that are driving illegals over our borders.  If corporations had to pay and treat workers in Mexico the same as they do in the US, then I am positive the average mexican would stay home.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree with John, as long as there are jobs, people will show up to fill them.  

And consumers are the ones supporting those jobs because companies need to use low wage workers to keep there prices at what consumers are willing to pay.

Everyone wants it both ways, higher wages for workers, keep them legal, and lower prices.  Those two things oppose each other, and most people seem to prefer paying less out of there pocket then putting more in someone elses...


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Even in the context you provided, there is no valid support for the conclusion that your wife will be raped by migrant workers if the status quo remains unchanged. It's cheap rhetoric that blunts the point, or worse, co-opts it so that the point really becomes "Be afraid!". It'd be interesting to see someone present this point of view rationally for a change instead of retreating to fearmongering scare tactics from the title onwards. Reality isn't just hysterical shrieking.



You still don't get it.  Reread the entire paragraph.  There's a very real connection between increased crime rates and toleration of illegal immigration.  I argue that we should be willing to tolerate higher prices in exchange for lower rates of crime.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

> Phil, you are presenting your opinions as fact, and brush off other's opinions as unworthy nonsense. Many here feel your opinions are nonsense. OK, once again, these are all opinions, everyone is going to have one. looks to me like this is going to be a disagreement no matter what, plain and simple.



The validity of my beliefs is not contingent on majority approval of them.  Armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens; this is a simple fact.  Someone telling me that he has never felt the "need" to be prepared (and thus no one should prepare) is substituting wishful thinking for recognition of reality.

Stepping back from this for a moment, if I say something, it is by _definition_ my opinion.  Rather than getting upset about the conviction with which I offer my opinions, you might simply rebut them -- or ignore them.  This is a discussion forum, after all.  Why do you think I post this material?  I enjoy generating talk.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 29, 2006)

Nothng is static...the future becomes the now becoms history and any given moment in time is jut a brief snaphot of that consantly racing timeline

Yesterday's immigrant is todays taxpayer is tomorrow's settled family.

Today's illegal immigrant is tomorrow's old man sitting in the living room talking about 'the old country'


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

It would be nice if that was the case, but to dismiss the whole issue with homespun witticisms is to ignore the real social, financial, and legal problems created by failure to enforce our borders and citizenship laws.  I'm all for immigration -- provided it is LEGAL.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> You still don't get it. Reread the entire paragraph. There's a very real connection between increased crime rates and toleration of illegal immigration. I argue that we should be willing to tolerate higher prices in exchange for lower rates of crime.


 
Nope. That's not what was said. It may have been what was intended, but that paragraph does nothing to establish that point.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Nope.  That is indeed what was said.  I think you're deliberately ignoring the point to substitute what you wish to see.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Nope. That is indeed what was said. I think you're deliberately ignoring the point to substitute what you wish to see.


 
You get more out of meaningless schlock than I do in that case. Even the stats are useless in the article's context. Really amazing.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Proclaiming them useless does not invalidate them.  _In my opinion,_ you are simply ignoring facts you find distasteful.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 29, 2006)

Gents, maybe if you could all spend some time on the facts of the debate, rather than all the time you seem to be spending insulting each other, this would actually be a useful topic to read.  As it is, it seems to be less about the issue of illegal access to the US and the economic and public safety issues that surround it, and more over who thinks who is a bigger nitwit.

If you wish to continue to piss on each other, don't be too surprised when the folks with the badges pop in and hand out some vacation time. I will shut up now, so that everyone can go back to calling each other names and such.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The validity of my beliefs is not contingent on majority approval of them.



I read your article and found it heavy on opinion and light on verifiable fact; I find fact more convincing.  Nor have I seen you respond to the questions about supply and demand, which is a key factor in this issue.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens; this is a simple fact.



I would like to see the statistics on which you base this statement.  For myself, I have never owned a gun, never used a gun, and the closest I have ever gotten to holding a gun was when I helped a friend move, and he handed me an anonymous case which, it turned out, held his wife's hunting rifle.  I know quite a few people who have even less experience with, and knowledge of, guns than myself.  For us to have guns would be more likely to place ourselves and our families at risk than to not have them.  Nor am I interested in owning a gun.  Guns are an all or nothing proposition; 'shoot to wound' is a fallacious statement, and meaningless in the heat of the moment - you should never point a gun at anything (except a target) unless you mean to kill whatever you point at.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Someone telling me that he has never felt the "need" to be prepared (and thus no one should prepare) is substituting wishful thinking for recognition of reality.



As I said, I see a no need to own a gun, nor do I find myself to be at greater risk from immigrant workers than non-immigrant workers, who want safety - which would rather imply *not *coming to the attention of the police by committing crimes; personally, I am much more concerned with drug addicts, theives, and the psychologically deranged, as they are more likely to attack, and less likely to be predictable.  



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Stepping back from this for a moment, if I say something, it is by _definition_ my opinion.



An interesting viewpoint.  Not everything I post is opinion; some of it is recounting of events, some is fact, and some is, indeed opinion - and I tend to label my opinion as such when I post it.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Rather than getting upset about the conviction with which I offer my opinions, you might simply rebut them -- or ignore them. This is a discussion forum, after all. Why do you think I post this material? I enjoy generating talk.



Indeed - this is a *discussion* board - not your personal editoral column.  Certainly, your posts generate discussion - much of it in disagreement with your initial posts.  This part I do not object to; however, I do object when, based on your responses, you seem to find it improbable, if not impossible, for others to _*gasp* _disagree with you - and further, I notice that you tend to only respond to those posters who respond with opinions of their own, while ignoring posts containing facts you cannot (or perhaps will not) refute - and your response is generally to claim that unsupported opinion (such as the ones you yourself post) is meaningless, while still not responding to requests for the facts on which you base your opinion.  As things stand, I may or may not read your further posts (and frankly, the length tends toward diatribe rather than discussion; I glanced at another, decided it was too long, and didn't read it), but no matter what opinion you state, I will take it with a very large grain of salt unless and until you provide facts that back up your opinion.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 29, 2006)

The facts are in my mind, simple.

Individuals are entering the US illegally through it's shared border with Mexico.
The Mexican police and military are corrupt, often condoning drug smuggling, murder and torture. 
In order for the US to prevent individuals with hostile intent from entering it, they must fortify their borders in order to make certain that entry is made as difficult as possible for those attempting unlawful entry.
Lawful entry must be made more efficient.

The fact that there are now dual-citizenship children living here does not somehow automatically excuse the fact that the mother/fathers are here illegally. Other immigrants managed to enter the country legally, and have for over 200 years. An exception should not be made here. The families should be deported.

I find the fact of an illegal, posessing a fake ID and fake drivers licence, driving a better car than I, who is now being offered retirement, social security and health benefits, that are not available to me, to be somehow offensive. But, if others wish to support a Welfare Nation, open to anyone regardless of intent, so be it. We should probably also stop what few safety inspections are done at the border as well, since it is unfair to hold US highway safety standards against them. I look forward to the increase in accidents that will happen due to faulty brakes, tires, and restraints.  After all, a steel coil let loose on a US highway has never caused a problem before, right?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Edmund, that's twice now that I've found myself agreeing with you.  Surely this is a sign of the apocalypse.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Proclaiming them useless does not invalidate them.


 
All the statistics establish is that some illegal immigrants commit crimes. (Given that there are bad elements in every group, this is not especially surprising.) They may indeed be valid stats, but as they are presented, they do not prove or reinforce the author's position (unless you happen to agree with that position already, and have no reason to examine the stats). It is just a shallow attempt to lend the screed credibility.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> All the statistics establish is that some illegal immigrants commit crimes.



I'd imagine that goes both ways.  How many American criminals have fled to Mexico illegally I wonder?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Build a wall, not a fence.
> Man it 24/7/365 like Hadrians Wall.
> Allow for roaming patrols of well armed and trained troops.
> Use scanning devices to look for tunnels under the wall, and other boarder areas.
> ...



How about land mines to kill people trying to cross the border?

I am not being silly or sarcastic. I am merely placing things in the proper context.

When you involve the military, you are upping the ante to a level where we start talking about 'collateral damage.' We need to determine if that level is warrented and be clear on the matter before we take action like this.

I was in the infantry. There are at least four other members of martialtalk that were as well. I think they will all agree with me when I say that I am proud to serve and really proud to be one of the ones that are the first into battle....*but* there is a certain amount of truth to the saying that if you have half a mind to join the infantry- that's enough.:lol2: 

The military has the job of killing people and breaking their stuff. They do that job very, very well. They do not have to pass the same tests as police officers do or can expect to be doing the same job for decades on end. We will be putting people on the border who know the job of killing very well and the specifics of law enforcement almost not at all.

Do we think the threat is large enough to warrent this? If so, let us debate it, agree on it and let it stand. What I do not want to see is some kid killed in a crossfire between coyotes and the military followed by a whole lot of liberals on television saying, "we never thought that the military would actually _kill_ someone when they defended the borders." :whip: 

Maybe this story will kind of shed a new light on the situation. A few years ago there was a case of some people racing up the 405 through San Onofre in California chased by the CHP. Note, it was _not_ the border patrol, but the California police. There was a huge scandal over the fact that the rough treatment of the illeagals after they stopped was caught by a news helicopter.

I was on a mailing list with a guy who used to be on the border patrol and is now working for another part of the goverment. He pointed to the footage of the chase itself where the illeagles were doing their best to cause a dangerous situation on the freeways. They were taking heavy parts of the campershell that had been concealed under and throwing it into traffic to try to cause accidents. The ex border patrol guy said that there had been some controversy over the chances of people getting killed in chases and so the orders had come down that when things got dangerous for them to back off and let the coyotes get away. The coyotes learned of this and started upping the ante and arranging for danger to happen like this just as soon as a chase occured.

But in this case, the chasing officers were not border patrol that had been told to back off, they were CHP. And after seeing people do things that could easily have killed several motorists, they treated the suspects at the end as if they were a danger until proven otherwise. Hence the trouble, the lawsuits, etc.

Now, these guys were not border patrol, but they were police officers that were selected at a higher standard than the typical infantryman and expected to be in law enforcement for a few decades. So if they could do things that ended up in court, how do you expect the 18 year old high school dropout trained to kill people first and ask questions later to keep within the bounds of _domestic_ laws?

My old regiment used to guard the border back when the idea was that if you tried to enter the country illeagally _you died._ If we let loose the military on the borders we need to acknowledge that the military is trained to kill and not scream when they do their job. Hence the idea of land mines. They can kill, are made to kill, and the same can be said about the 18 year old with a rifle in his hands.

Here is an idea to cause some screaming......

The problem with immigration is that Americans will not do the job that hard working Mexicans will, right? People like Phil have no problem with _legal_ immigrants, right? The people that do these jobs do so because you can't _legally_ hire people at the wages that the illeagles will work for, right?

Well, how about we have a guest worker program where people can come to America and work legally without things like minimum wage laws being applied to them?

*Scream!!!!!!!!!*

It should be fun to see those that say that every American should be paid a decent wage _and yet_ defend illeagles for doing jobs that Americans won't do for their wages try to defend that. Some say that everyone in the states should be subject to labor laws and oppose illeagle immigration. They would not have trouble staying constant. There are others that want to open up the borders and get rid of things like the minimum wage laws. They too should not have a trouble staying constant. But those that want to make sure that every American is covered by labor laws and yet say we should forgive illeagle immigration should have quite a time trying to explain how they can hold both beliefs.

Let the screaming begin!!!!!!!:asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 29, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I'd imagine that goes both ways.  How many American criminals have fled to Mexico illegally I wonder?



Actually, if you kill someone in the states and flee to Mexico they will not deport you back. It is fairly common in border states for people, even those holding American citizenship, to flee to Mexico in anything that could end in a death sentence. Mexico does not have the death penalty and will not return people to countries where they may face it.

There are people who have killed Americans living in open freedom in Mexico. I saw a program once about someone who raped and killed some kids who were walking around in Mexico without fear. Wasn't there some case where one of these scum buckets was grabbed by a bounty hunter and pulled back across the border to face justice, causing a huge diplomatic incident?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2006)

I think the US signed some agreement outlawing it's use of landmines, but, doubt that it would stand in the way if the government wanted it.

Don makes a good point. These illegals come here in most cases for work. They take jobs that often are paid in cash, off the books, for less than minimum wage. Sealing the border will cause hostilities, and deaths.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't think the US did, although a lot of other countries have.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I don't think the US did, although a lot of other countries have.



The Clinton administration rightly rejected it. They tried a compromise that would allow them to have a minefield in places like the North- South Korean border while still avoiding the problems of mines left as boobytraps by means of mines that destroyed themselves after a short while, but no one would meet them half way.

Of course, if we did put them on the border with Mexico, maybe Canada in areas well marked as such, it would up the ante and make it very clear just how seriously the matter was. If you walk into a clearly marked minefield, don't complain when you get your leg blown off. And if you take your kid into that area, you do not deserve to leave the area alive. If you are caught  with your kid before you set off a mine, your kid should be taken from you on the spot and your corpse mounted on the fence around the minefield as a warning of the danger.

No, I am not a very civilized person when it comes to putting your kids in danger.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> maybe Canada in areas well marked as such,



"Longest undefended border in the world", I'd call that a thing to be proud of and not undo.

We get our share of illegal US immigrants too, but I don't think setting up military defences is the right answer.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> All the statistics establish is that some illegal immigrants commit crimes.



Actually, they establish that a disturbingly high percentage of violent criminals are illegal aliens, which establishes a significant threat associated with tolerating illegal immigration.



> I'd imagine that goes both ways. How many American criminals have fled to Mexico illegally I wonder?



I don't see any groups of Americans in Mexico marching with American flags, demanding that these criminals be allowed to stay in the country, complaining that their civil rights are being violated if they are rounded up and deported.

Given the social, financial, and legal problems created by illegal immigration, we MUST take action to protect our borders and enforce our citizenship laws.  I argue that this is necessary for the sake of the future of the country -- and I argue that the "benefits" of a cheap, virtually slave labor force now tolerated in the United States are far outweighed by the risks.  I'll gladly pay more to the lowest tier of American workers _and_ pay more for consumer goods if the exchange is a society in less danger from crime, in less debt from social services given to illegal aliens, and enjoying a higher percentage of employees for whom English is the first language.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 30, 2006)

Right now, all of the solutions on the table in congress amount to "rearranging the deck chairs".  Don Roley makes a good point...one that I made earlier.  A demand exists in this country for cheap, unregulated, labor.  Illegal immigrants are filling this demand.  In a way, this is just like the demand for drugs.  We can up the ante until we are "waging war" on it and it will still get here.  The only solution, IMO, is to reduce demand.  We will never be able to stop the flood of people trying to meet the demand in this country for cheap, unregulated, labor unless we really get draconian and create a 1500 mile DMZ...which isn't going to happen.

Further, the solutions being proposed by the DFL and the GOP are only going to exacerbate other social problems.  The so-called guest worker program will effectively make minimum wage laws and occupational safety laws irrellevent.  What it will do is create a second class citizenry that can be paid diddly squat, poisoned, and/or mangled on the job and thrown away when used up.  The US will become a consumer in HUMAN BEINGS.  

Guest Workers will be throwaway McWorkers.  

And I think it is very useful to remember that "Guest Workers" can to more jobs then just those that most American do not want.  I forsee that McWorkers will pop up in all sorts of places...just like their namesakes.

Want evidence...take a look at what we already have.  I recommend that everyone read Fast Food Nation and Strawberry Feilds by Eric Schlosser.  These Polemics will open your eyes to how our country uses immigrant labor.  There is a reason that other people will not do these jobs...the working conditions are illegal...not to mention immoral.  This makes one wonder what kind of working conditions these workers face living in Mexico?  The fact that illegal immigrants are risking their lives to run away from conditions in their home countries should be alarming.

The problem of illegal immigrants is societal.  It cannot be fixed by guest worker programs or by giving little nods toward increasing border security and/or punishing people who hire them (the GOP house bill btw only increases penalties for hiring illegals on small businesses.  Corporations like ConAgra are excempt because it is believed that they are too big to be held responsible).  They call this getting tough on immigration... 

What we really have here is a flood of poor people seeking to feed their families.  Globalization and free trade have created a race to the lowest common denominator in order to make the quickest and easiest buck.  We need to globalize human rights if we are going to stop this.  We need to make sure that every worker every where is paid fairly and treated like a human being if we are going to actually do something about immigration.  And we need to punish severely, anyone and EVERYONE who attempts to mistreat people in order to pad the bottom lines on their account sheets.  

I am firmly convinced that most of these illegal immigrants would rather stay home with their families.  If we make it attractive for them to do so, then they will.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 30, 2006)

Really, no one in Congress wants to address this issue.  When they do talk about it they take a position that tries to make themselves look good and yet they do nothing.  Fact is we need the cheap labor.  The other fact is that yes in a way we are being invaded and that some of these people do perform criminal acts.  However, most of them just want to make some money and support their families.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Kacey (Mar 30, 2006)

Mr. Elmore -

I am assuming that you are the person who sent me the book title (there was no signature on the reputation), and I appreciate your response.  However, I am in graduate school in addition to working full time and teaching TKD.  I would greatly appreciate it if you could quote some of the relevant information, as I do not currently have time to read the entire text.  I would also be interested in your response to some of the points I made in earlier posts.

As far as crimes committed by illegal aliens, I don't think that anyone is disputing that they exist; however, I do think that, without comparative statistics on the number and types of charges brought against people (rather than the ones their lawyers get dropped or pled down) would be more informative and convincing than vague statements without proof beyond reports in the popular media... which, as we all know, leans toward reporting what people want to read, not necessarily what they need to read.  People *want* to place blame outside themselves - and illegal aliens, by virtue of their status, are an easy target.  Are they part of the problem?  Certainly.  Are they the only problem?  Not in the slightest - the businesses which use their services, the people who buy the lower-priced services and/or products they produce, the government which looks the other way, are all part of the problem - it is societal, and simply closing the borders more will not solve this problem; there are too many people already here for that to fix anything, unless you are willing to wait several generations for the system to equalize, and, of course, assuming that you think the border can really be sealed.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't know what you're talking about.  I sent you no book title.

As for relative statistics, when someone tells you a given percentage of people in prison or being sought for certain types of warrants, it stands to reason that the remaining portion of 100 percent represents the portion not comprised of illegal aliens.  When both the percentage and an absolute number are presented at the same time, you can even do some equating and find the numbers of all persons involved.  This is basic algebra, I think.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 30, 2006)

I think they want the hard numbers.  Are there real numbers to support the claim?

ron


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

I cited the numbers in the article.



> The organization US Border Control reports that, according to something called the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, DC, fully 30 percent of the nation's two million prison inmates are illegal immigrants. Heather MacDonald, in her 2004 report in the City Journal, wastes no time framing the problem. "Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," she writes. She goes on to report that 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (1,200 to 1,500 murders) "target" illegal aliens. Up to two thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. What's worse, according to MacDonold, is that the Calfiornia Department of Justice has known since 1995 that at least 60 percent of the vicious 18th Street Gang in southern California comprises illegal aliens.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 30, 2006)

Oops, sorry Phil.  They missed it too.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> As for relative statistics, when someone tells you a given percentage of people in prison or being sought for certain types of warrants, it stands to reason that the remaining portion of 100 percent represents the portion not comprised of illegal aliens. When both the percentage and an absolute number are presented at the same time, you can even do some equating and find the numbers of all persons involved. This is basic algebra, I think.


 
It's basic math, true; but, it's fallacious logic.

If illegal aliens commit crimes
And those caught go to jail or are sought
Then, that those not commiting crime are not illegal aliens.

The first statement must be an absolute in order for this logic to conclude correctly.  As that cannot be, it follows that the argument is false.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

No, there's nothing fallacious about it.  If you don't consider such high percentages of the populations cited to be a cause for concern, that's great.  I happen to think that having one third of our prison population comprised of illegal aliens to be cause for alarm.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, there's nothing fallacious about it. If you don't consider such high percentages of the populations cited to be a cause for concern, that's great. I happen to think that having one third of our prison population comprised of illegal aliens to be cause for alarm.


 
It still doesn't make the rest of the non-imprisoned population legal residents, as your logic states.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

That's a non sequitur.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

Not as it ties back to the previous fallacy.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, there's nothing fallacious about it. If you don't consider such high percentages of the populations cited to be a cause for concern, that's great. I happen to think that having one third of our prison population comprised of illegal aliens to be cause for alarm.


If you didn't send the book title, then thank you to whomever did; as I said, it wasn't signed, so I don't know who did send it.

As far as the logic you cite, I too find it to be fallacious. Citing the prison population as your 'cause for concern' leaves out all of the people who manage to avoid prison - an outcome enhanced by money and position, neither of which are particularly associated with being an illegal immigrant. As I said above, if you could show that 30% of people *accused* of such crimes were illegal immigrants, then that might be more indicative of illegal immigrants being the problem. However, the prison populations have historically been skewed towards poor, minority, undereducated, and other low social classes. For example:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In 1994, one in three black men between the ages of 20-29 were in prison, jail, on probation or on parole. In 1995, 47% of state and federal inmates were black, the largest group behind bars. Black men were 7 times more likely than white men to be in prison. In 1993, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaskan natives made up 2% of prison population. Native Americans are 10 times more likely than whites to be imprisoned. Latinos are the fastest growing group behind bars. Between 1985 and 1995 Latinos jumped from 10% of all state and federal inmates to 18%. In 1993, whites made up 74% of the general population, but only 36% of federal and state prison inmates. In 1970, there were 5,600 women in federal and state prisons. By 1996 there were 75,000. 60% of that population are black and Latina. In 1993, the overall incarceration rate for juveniles was 221 per 1000,000; for Latino youth it was 481 per 100,000; and for black youth it was 810 per 100,000.
Source:  http://www.prisons.org/racism.htm
[/FONT]​Another primary source for the prison population comes from unsocialized young males, as described athttp://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23313/pub_detail.asp_The underclass has been growing._ The crime rate has been dropping for thirteen years. But the proportion of young men who grow up unsocialized and who, given the opportunity, commit crimes, has not.
​ A rough operational measure of criminality is the percentage of the population under correctional supervision. This is less sensitive to changes in correctional fashion than imprisonment rates, since people convicted of a crime get some sort of correctional supervision regardless of the political climate. When Ronald Reagan took office, 0.9 percent of the population was under correctional supervision. That figure has continued to rise. When crime began to fall in 1992, it stood at 1.9 percent. In 2003 it was 2.4 percent. Crime has dropped, but criminality has continued to rise.
​ [section of article omitted]​ 
Why has the proportion of unsocialized young males risen so relentlessly? In large part, I would argue, because the proportion of young males who have grown up without fathers has also risen relentlessly. The indicator here is the illegitimacy ratio--the percentage of live births that occur to single women. It was a minuscule 4 percent in the early 1950s, and it has risen substantially in every subsequent decade. The ratio reached the 25 percent milestone in 1988 and the 33 percent milestone in 1999. As of 2003, the figure was 35 percent--of all births, including whites. The black illegitimacy ratio in 2003 was 68 percent. By way of comparison, the illegitimacy ratio that caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to proclaim the breakdown of the black family in the early 1960s was 24 percent.​Does this mean that we should close our borders to members of all of these groups as well? Following the logic you cite, all minorities, poor people, illegitimate males, and all other groups over-represented in the prison population should be prevented from entering the country, because they statistically more likely to commit crimes, without regard to any of the other factors which might affect the statistical makeup of the prison population. I find this logic narrow, short-sighted, and demonstrative of an attempt to validate a decision made based on opinion rather than fact.  Certainly, you are welcome to any opinion you choose to hold; likewise, I am welcome to mine, whether it disagrees with yours or not.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Prison populations are "skewed" because people don't commit crimes in direct proportion to their representation in society.  Some groups commit more crimes than others.  It is this notion that there must be some inherent unfairness to prison convictions that is the fallacy.  Believe it or not, law enforcement officials generally try to _find the person who did it_ when a crime is perpetrated.  Mistakes certainly are made, but not the absurdly large scale that advocates of this worldview -- this fallacious view of an institutionalized racism -- contend.

On top of that, you've defeated your own argument; if you believe _accusations_ are inherently more accurate than _convictions_, you need only look to the statistic I cited concerning the 95% of outstanding homicide warrants targeting illegal aliens according to the _City Journal_ report.

No one is arguing for CLOSING the borders. I am arguing for the removal of ILLEGAL ALIENS.  I am arguing for the enforcement of EXISTING CITIZENZSHIP LAWS.  I argue this because there is a demonstrable link between increased crime rates/increased financial burdens and toleration of illegal aliens within society.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 30, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Native Americans are 10 times more likely than whites to be imprisoned.[/FONT]​


​


> Does this mean that we should close our borders to members of all of these groups as well?



LOL

Yup, that does it.  No more Native American immigrants, they can stay in there own country!  

Sorry, couldn't help but make the joke 

Guess in a sense all us white folk are "illegal aliens" if you look back far enough though


----------



## modarnis (Mar 30, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> It still doesn't make the rest of the non-imprisoned population legal residents, as your logic states.



I think your misreading Mr. Elmore's quote.  It referred to incarcerated persons, not the population as a whole.  So if 30%  of people incarcerated in prison are illegal aliens, it is simple math that 70% of incarcerated persons are not illegal aliens.  It did not seem to apply to any population of people outside prisons.  

Of course if you were to weight the statistic relative to how few illegal aliens exist as a percentage of the population as a whole, it would appear to be a staggering number.  It is skewed somewhat because Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE, formerly INS) often places holds or detainers on illegal aliens who are arrested, so even if they are sentenced to shorter sentences or probation, they still remain in prison while the immigration issues are resolved, so the numbers are somwhat inflated for reasons outside the normal day to day of the criminal justice system


----------



## modarnis (Mar 30, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> If you didn't send the book title, then thank you to whomever did; as I said, it wasn't signed, so I don't know who did send it.
> 
> As far as the logic you cite, I too find it to be fallacious. Citing the prison population as your 'cause for concern' leaves out all of the people who manage to avoid prison - an outcome enhanced by money and position, neither of which are particularly associated with being an illegal immigrant.



I sent you the book title.  I thought I signed it, but whatever.  Way too much in that book to digest into a few blurbs.  Put it on your reading list for the future.  


This may warrant a thread split.  I don't mean to gank the thread, but as a prosecutor I find it highly offensive to think that people really believe money and position buy people out of jail.  Cases are assessed here in my office on their merits. Accused persons are dealt with based on strength of cases, their record or lack of record, and factors like avialability or willingness of witnesses and victims to testify etc.  Short of really serious crimes (murder, rape, assaults with guns etc, nobody goes to jail as a sentenced person for their first offense.   People who are convicted  have in greater than 95% of cases exhausted all non conviction diversionary options, probably had a conviction or 2 or 3 with probation and special conditions as the disposition.  While cases are processed through, they may be held in jail unable to post a bond, but in the grand scheme of things, that is for a relatively short period of time.  A person's color, country of origin, or primary language are irellevant to the outcome of criminal cases

Are poverty and lack of education factors in why people may choose criminal behavior? yes  Does that translate into the bogeyman notion of selective enforcement or unfairness in the criminal justice system?  No


Back to the original topic


----------



## Kacey (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Prison populations are "skewed" because people don't commit crimes in direct proportion to their representation in society.



This is exactly the point I made, and you ignored - else you would not continue to insist that illegal immigrants must be stopped from entering the country because they commit crimes in larger numbers and are therefore dangerous.  Thank you for understanding my point.

Having now admitted that prison populations are skewed, please explain to me why the percentage of a population in prison means that that particular population must be dangerous, and should therefore be excluded from our society entirely?

Don't get me wrong - I think that illegal immigration is indeed a problem; I simply think that at least as much of the responsibility for the problem rests on our social system as on the immigrants.  I don't think that a new set of laws is required, however; I think that we need to *enforce* the laws we already have.  Writing new laws and saying "Look, we fixed it" is a favorite, but fallacious, method of lawmakers who want to seem effective when they're not.  After all, they wrote the laws that _should_ prevent the problem; the fact that society as a whole continues to allow the problem to happen, because breaking certain laws is okay (or, at least, viewed less negatively than others - think about speeding as an example) is thus no longer the fault of the lawmaker - s/he can now pass responsibility on to everyone else with a theoretically clean conscience; s/he has passed laws that will fix everything, and the problem (theoretically) no longer exists.  This attitude of pass the buck, in which everyone *else* is responsible, is what allows this problem to continue - not the laws that have already been written.  Enforce the current laws properly, and then see if there is still a problem.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

No, I don't think the point you _thought_ you were making is the point you ended up making.



> Having now admitted that prison populations are skewed, please explain to me why the percentage of a population in prison means that that particular population must be dangerous, and should therefore be excluded from our society entirely?



It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this.  There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes _out of proportion to their representation in society_.  This means that, _by definition_, any demographic category that is represented in prison out of proportion to its representation in society _is statistically more likely to commit crime_ and therefore to be punished for it.  It then stands to reason, perfectly logically, that removing that population from within society reduces the potential crime rate.  Ergo, if you stop tolerating illegal aliens in your society because those illegal aliens commit crime at rates out of proportion to their representation _within_ society, you can reasonably expect the crime rate to decrease.



> This may warrant a thread split. I don't mean to gank the thread, but as a prosecutor I find it highly offensive to think that people really believe money and position buy people out of jail. Cases are assessed here in my office on their merits. Accused persons are dealt with based on strength of cases, their record or lack of record, and factors like avialability or willingness of witnesses and victims to testify etc. Short of really serious crimes (murder, rape, assaults with guns etc, nobody goes to jail as a sentenced person for their first offense. People who are convicted have in greater than 95% of cases exhausted all non conviction diversionary options, probably had a conviction or 2 or 3 with probation and special conditions as the disposition. While cases are processed through, they may be held in jail unable to post a bond, but in the grand scheme of things, that is for a relatively short period of time. A person's color, country of origin, or primary language are irellevant to the outcome of criminal cases
> 
> Are poverty and lack of education factors in why people may choose criminal behavior? yes Does that translate into the bogeyman notion of selective enforcement or unfairness in the criminal justice system? No


 
*EXACTLY!*


----------



## Kacey (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this. There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes _out of proportion to their representation in society_.  This means that, _by definition_, any demographic category that is represented in prison out of proportion to its representation in society _is statistically more likely to commit crime_ and therefore to be punished for it. It then stands to reason, perfectly logically, that removing that population from within society reduces the potential crime rate. Ergo, if you stop tolerating illegal aliens in your society because those illegal aliens commit crime at rates out of proportion to their representation _within_ society, you can reasonably expect the crime rate to decrease.



It honestly surprises me that you can't see the point I'm making - you are advocating the thin edge of a very large wedge.  Yes, illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large percentage of the population - so are a lot of other groups, which has long been the case.  If you use this as a reason to keep out illegal immigrants, how long will it be before you use this as a reason to keep out legal immigrants who fit the profile of the other groups that are disproportionately represented in the prison population?  How long after that will it be before the government targets illegal immigrants based on that statistic - and then expands it to target other overrepresented populations?  Oh wait... it's already happening - it's called racial profiling, and is supposedly illegal, but that doesn't stop law enforcement from doing it anyway.  Being Caucasian, I don't experience it much - but I have too many friends who have been stopped for being any other race, while we were both doing the same thing.  The fact that it doesn't really affect me doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make it acceptable.

As I said, I agree that illegal immigration is a problem - I simply disagree with the reason you give being the only reason, or even a major reason.  Does there need to be a crackdown on illegal immigrants?  As I said before, yes there does... which would, perforce, limit the number of illegal immigrants arrested, convicted, and jailed.  It would also, as has been discussed in great detail (which you have not responded to at all) have repercussions for the economy, through prices and the job market, as cheap labor becomes scarce, and prices rise for goods and services - but a new point of equilibrium would be reached.

I won't be responding to this thread further - see my signature line for the reason.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, I don't think the point you _thought_ you were making is the point you ended up making.
> 
> 
> 
> It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this. There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes _out of proportion to their representation in society_.


 
So, they're not really secretly taking the US over then? Whew.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> It honestly surprises me that you can't see the point I'm making -



It shouldn't.  I'm using basic logic applied to basic statistics.



> So, they're not really secretly taking the US over then? Whew.



Who said the illegal immigration problem was a secret?  These are widely known issues; our government simply refuses to address them effectively.  In this they are supported by citizens who refuse to recognize the threat.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 30, 2006)

There's a difference between an illegal immigration problem and a clandestine takeover attempt. (Both are mentionied in the article.)


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 30, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> This may warrant a thread split. I don't mean to gank the thread, but as a prosecutor I find it highly offensive to think that people really believe money and position buy people out of jail. Cases are assessed here in my office on their merits. Accused persons are dealt with based on strength of cases, their record or lack of record, and factors like avialability or willingness of witnesses and victims to testify etc. Short of really serious crimes (murder, rape, assaults with guns etc, nobody goes to jail as a sentenced person for their first offense. People who are convicted have in greater than 95% of cases exhausted all non conviction diversionary options, probably had a conviction or 2 or 3 with probation and special conditions as the disposition. While cases are processed through, they may be held in jail unable to post a bond, but in the grand scheme of things, that is for a relatively short period of time. A person's color, country of origin, or primary language are irellevant to the outcome of criminal cases
> 
> Are poverty and lack of education factors in why people may choose criminal behavior? yes Does that translate into the bogeyman notion of selective enforcement or unfairness in the criminal justice system? No


 
I may be wrong, but I did not read anyone's comment this way. Any discrepencies, IMO, are more likely due to upper class offenders having more RESOURCES with which to fight charges, discover technicalities, pay for sharp counsels who can "cloud the water" a bit in front of juries, etc. I don't think she meant (although I can't speak for her) that prosecutors and law officers let people off because they're "rich and white", but rather that, perhaps more money provides more avenues to beat charges and also, perhaps, some juries convict or aquit based upon their own stereotypes. I could be completely off on this, but I don't want you to take offence over this. I personally believe there IS a discrepency - but not due to prosecutors deciding to charge or not charge based on any factor's other than guilt or innocence - or provability in court.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 31, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> [/indent]
> LOL
> 
> Yup, that does it. No more Native American immigrants, they can stay in there own country!
> ...


 
So are the Red Folk. There were no true natives to this part of the world. It was populated by travellers. The original group were foreigners as our kind was, and their later groups were/are native, being born here, as ours/ we  were/are.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Does there need to be a crackdown on illegal immigrants? As I said before, yes there does... which would, perforce, limit the number of illegal immigrants arrested, convicted, and jailed.


 
This is interesting, because many people hold this position, yet they know that it does not mesh with the quote directly below.  We can attempt to crack down on illegal immigrants all we want, but unless we are willing (which I do not think we are) to really get draconian, it won't work.  The problem is demand, not supply.  In many ways, our economy is addicted to illegal immigrants.



> It would also, as has been discussed in great detail (which you have not responded to at all) have repercussions for the economy, through prices and the job market, as cheap labor becomes scarce, and prices rise for goods and services - but a new point of equilibrium would be reached.


 
Cheap, unregulated labor is never good for a society.  Throwaway McWorkers end up causing a host of other social problems.  Wouldn't it be better for these people to stay home and be able to make a living instead of living in cardboard shanty towns, getting into trouble, and rotting in our prisons?

The obvious answer yes.  The solution, however, is not easy.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> There's a difference between an illegal immigration problem and a clandestine takeover attempt. (Both are mentionied in the article.)



There's nothing clandestine about it.  Quebec separatism isn't an insidious hidden conspiracy, either.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong - I think that illegal immigration is indeed a problem;
> ....
> I think that we need to *enforce* the laws we already have.


 
I'm going to kick my nickle back into the game here.

How 'bout this solution? Repeal all the laws that make immigrants illegal? 

If they want to come, let them. Issue any person entering the United States a 'Green Card' or 'Yellow Card' or, whatever, allowing them to work, live in the above ground economy, and participate in the community. We probably won't eliminate day-laborers, and cash employees, but that would be a start. 

No more laws against immigration. No more illegal immigrants.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

If we do that we must also deny social services to those who are not legal citizens because we cannot afford to pay for the millions who will flood into the country.  We must also be prepared for devote considerably more resources to law enforcement.  Even if illegal aliens were not already contributing significantly to problems of violent crime in the United States, history teaches us that any society that absorbs a tremendous influx of immigrants experiences higher crime and other social problems.  Certain parts of Texas, for example, have seen skyrocketing crime rates to accompany the influx of homeless, jobless refugees from Katrina.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm going to kick my nickle back into the game here.
> 
> How 'bout this solution? Repeal all the laws that make immigrants illegal?
> 
> ...


 
The problem is that it would destroy our minimum wage laws, nullify occupational safety regulations, and create a second class citizen.  This has already happened on a smaller scale.  Throwing the gates wide would do it on a larger scale.  

A few people would make money hand over fist from this huge pool of cheap unregulated labor, but the end result would destroy the blue collar, unionized, middle class worker niche in this country.  This is why the "guest worker" program and all of its multi-forms are so terrible.  They create throwaway McWorkers that are easily used up and put in human landfills...aka prisons when they expire.  

Opening the borders completely would turn this country in a consumer of human beings (at least more then it already is).


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2006)

I am not proposing repealing minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA regulations. What I am proposing is to allow the underground ecomony to come above ground. 

An increased labor pool will depress wages. So perhaps jobs that today pay $9.00 an hour may be depressed to $8.00 and hour. That would suck. But, I posit that it is already happening. The constant push for 'Free Trade' means that the $9.00 and hour job here is becoming a $.75 an hour job in Honduras.

If we assume our 'minimum wage' is a 'living wage' (although we all know it isn't), at least all of the people coming to work in this country are working in an area with relatively stable 'cost of living' expenses.

While this specific argument is a 'competition' is good, Capitalist Economic argument; which I am often against. In this instance, I support it because I believe those motivated to leave their home country to live and work in this country are among the most motivated individuals in the world. And I think they would be a wonderful addition to our country.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

Government interference in pricing and the market always produces negative unintended consequences.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Government interference in pricing and the market always produces negative unintended consequences.


 
Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...

Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration?  By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market.  It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am not proposing repealing minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA regulations. What I am proposing is to allow the underground ecomony to come above ground.


 
The laws would not be repealed, its just that they wouldn't apply to the McWorkers.  This would make regular workers less marketable.  Consequently, child labor, piddly wages, and extremely unsafe work environments would become the norm.  These laws would be nullified because there would exist a second class citizenry.

Disbelief?  None of the programs currently being proposed in congress extend American Worker rights to "guest workers."



> An increased labor pool will depress wages. So perhaps jobs that today pay $9.00 an hour may be depressed to $8.00 and hour. That would suck. But, I posit that it is already happening. The constant push for 'Free Trade' means that the $9.00 and hour job here is becoming a $.75 an hour job in Honduras.


 
How low can we go?  I'd bet you'd be surprised.  In Eric Schlossers essay "Strawberry fields" he interviews a large number of farm workers.  They are reporting that they are getting about 15 to 20 bucks for a 10 to 12 hour day.  If we increase the labor pool of cheap and unregulated workers, then we will be depressing *THAT* wage.  Meanwhile, what business in their right mind is going to hire someone at 8 dollars an hour when they can get a McWorker for 1 or 2?  I forsee a future in which the *ONLY* worker is a McWorker.  



> If we assume our 'minimum wage' is a 'living wage' (although we all know it isn't), at least all of the people coming to work in this country are working in an area with relatively stable 'cost of living' expenses.


 
Michael, I don't know if you are aware, but ConAgra (meatpackers) runs business towns with business stores with business accounts and business doctors down in Colorado.  These slums are populated by the second class citizenry that we already have in this country.  My good friend teaches at a "charter" school that was funded by ConAgra.  This little scene is straight out of the 1800's and I think it is a glimpse of our future because of "free trade".



> While this specific argument is a 'competition' is good, Capitalist Economic argument; which I am often against. In this instance, I support it because I believe those motivated to leave their home country to live and work in this country are among the most motivated individuals in the world. And I think they would be a wonderful addition to our country.


 
While I believe that cultural diversity is a good thing, this is the wrong way to go about it.  It is instructive to remember why these people are so motivated.  When I went to Mexico, two jobs stood out among the dross.  One was held by a man about my age.  He went into the bathrooms after the rich fat American took a **** and his job was to fish out the toilet paper for reprocessing and reuse.  Another job was held by two boys about 14 or 15.  They had shovels and were moving a pile of arsenic onto a number of small trucks for transport.  Those two boys will not live to see 18.

That is the kind of stuff that "free trade" has globalized.  Abuse after abuse after abuse.  Opening our borders to "guest workers" would bring that here in larger numbers then we can even imagine.  We need to oppose this and oppose free trade unless the product that we are exporting is human rights.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2006)

I think one of the reasons the worker in the strawberry fields are paid so little, is because they can not petition the government without fear of deportation. I am opposed to the idea of 'guest workers'. I agree that would, or at least has the potential to, create second class workers.

If a Honduran national comes to California, and is willing to pick lettuce at $6.50 per hour, why can we not extend labor protections to this person? If all of the workers are legal, then the legal minimum wage would be as low as we can go. 

Will day laborers accept cash positions - under the table and off the books - to drive labor down. Perhaps. But today, I think many of those who take such positions can't protest without fear of punishment. 

Remove that fear as one step to better the plight of the underground workers. Another would be to force the employers to meet employment standard that organized labor earned for all of us over the past century.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 31, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...
> 
> Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration? By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market. It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.


-Phil is actualy 100% correct. That's economics 101. But I agree with you in letting the market fix it's own problem. The problem is politicians doing what they've always done. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...
> 
> Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration?  By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market.  It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.



That's spurious logic.  By imprisoning people for murder, the government is interfering in the market for contract killings.  There's a big difference between enforcing citizenship laws and artificially setting prices.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 31, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> There's nothing clandestine about it.


 
Sure there is. If the illegal workers are unaware that they're taking over the nation simply by crossing the border illegally, then it's obviously a secret plan. Most likely masterminded bythe Illuminati and the Trilateral commission.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

Is this your way of confessing that you have nothing to add to the debate?


----------



## Marginal (Mar 31, 2006)

Pointing out totally batty claims does serve the debate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That's spurious logic. By imprisoning people for murder, the government is interfering in the market for contract killings. There's a big difference between enforcing citizenship laws and artificially setting prices.


 
There is HUGE difference between enforcing citizenship laws and hiring a contract killer.  There is also a HUGE difference in demand for cheap unregulated labor.  This is a false comparison.

The market's demand for cheap and unregulated labor has made the laws of this country irrellevent.  If the government were to enforce these laws, it would be interfereing with Adam's Smith invisible hand...aka the market.  

This is your statement above...



> Government interference in pricing *and the market* always produces negative unintended consequences.


 
Note the boldfaced.  You included pricing *and the market* in your statement.  Therefore, I am correct in pointing out the contradiction.  

By suggesting that the government enforce immigration laws you are suggesting that the government interfere in the labor market for cheap unregulated labor and are advocating a government control of an aspect of "the Market."

Thusly, you are advocating something that will have "negative and unintended consequences."

upnorthkyosa

ps - of course another way of looking at this is that some market controls actually do have positive effects...


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 31, 2006)

The law very specifically covers how access to the US may be gained, and who should be allowed in.

There are very specific laws and guidelines covering immigration, non-resident work, and visitors.

The people in question are here in violation of those laws.
Simply put, the existing laws should be enforced, and those who are here in violation of them, held accountable. The border should be better patrolled to increase security to minimize further violations.

I'm sorry if someone will have to pay more in wages then, and the cost of lettuce and cheap crap and your McFatty Burgers goes up, but I'd rather pay an extra buck for a burger at the local choke and puke, than worry about some criminal who might hit my kid and skip across the Rio grande and not get punished, or some terrorist who might decide that anthrax in my water will get him stiff.

These people are criminals. They are here in violation of the law. Violators of the law = criminals. Duh.  

If they want to immigrate, they have well defined procedures that will allow them to do so, legally.  Part of that involves screening for, CRIMINALS!!!!!!

Duh.  But, no, lets open the borders so every rapist, murderer, child molester, drug dealer and psycho can move to LA and enjoy that clean ocean breeze.


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Government interference in pricing and the market always produces negative unintended consequences.


Government intervention in the market is why China is going to take over the head spot at the table.  Lack of government intervention is why the US is going to let that happen.  If nobody tends the garden, it will grow weeds.


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 1, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Government intervention in the market is why China is going to take over the head spot at the table.  Lack of government intervention is why the US is going to let that happen.  If nobody tends the garden, it will grow weeds.



The type of thing Phil was talking about is not the type of thing you are refering to.

China does do things that helps the Chinese goverment _at the expense of individuals._ The type of thing that they were debating is the way the US goverment has tried to take care of individuals by force of law.

In China, the so-called "greater good" has precedence over any one individual. If you must be sacrificed for this, they will do it. As a matter of course, anyone who is not as important for the greater good will be shoved aside, or if some big company has ties to a corrupt goverment functionary- or even if that goverment official is just mad at you for some reason. The result is  the same, you will get the shaft by people talking about the greater good of China.

Maybe the papers I read here are a bit more concentrated on the matter than the ones you read. But it seems that hardly a week goes by without some story of the little people getting the shaft by the Chinese goverment. The wage controls, etc that Phil and others are debating are at the other end of the scale.


----------



## Don Roley (May 1, 2006)

http://www.twincities.com/mld/dfw/news/world/14415720.htm?source=rss&channel=dfw_world

Hey, don't scream at me. I am just posting the link. I will not be responsible if you feel an urge to scream or worse after reading it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That's spurious logic.  By imprisoning people for murder, the government is interfering in the market for contract killings.  There's a big difference between enforcing citizenship laws and artificially setting prices.




Sorry.  The analogy fails.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants come here to work.  The vast majority of murderers are NOT contract killers.

Government regulation is indeed interfering with the market.  The price of meat alone would go through the roof if we lost the Mexican labor currently working in the meat packing plants in Texas and Oklahoma.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

No, the analogy does not fail.  It is a myth that the "vast majority" if illegal immigrants "come here to work."  The cost of illegal immigration far outweighs the economic production of these illegal aliens.


----------



## shesulsa (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, the analogy does not fail.  It is a myth that the "vast majority" if illegal immigrants "come here to work."  The cost of illegal immigration far outweighs the economic production of these illegal aliens.



Citation, please.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

You ask me to cite my source, but you don't ask him to cite his?  (I cited multiple sources in my original essay, for that matter, whereas he has provided none for his assertions.)



> http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html
> 
> The Bottom Line. This report has focused on only the fiscal impact of illegal aliens at the federal level. It is almost certain that they also create a large fiscal deficit at the state and local levels.36 Thus, the results in this report only deal with part of the costs of illegal immigration.







> Not All Illegal Aliens Come
> Here To Work
> By Frosty Wooldridge
> Full Article
> ...


----------



## shesulsa (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> You ask me to cite my source, but you don't ask him to cite his?



Your source would disprove his statement, no?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

It would and it does.


----------



## shesulsa (May 1, 2006)

Would you please post it?  If you would like HHJH to cite his source, perhaps YOU can ask HIM.  I, however, am asking YOU.

*edit*

I see you edited your post after my replies.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 1, 2006)

Upnorthkyosa wrote:  _By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market._

You responded:  _That's spurious logic. By imprisoning people for murder, the government is interfering in the market for contract killings. There's a big difference between enforcing citizenship laws and artificially setting prices._

I in turn responded:  _Sorry. The analogy fails.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants come here to work. The vast majority of murderers are NOT contract killers.

Government regulation is indeed interfering with the market. The price of meat alone would go through the roof if we lost the Mexican labor currently working in the meat packing plants in Texas and Oklahoma._

Your analogy fails for the following reasons:

The proscription of murder applies to all members of society, not merely contract killers.  Contract killings are rare.  They contribute virtually nothing to the economy.   

Immigration is not a violent crime.  A substantial proportion of workers in the U.S. economy are immigrants.  

Currently 11-17 million people in this country are immigrants.  They're working in low paying jobs that natives typically won't take.  If, by some wave of a magic wand, all the Mexican laborers in this country were to vanish and not return (which would make the bigots happy), the cost of manual labor would necessarily increase in order to lure American workers to those jobs.  Hotel prices, restaurant fare, construction costs, and meat prices would increase.

Currently in the U.S. meat industry an "illegal" who is injured on the job in a meat packing plant won't apply for compensation for fear of being deported.  They do not unionize for the same reason.   This is why the meat packing industry moved their packing plants west and south, in what are called "new breed" plants.

"Turnover is high in meatpacking plantsmany plants hire two workers in the course of the year to keep one disassembly-line job filled, a 100 percent turnover rateand recruitment is an ongoing activity.  Most meatpackers offer signing bonuses: any current employee or independent recruiter who brings workers to the plant who are hired receives $200 to $400.  Many recruiters operate in south Texas along the Mexican border, recruiting workers who are then given bus tickets to meatpacking plants in the Midwest." 


Ah, where is Upton Sinclair when we need him?


Regards,

Steve


Just a few sources you requested via Shesulsa (next time, Phil, don't pass notes in class...and spit out your gum):

"Reefer Madness:  Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market" by Eric Schlosser.

"Fast Food Nation:  The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" also by Schlosser.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/more.php?id=158_0_2_0

http://www.vdare.com/fulford/usa_today.htm

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33002.pdf

http://www.poultry.org/labor_immigrants.htm

http://www.farmfoundation.org/1999NPPEC/martin.pdf

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/miac/AnneWoodrick.pdf


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (May 1, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:*_

Please be aware that MartialTalk's copyright policy prohibits full articles being used without the express permission of the author.

Please limit citations to typical quote length and, if desired, a link to the original article.

Thank you,

OnlyAnEgg
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

> Immigration is not a violent crime.



That is true.  Many illegal aliens are violent criminals, however, as evidenced by the statistics I cited originally.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 1, 2006)

It might be considered violent when it is changing the culture of a Nation to that of the Invaders.


----------



## JamesYazell (May 2, 2006)

I like the 'subtle' hints that people disagreeing with you are brainwashed idiots...

Or maybe your the brainwashed one?

No seriously I agree with Carlos Mencia on this one  The Mexicans are going to be looking out for terrorists so we don't close the border up more


----------

