Intentionally confusing the illegal immigration debate

One of the best ways to mask a bad argument is to conflate similar, yet entirely separate ideas, one of which is valid, one of which isn’t. Juggle these ideas around often enough and your reader will lose track of their separate identity and eventually give to both a status that can legitimately only be granted to one. The New York Times did just this in an op-ed editorial it wrote a few days ago about the illegal immigration problem. From the first paragraph, the Times seeks to conflate legal and illegal immigration, which are two very different animals. Take the opening paragraphs:

Almost a year ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers and their families slipped out from the shadows of American life and walked boldly in daylight through Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, New York and other cities. “We Are America,” their banners cried. The crowds, determined but peaceful, swelled into an immense sea. The nation was momentarily stunned.

A lot has happened since then. The country has summoned great energy to confront the immigration problem, but most of it has been misplaced, crudely and unevenly applied. It seeks not to solve the conundrum of a broken immigration system, but to subdue, in a million ways, the vulnerable men and women who are part of it. Government at all levels is working to keep unwanted immigrants in their place — on the other side of the border, in detention or in fear, toiling silently in the underground economy without recourse to the laws and protections the native-born expect.

To the extent that these people were in “the shadows of American life,” they were keeping to those shadows because they’re illegal. They are not America. They are people who came here in violation of American law. They have no green cards and no visas. The NYT’s glowing first paragraph somehow glosses over that fact, and the second paragraph doesn’t do any better. In speaking generally of immigrants, it attempts to make many of us remember the fact that we too are immigrants, or the children of immigrants. But my parents came here legally, as did all of my friends or their parents. For that reason, we weren’t pathetic people who lived in shadows “without recourse to the laws and protections the native-born expect.” Laws and protects in America aren’t limited to only native-born people, they’re extended to all people who are here legally, whether native-born or not. Only in Times-land does this type of mystical xenophobia exist.

The rest of the op-ed editorial whines about the fact that the feds and local governments are just doing it wrong and are unfairly harassing people. It also notes, correctly, that when there is an illegal labor supply, those laborers inevitably get channeled into the worst types of jobs, such as meat packing plants. Being the Times, the op-ed editorial wants us to go after the meat packers. Here’s an alternative: How about keeping the illegals out of this country? Then they wouldn’t have to take those rotten jobs. As it is, quite sadly, illegals take those rotten jobs because the situation here is still better than there (usually Mexico). And if the Times really thinks through the whole problem, it might wonder whether Mexico is never going to have an incentive to reform, that is, to make itself tolerable for its own citizens, as long as we provide an unlimited safety valve.

As it is, the whole op-ed editorial irritated me because of its fundamental dishonesty in trying to merge in the readers’ mind illegal and legal immigrants, but one paragraph particularly irked me because it was so blatant in this effort. Here’s the paragraph:

The Justice Department wants to expand routine DNA collection to include detained illegal immigrants, creating a vast new database that will sweep up hundreds of thousands of innocent people. DNA, far more than fingerprints, is a trove of deeply personal information. Its routine collection from law-abiding citizens is considered an outrageous violation of privacy rights. In the belief that illegal immigrants lack such rights, DNA swabs and blood would be collected even if a detainee is not suspected of a crime. This reinforces the notion that immigrants should be treated as one huge class of criminal suspects.

As y0u can see, the Justice Department wants DNA from detained illegal immigrants. In other words, it wants DNA from people the Feds have arrested for breaking the law — in this case, the law against breaking and entry into the United States of America. While I freely admit that those arrested are not murderers or rapists (at least not most of them), they’re still criminals. Which is what makes it so disingenuous for the Times, in the same paragraph, to say that Justice wants to create a database with information from “hundreds of thousands of innocent people” or that this policy “reinforces the notion that immigrants should be treated as one huge class of criminal suspects.” Considering that their very first act upon entry into this country is to break the law, these illegal immigrants are not innocent and they are criminals. Under those circumstances, DNA gathering is just one of the consequences that leads to the saying that crime doesn’t pay. (By the way, I’m not arguing here for or against DNA gathering; I’m just arguing against the Times’ dishonest approach to the issue.)

So, next time you read one of these tear-jerker op-eds editorials about pathetic immigrants, read it a second time, to make sure that the paper isn’t playing a little bait and switch. No matter where you stand on the illegal immigrants issue, you should resent it when a major newspaper sets out to trick you.

UPDATED: DQ reminded me that I carelessly conflated two ideas: op-eds and editorials. This was an editorial, meaning that it reflects the Times‘ official position on an issue. I’ve corrected the post accordingly.  [And I corrected my corrections.  You can always tell when my kids are around, since everything I do is carelessly done.  I simply cannot work between the “Mommy” calls of my kids, and the “Mrs. Bookworm” calls of my husband.  They fragment my brain.] | digg it


34 Responses

  1. […] [Read more and discuss over at the Bookworm Room…] […]

  2. Book, I hope you don’t pay real money for the NYT!

  3. (Hee-hee! Good one, Danny!)

    An excellent post. I have noticed that whenever it comes to this topic, it is rare to find an article or opinion piece in which the author clearly distinguishes legal from illegal immigration. Even when people talk about it, many use the word “immigrants” to refer to vastly different groups of people – those that came here legally and those that are here illegally.

    I used to work at an immigration law firm. Thousands and thousands of people immigrate to the US legally every year. They spend money and a lot of time and effort to do this. The backlog is extensive so in almost all cases, these people have to wait a ridiculous amount of time to obtain permission to work and travel. It is inconvenient and nerve-wracking but they do it because they want to abide by the law.

    For the U.S. to turn around and tell people who have not followed the law that they will now be rewarded is a slap in the face not only to the immigrants who paid the price to “do it right,” but also to the Americans who are tasked each day with upholding the law.

    If it isn’t necessary to honor these laws, then who is to say we must honor other laws? What makes the immigration laws OK to break?

    And, Bookworm, you are absolutely correct when you say that the level of immigration to the U.S. makes it unnecessary for Mexico to initiate political and economic reforms that would entice their citizens to stay home.

    After working with immigrants for a long time, I can tell you that as exciting as it is for people to travel to other countries and experience new cultures, most people truly do NOT want to permanently leave their home. They miss their families, food, friends, their culture, and so on. I know that if my former clients could have stayed in their home countries, found meaningful work, and been assured of personal freedom and protection, they would have in a heart beat. Instead, what became blatantly obvious to me was that something terribly wrong was going on in these countries because there is simply no way these people would otherwise willingly leave what they love behind to start a new life in a foreign country. It is really hard to do that.


  4. I think you are right in that writers often fail to distiguish legal from illegal immigration. I think what you are missing is that some people think the problem is that there is a difference.

    Some immigration is against the law. Some is legal. But why? I think “wretched refuse” is a pretty inclusive term. I think keeping “undesirables” out is unAmerican. This is a civil rights issue. And as in the 60s, laws must be broken because bad laws should be disobeyed. Laws to keep people out are bad laws.

    Yes, many would like to “stay home,” but they see economic opportunity in the US that they do not have at home. So they come, and the salad is confused, the metaphor is mixed beyond our comfort.

    (And I suppose this is a part of the communist plot. LOL)

  5. Bookworm, you are RIGHT ON! A proposal to obtain DNA from illegal immigrants is a proposal to obtain DNA from lawbreakers. If they’re identified as illegal immigrants then they have broken the law. We have the absolute right to obtain their DNA.

    A nation whose borders are meaningless has no sovereignty over its own people. A nation with sovereignty must enforce its borders. The enforcement need not be draconian.

    Our patrolmen enforce speeding on our nation’s highways and toll roads, but it is haphazard, sometimes slapdash, sometimes done solely to fulfill monthly quotas. Yet it is DONE, and it is done to keep a lid on the problem; speeding would otherwise become so much worse. One could argue that the job is being done too poorly to hold speeding down. That lip service is being paid to speeding laws. Yet no one argues that the traffic patrol cop is in the wrong for pulling over a speeder.

    The enforcement of the border and of immigration law is of course much more important than the enforcement of speeding laws. Yet there are people – such as HelenL. above – who argue that we are in the wrong to enforce our law. These people do not advocate repealing the law, they advocate simply ignoring it. The concept of ignoring law is rather breathtaking to me.

    Civil rights issues imply the repeal of discriminatory law. Also, those who broke the law to support civil rights clearly understood that they must pay a penalty for breaking the law. They ACCEPTED IT, for crying out loud. As the price to be paid. They understood the importance of the law and the seriousness of breaking the law. That was why a change in the law was something to be wildly celebrated. You don’t wildly celebrate the changing of law, unless you have a reverence for law.

    Those claiming that our border enforcement is a civil rights issue now advocate breaking the law as well. Most importantly, they expect not to be punished for breaking the law. They are a pale imitation of civil rights heroes of the past. A nearly worthless imitation. Unless they own up to the truth and begin understanding that it is immigration law that must be changed, not the practice of enforcing the law.

    (BTW – I advocate harsher penalties for those caught illegally crossing the border. I also think that armed incusions across our border – usually a sign of drugrunning by vicious kingpins – require a MASSIVE firepower response by our border enforcers.

  6. Do What? I think we should repeal the law! I thought I made that obvious. But the illegal immigrants are in no position to repeal anything!!!!!! We need to stop worrying about mixed messages about the issue and FIX (as in, REPEAL) the bad laws.

  7. That’s an addle-brained proposal. A country that does not maintain its borders, exert some control over immigration, and fails to require some form of assimilation invites anarchy. Stick to penning poetry, Helen. Your political ideas aren’t a salad, they’re stewed.

  8. Thanks Zhombre, I think you’re oakay, too.

  9. Helen, I invite you to take your proposal to its logical extension. Suppose we truly had open borders. Suppose anybody who wanted to move to this country could just show up and be invited in. No limits, no restrictions, no documentation. What do you think would happen? Perhaps you envision an idyllic scenario in which all people join hands to help bring this teeming mass of newcomers into the middle class. Who pays for that? You don’t care. What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is also yours. From each according to his… (Oh wait, that’s been done already and if I recall correctly, IT FAILED!)

    I’m not saying that people who come here don’t work hard. Most do. I AM saying that they come with a whole bunch of needs that are very expensive, from health issues to language issues to cultural issues. Think of the impact on already crowded cities. Think of the lines at “free” health clinics. Think of the effect on the environment. Think of the impact on already strained educational facilities. Think of all those who wish to do this country harm, who just melt in with the rest. Helen, just THINK for once about the real impact of what you are saying.

  10. As you know, Helen, as the child of immigrants, I’m pro-immigration. I think immigration is one of the healthiest things about America, because it keeps the country fresh. We’re not stale or inbred. However, I’m very anti-illegal immigration. As Judyrose noted, an open border policy would create such an overloaded, imbalanced system, such social and economic chaos, and such a degradation of all operating systems that America would very swiftly become horrible, just horrible. At that point, immigration would indeed stop, because the situation here would be as bad as the situation from which all of the currently illegal immigrants are escaping. When you start talking about unfettered immigration, think the Fall of Rome. Nothing works well if you don’t have good crowd control.

  11. Let me think about this. I’ll be back.

    I still have questions like, “what is fair?” and “who decides how many?” and “where does prejudice enter the argument?” because fairness should matter, . . . and prejudice is invlved in the rhetoric.)

    Now Zhombre, Judy, et al., surely going to think a minute isn’t something I should be reprimanded for.

  12. Hi Helen,

    Think away. I like how you dealt with Z. At least he attacked the ideas, not the person. Unrestricted immigration does threaten to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

  13. BW, when you start talking about the Fall of Rome, think about the Republic going way of the Empire….I think our founding fathers had something to say about that. Ymarsakar has an interesting opinion on it too.

  14. Sorry if I got testy, Helen. The questions you raise — “what is fair?” “Who decides how many and from where?” “How do we confront prejudices?” — those are quite valid and should be the questions debated in the legislatures and by the public, and to which we bring our morals and ethics, but must be discussed with practical realities in mind — no nation can endure if inundated with millions of illegal and unassimilated immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants from Eastern Europe, and I firmly believe immigration — people achieving things here they could never dream of in their countries of origin — is one of the things that has made this country great, and I say this is a great nation with unabashed, unalloyed pride. I simply do not believe we can jettison any legal framework for immigration or declare the concepts of national borders and nation-states to be obsolete.

  15. Helen, I am honestly interested in hearing your thoughts on the types of problems I mentioned, and what you see as solutions if you agree that these problems would occur. You’ll get no reprimand from me for taking time to think about this.

    BW and Zhombre added some valid points. In my eyes, uncontrolled immigration is completely unworkable. Fairness is an issue because I think the government should treat people fairly – that is, should treat people by the same standards. But life itself is never fair. I don’t have the statistics for this, and perhaps someone can remark on whether I’m correct, but I believe that if all the wealth in the world were evenly divided among all the people in the world, everybody would be poor. And that’s somewhat analogous to what would happen to America if we adopted an open borders policy.

    I am interested in your contribution to this discussion and will be watching for more.

  16. Well, Judy, you just helped me pose more questions. Not that that’s bad. I’d love to see the remark about how equal distribution of the world’s wealth would make us all poor. Then, “How poor is poor?” and “Is it bad to be poor?”

    You suggest “treating people by the same standards,” and I think “What are those standards?” and “Should the number of people allowed to immigrate from each country be like the Senate (same number regardless of size) or like the House (based on population)?” or “Should we allow more Mexicans that people from Tibet, because Mexico’s closer?”

    And “When we start talking about ‘illegal immigration,’ do we really mean we have enough Mexicans?” and “Are we mad because they don’t all want speak English?”

    These and many more questions that I don’t know the answers for bother me. I think they are as valid as Bookworm’s original post.

    An “open border policy” is really undoable. But the answers to these and other questions call for an examination of what we do.

  17. Hello Helen –

    Please believe me when I say that I am not missing the point that “. . . some people think the problem is that there is a difference” between legal and illegal immigration. These folks are always easy to spot because when I discuss immigration with them, I find that they haven’t really given a lot of thought of what our reality would start to look like if we truly made no distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. Typically, when they start to realize what it would actually mean for them personally, they start a very delicate dance that resembles back peddling.

    I think what troubles me most is that folks who are very concerned about the rate of illegal immigration are painted as racists and/or people willing to violate someone’s civil rights. I understand. This accusation is much easier to throw at someone than to sit down and face the reality of the problem and the terrible decisions that will have to be made if this is going to get fixed.

    It is NOT racist to say that we must uphold the laws of this country.

    It is NOT a civil rights violation to insist that a foreigner complete the necessary paperwork and abide by the rules before and during their visit to this country.

    (As an aside, Helen, I used to live in Spain and I had to abide by their laws. I wouldn’t have dreamed of going there and overstaying my visa. Or working. When I agreed to go, the terms were that I wouldn’t seek employment while I was there. So I didn’t. I respected the Spanish people and their laws and did not violate their wishes.

    Is it too much to ask others to give us the same consideration?)

    Finally, Helen, it is NOT selfish to demand that illegal immigration be stemmed. It doesn’t do anyone any favors but it is particularly damaging to the countries that are are the source of the illegal immigrants!!! Why should Mexico and other source countries have to:

    – reform their economies

    – pass laws to protect private property and individual liberties

    – reform their education systems

    – reign in rampant corruption and crime that thwarts not only personal safety but a person’s freedom to go to school, start a business, etc.

    when approximately 1/5 of their GDP stems from hundreds of thousands of their citizens living hand-to-mouth in another country so they can send money home to their relatives in poverty stricken villages?

    Our willingness to continue to allow illegal immigration is enabling these source countries to continue the behavior and policies that have so damaged the legal and economic systems in these countries that their people are forced to abandon their homes and families and risk their lives to try and find it elsewhere.

    Really, the most compassioniate thing the U.S. could do is immediately stem the flow of illegal immigration and begin working with these countries to encourage the development of better policies so that hopefully, in 50 or 75 years, the U.S. and Latin American countries will enjoy a relationship somewhat like what we enjoy with South Korea, Taiwan, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.


  18. One other thing –

    Several months ago, I saw a show on public television. I, of course, have a terrible memory and can’t remember the name of the show.

    Anyway, the show focused on the El Salvadorian gangs, particulary MS13. I was aghast. I live in the Wash. D.C. area and they are definitely active here but I just had no idea how MS13 worked.

    But, to the point, they followed some of the MS13 gang members who are active here in the U.S. back to their homes in San Salvador. (They were here illegally, awash in drug money, and apparently able to go back and forth from the U.S. to El Salvador and back with ease.)

    Guess what? All of these gang members were young. Under 30, usually late teens, early 20s. And when they went back to El Salvador, they stayed with either their mothers or young wives, who were terrified because they knew that their husband/son would die a horrific violent death.

    And where were the fathers of these young gang members?


    Working in America because their home country had no economic opportunity for them.

    In so many cases, illegal immigration has fueled the separation of very poor families, leaving children without fathers for years and years and the women unable to exert enough influence to steer their children away from all the dangers that exist in poor environments.

    I’m not saying that if we slow illegal immigration tomorrow that this will all get better. It won’t. I just think that it should be viewed as one of several steps that the U.S. should take to benefit us and our neighbors.

  19. This article points directly to our Southern border and most everybody has focused on only one group.We face a far deadlier threat, that we have opened in the name of religious tolerance.Wahhabism.Egypt,Saudi Arabia Qatar are deporting this radical element of Islam and the West and Europe is absorbing them.I read the consequences of this insane immigration policy in England France Spain etc.,Where these radicals have bullied there way into Mosques and have recruited from the young and vulnerable to train in terrorists tactics.And dont try to fool yourselves its happening here in the US now. The open border to our South is also their gateway. They have mastered illegal documents and are posing as legal immigrants. South Carolina gives away drivers licenses with no background checks.
    They have numerous articles on how bad the situation has gotten on illegal immigration.
    We need to tighten the belt on immigration and really check who we are allowing to live next door.

  20. Mike, we look South because the Latin immigrants come in the greatest numbers. When we discuss unfettered immigration, we know that the largest influx will be from Mexico and points further South. Although the porous Mexican border increases the risk of terrorists crossing over, most of the Muslim immigrants (and most terrorists are Muslims) tend still to go to countries near Africa, Turkey and the Middle East — namely the European countries.

    Having said that, I’m opposed to all illegal immigration, but I do agree that we need to think a lot about what type of legal immigration we want and how much. One of history’s tragedies, as demonstrated by the Otto Frank letters that surfaced, is that America was loath to allow European Jews in, no recognizing that they were in imminent danger of extinction. It would be nice if we could allow in all ethnic groups that are threatened, but the world is such an ugly place, that too could see us drowned in immigrants. And I use “drowned” intentionally, because I do have a vision of a life raft sinking under an overflow of drowning people. We’re no use if we become nothing more than an overloaded life raft.

    The rescue version of immigration — that is, should we take all at risk people? — also creates a slippery slope, which is what kind of risks are we talking? Desperately poor people, such as Haitians, are all at risk of dying from poverty, but nobody seriously says we should simply co-opt Haiti and take its entirely population for its own. And what about women who live in countries that treat them badly. Again, it would be nice to help them all, but experience shows us that, with a few exceptions, women from countries in which they are treated badly arrive with their husbands and sons, who continue to treat them badly. Sometimes our criminal justice system steps in, but as often as not, misplaced multiculturalism allows the mistreatment to continue unchecked.

    It sounds as if I’m digressing, but I’m not. These are all incredibly serious issues and need to be considered — and balanced against America’s need to take care of herself, not only by limiting the annual influx of tired, hungry, poor, huddled masses, but also by allowing herself the luxury of immigrants who bring skills (that is, white collar immigrants). We can’t allow the latter to be crowded out by the former.

    The entire debate, however, is mooted if we just sit back and let every illegal alien from South of the Border come in willy-nilly, without any effort to enforce the laws we already have. These self-selected immigrants make it impossible for us to discuss real issues such as truly protecting those at the receiving end of genocidal attacks. It also prevents us from pursuing Deana’s suggestion, which is bringing improvement to other countries, rather than bringing those countries’ populations to America. And, of course, as Mike said, it’s impossible for us to protect ourselves, not just against the non-violent illegality of a field laborer, but against the homicidal mania of a terrorist, riding in that same truck across the border.

  21. Igot an idea.How about insteadof relying uponcorrupt govmint bureacrats to preserve humanrights at the border,we rely uponthe military.Meaning, immigrants want jobs, they can join the US military, allowable by law.

    This way you have a method to track all the folks with biometrics and you have their legal contract as well. TheUS needs soldiers to combat world wide problems, and the US needs to somehow integrate immigrants lawfully without spending a crackload in social programs.

    There are risks. Foreigners could come in, join, then exit in 4 years notonly with a leg up on greencards but also with inside knowledge on US military training. But foreigners already do that, just remember back to 101st with the grenade incident in Iraq.

    Btw, there was a reason why the US has something called the Senate. Which Rome seemed to have one as well.

  22. There are ways to compensate. What does the US need? What doimmigrants need? Find a point where they both meet and address it.

    That way you get rid of being drowned and make it a self-sufficient system.

    Government is crapinefficient.THe only thing that is even half way competent is the US military. If you want to process people through the US WELL,you have to use the military.If you want things done right after Katrina,it was the military you should have relied upon.

    The Romans had a 20 year in thelegionrule before becoming a citizen of Rome. We might want 8 or maybe 10, with 4-6 in the reserves. Higher than normal, but the need and cost is higher as well. If the US is going totake a risk trainingnon-US citizens,they will need togettheir money’s worth back.

  23. […] Bookworm Room, “Intentionally Confusing the Illegal Immigration Debate” […]

  24. I for one am NOT confused & won’t be confused by those that try & excuse, support, defend, coddle & or otherwise aid-and-abet invaders.

    GWB & his ilk/cohorts are not fooling me one bit. The current trend of ‘tough’ is window dressing to try & get amnesty given to invaders/”over-stayers” by saying “see we are getting tough, now give amnesty since we’ve been giving you pittance of some raids, see we’re being ‘comprehensive’.” Never mind that is what they’re SUPPOSED TO DO: GO AFTER/SEARCH FOR/ARREST INVADERS.

    RR betrayed the USA with the ’86 amnesty which only made the problem of invasion WORSE, and that’s a fact, and any additional/new amnesty, IMHO, will do just the same.

    Also, on the article’s complaint about kicking out those that got here legitimately but violated “minor” laws well IMHO = T.S. As far as I’m concerned, the USA has the RIGHT to DEPORT anybody we wish for ANY OR EVEN NO REASON AT ALL. Letting someone into a country is extending a privilege not a RIGHT.
    Deana etc: IMHO, to grant amnesty (aid-and-abet) to those that have invaded this country or overstayed the time period that they were supposed to be here or to ignore their invalid presence here, REGARDLESS of their country of origin, is an insult/an affront/BETRAYAL to ALL CITIZENS of the USA, BORN & NATURALIZED. And between the two I’d say the BIGGER insult is to those that came here correctly & followed the rules to become citizens ONLY to see those that didn’t/aren’t doing it correctly getting a ‘pass’. IMHO, ANYBODY REPEAT ANYBODY (for examp RR, GWB, McCain, Giuliani & etc) that tries to excuse, support, defend, coddle & or otherwise aid-and-abet invaders by amnesty or any other means are BETRAYERS to the USA, her Constitution and her CITIZENS BORN OR NATURALIZED.

    helenl, To me it isn’t really about “legalities” it is the difference btwn RIGHT & WRONG. And IMHO, it is WRONG to sneek, trespass, overstay, invade, etc into the USA. PERIOD. AND IMHO, INVADERS have NO Constitutional rights/civil rights inside the USA AT ALL. PERIOD.

    M. Devereaux, IMHO, enforcement against invaders DOES need to be SEVERE or “draconian” if you prefer. IMHO, INVADERS = NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHATSOEVER, regardless of what SCOTUS or anybody else says. To give them such is WRONG.

    Zhombre, We SHOULD be discriminatory or prejudiced in writing down/making laws on who we ALLOW into the USA b/c we are WELL WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DO SO just like ALL COUNTRIES have that right & just like individuals have the right to do so in their own homes. For examp, the ‘undesirables’ known as terrorists or those that aid-and-abet such w/ $ & or other means. As Mike referenced, look at the UK & the Netherlands (Van Gogh ring a bell). Now when we actually do ENFORCE the current regs we have we should NOT be discriminatory – what we should do is PUNISH TO THE FULLEST EXTENT ANYBODY FROM ANYWHERE that is NOT in this country LEGITIMATELY.
    If it were up to me the regs/laws would say the following: If an adult is illegitimately INSIDE the USA & is caught here being such they would have their photos taken, fingerprinted, DNA taken & WARNED that they are FOREVER barred from being in the USA for ANY REASON (not just the current temporary ban) & that if they are caught here a 2nd time & after DNA confirmation they would be executed immediately. If they are caught here after they have children born here they would have 2 choices (1) Take the kid(s) with & the kids can come back any time they want when they are adults or as a child back w/ someone OTHER THAN the previously caught parent(s) via authorized crossings/means or (2) Give us the name of a blood relative inside the USA that is either a citizen or here legitimately & the kid(s) can go there.

    Now for those adults SEEN crossing ANY USA border into the here at an UNAPPROVED crossing the border patrol/national guard would have standing orders to shoot to kill after one warning shot & local sheriffs or other law-enforcement individual would also be authorized to do so but they could call the BP or NG instead or just arrest the invader & turn them over to BP/NG & the previous DNA etc would apply and any border property owner who sees this can either do the shooting or call authorities (BTW, I believe ANY property owner has the right to shoot any non-law enforcement [meaning they can’t shoot cops coming to arrest them on a warrant etc] intruder, foreign invader or not.) Yes, I know they are those that say that is ‘inhumane’ or some such but I don’t care b/c I’ve had enough & IMHO it WOULD work better than any other policy I’ve seen proposed. Now realistically, I KNOW the shootings will rarely happen & official executions aren’t going to happen but AT THE VERY LEAST the photos, fingerprints & DNA step should be taken & the 2nd offense would result in 5 yr chain-gang or some such prison work detail w/o parole/release w/o pay & then deported afterward PDQ.

    BTW, I am NOT a citizen of America since that is too generic. I am a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CITIZEN. Not a North American citizen nor an “Americas” citizen. I mention this b/c many, including but not ltd to GWB, envision a BORDER-LESS region btwn the “Americas”. A “New World Order” if you will or an EU for the Americas.

    The day Amnesty Part II comes to pass is the day I stop flying my USA flag & will stop being proud to be a citizen of her.

    BTW, to the KKK & such: SHUT UP I don’t want or need your “help”.

  25. Hey Bookworm,

    Just a niggling detail that caught my eye. You said…”those laborers inevitably get channeled into the worst types of jobs, such as meat packing plants.”

    Yet those jobs used be considered some of the best blue collar jobs available. I know, I worked as a chef and a cook for a lot of years and dealt with meat packing plants pre-invasion.

    They are bad jobs now because of illegal immigrants, companies treat the illegals like the disposable employees they are and take no care in training or preservation of the workforce. I seem to recall reading a CIS report suggesting that the employee turnover in meat packing plants is over a 100% per year.

    For what it’s worth from a blue collar perspective, plenty of Americans did these jobs before illegals came, in fact they would do them today except Americans expect to be paid well and treated decently. When you hear a country club republican or leftist sneer at how Americans “can’t compete” against illegals, what they’re really saying is “how dare Americans expect decent pay and working conditions?”

    Illegal aliens, a blessing in so many ways. /S

  26. A blessing to those who want wealth and power. The New Robber Barrons, enabled and empowered by their Democrat bought allies.

  27. US immigration has been a concern of mine for quite some time. I am American and my wife is from Venezuela… so I am very familiar with the racial profiling that occurs when crossing US Borders. This country is far from being the “land of the free”. I created a 5 minute short film that deals with the anxiety and frustration created when passing through US Customs. Please view and share comments:

  28. That’s disgusting.

    There are people without the benefit of American husbands that have to go through INS without the fast track system. There are Mexicans who are shipped into the US illegaly by human slave traffickers aka Coyotes, with no legal recourse and have to tolerate assaults, rapes, and kidnappings for ransom.

    It is disgusting that someone would make a film about a customs official killing an American with his wife there, just to make this ridiculous pampered “point”.

    It’s strange to think that many Americans have never been outside of the United States. It’s even more strange to think that these same people can profile and stereotype foreigners based on what they see on TV or read in the news. The United States is suppose to be tolerant of all races and creeds. With their profiling techniques, I often wonder who Homeland Security is really protecting? Could it be for middle America – to keep out the “aliens who are infesting this country”? For a “non-racist” society, we’ve got a long way to go…

    People act like immigrants with American spouses have it bad… what a joke.

  29. with regards to americans i have somting to say,illigal immigrants also violating their own family code therefore they are concider evil even fof wife and i living together peacefully umtil someone convince her to go to u.s.she promised me and kids that she will stay only 6 months,now thats 23 month already and even she stopped contact with us.someone reliable inrorm me that she is working and living with a jew in manhatan.iam deeply hurt.that jew also concider double criminal,steeling the wife of somebody and attacking americans by giving job to an alien..once someone marry in planet earth doesnt mean she or he can marry another place.god is evrywhere and bear witness to all marriege.however im requesting assistance from honest american to deport my wife.she also sent 78.000 dollars fof her relatives.i have evidence to prove.this is not about my wife only,this is to show america is a safe heavean for illigals and criminals and will put to shame law inforcement agencies.thank you and please reply and me and my kids will feel happy at least someone heard our extreme pain.

  30. Is the preceding comment real or a fake? I can’t tell. What do you think?

  31. real if you want my opinion.

  32. I do not know about the specific claim above being true or not but here is a story talking about those mexicans that have abandoned their families in mexico and their families responses/actions about that.

    Mexican wives seek ouster of husbands from U.S.

  33. great writeup – immigration is a tough issue

  34. I enjoyed reading this, do you have a RSS feed ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: